Agenda and minutes

SPECIAL MEETING, Council - Monday, 27th January, 2020 7.00 pm

Venue: Council Chamber, Catmose, Oakham, Rutland, LE15 6HP

Contact: Governance  Email:

No. Item




No apologies had been received. However, Councillor Webb submitted her apologies for the adjourned meeting to be held on the 10th February 2020.




The Chairman confirmed that his engagements had been circulated in advance of the meeting.




The Leader reminded Councillors of the following:


·         In 2018, when elected as Leader, Mr Hemsley set out to protect, preserve and enhance Rutland.

·         Councillors agreed at the Council meeting last week to defer the decision so that Council could debate the terms and conditions of the HIF bid fully when they are made available.

·         The Conservative Group did not use a party whip.

·         That the Council follows the Nolan Principles that set out the basis of ethical standards expected of public office holders.

·         Councillors were a representatives of wards and Councillors needed to balance that view with the county as a whole.



In accordance with the Regulations, Members are invited to declare any disclosable interests under the Code of Conduct and the nature of those interests in respect of items on this Agenda and/or indicate if Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 applies to them.


Councillor Baines declared a personal non-pecuniary interest with regards to the letter that had been circulated on behalf of Uppingham Town Council and noted that despite being present at the Town Council meeting, he had not participated in the discussion and nor had he voted. 




To receive any petitions, deputations or questions received from members of the public in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 28. The total time allowed for this is 30 minutes.  Petitions, deputations and questions will be dealt with in the order in which they are received and any which are not considered within the time limit shall receive a written response after the meeting.



Miss Waller proposed that Procedure Rule 29 (1) (The maximum time allowed for presenting petitions, deputations and questions at meetings shall be 30 minutes.) be suspended in order to allow time to speak for all those registered. This was seconded.




That the Council APPROVED that Procedure Rule 29 (1) be suspended for the meeting.





Deputation 1


A deputation as printed below was received from Mr David Hodson, on behalf of Greetham Parish Council:


I am speaking on behalf of the Greetham Parish Council.


I would like to start by expressing our appreciation of all the hard work that has gone into preparing the draft local plan. It has been a thankless task with many opposing views to reconcile.


County Councillors have some difficult decisions to make. We hope that they are guided by a wider interest than purely parochial views.


A document which is fundamental to the Local Plan is the Settlement Hierarchy paper. The fundamental principle which it lays out is that new housing should be in sustainable locations. Whilst not defining explicitly the term “sustainable” it is clear from the document that the intention is to minimise car usage by locating houses in places where there are key facilities, so reducing the need for car travel.


There can be little doubt that the world is entering a critical stage of climate change and it is incumbent on us all to reduce as much as we can our use of carbon based fuels. This must happen at every level – by individuals, local government, national government and world leaders. Everyone must make decisions to meet this end.


It is for these reasons that Greetham Parish Council made representations at the previous draft stage. We argued that the preferred site allocations, which gave significant increases to the size of Rutland’s Local Service Centres, did not meet the fundamental objective of sustainability.


We can say with some confidence that in Local Service Centres, most residents who work will use their cars to travel some distance to work and nearly all residents will use their cars to travel significant distances to shop. To put further houses in these locations is simply not a sustainable strategy.


Whilst we share concerns of many Rutlanders at the number of additional houses proposed over the plan period, we recognise that there is a national shortage of houses and they have to be allocated somewhere. The inability of young people to be able to afford starter homes is a national scandal. For those of us sitting comfortably in our homes we should think carefully about what we can do to help the situation


Our view is that locating as many houses as possible in the most sustainable location such as the St George’s Barracks Garden Village is the best way forward.


We are firmly convinced that it would be disastrous not to have an up to date Local Plan and the proposed development on SGB site is the best  ...  view the full minutes text for item 491.


The Chair adjourned the meeting at 20:26 for five minutes to allow for a comfort break.




To receive any questions submitted from Members of the Council in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rules 30 and 30A.



i.                 Mr Cross


Would the portfolio holder for planning and development wish to comment further upon the allocation to South Kesteven of 650 houses to be developed at Quarry Farm, Little Casterton with regards the loss of such housing to our own Local Plan? This number that would be well over 25% of the proposed development at St. George’s barracks. Were Councillors involved in the making of such a decision?


Mr G Brown responded with the following:


“The National Planning Policy Framework sets out the requirement for local authorities to have a duty to co-operate with each other, and with other prescribed bodies, mainly national bodies. On strategic matters that cross administrative boundaries. Strategic planning policy authorities should collaborate to identify the relevant strategic matters they need to address.


I’m sure Councillor Cross will remember the 2017 consultative draft document which set out in developing new local plans for both South Kesteven and Rutland, the two authorities have worked jointly to assess the need for the suitability of land which spans the county border boundary to north of Stamford. This work has concluded that some land within Rutland will be needed as part of a large urban extension to support the sustainable growth of the town of Stamford and to facilitate and appropriate road connection and necessary infrastructure improvements to support the amount of growth proposed. The proportion of land within Rutland is known as quarry farm. The site will only be brought forward for development in conjunction of the land in South Kesteven as a comprehensive mixed use scheme with a new road connection to the west. This plan also stated the quarry farm capacity from the comprehensive Stamford North development will contribute to South Kesteven’s assessed housing requirement. That plan was approved by Cabinet and more importantly was considered by the Growth, Infrastructure and Resources Scrutiny Committee in November 2017 when Councillor Cross was present.


The focus consultation regarding St George’s undertaken in 2018 also set out the same principle that the quarry farm capacity from the comprehensive Stamford North development will contribute to South Kesteven’s assessed housing need. Again, this was approved by Cabinet.


ii.                Mr Cross


Should not that allocation have been included within our own Local Plan if there were to be any uncertainty about Rutland’s future housing stock?


Mr G Brown responded with the following:


“The size of the Local Plan had been fully assessed for suitability and deliverability on a robust basis to enable to be allocated. Sufficient sites had been identified in line with the spatial strategy to meet the requirement for identified housing needs and allowing for a buffer to address contingency, market choice, and address affordability facing your residents.”


iii.             Mr Ainsley


Can the Local Plan still be found sound if agreement of the terms and conditions of the HIF agreement are significantly delayed beyond examination by the planning inspectorate?


Mr G Brown responded with the following:


“There is no requirement to have completed negotiations or have approved the grant.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 492.



To receive Report No. 23/2020 from the Strategic Director for Places.

Additional documents:


Report No. 23/2020 was received from the Strategic Director for Places.


Mr G Brown introduced the report, the purpose of which was to update Council on progress with the preparation of the Local Plan and requests that Council approves the Pre-Submission Local Plan (Regulation 19 Publication Version) so that it can be published for its statutory 6-week stage, alongside other recommendations for dealing with the submission and examination of the Local Plan.


Mr G Brown moved the recommendations with Mr Hemsley seconding.


Miss Waller noted that The Growth, Infrastructure and Resources Scrutiny Committee resolved to request the Council to change references of climate change to climate crisis.



Miss Waller proposed and introduced an amendment to the original motion. This was seconded. The amendment read as follows:


“To replace recommendation (1) with:


“In order to ensure a land supply for the next six or more years this local plan be approved for Regulation 19 consultation subject to the following:


a) The Plan is for the period 2018-2030.


b) The proposed development of St George’s Barracks is reduced to 350 homes, which is the number that can be built without HIF funding.


c) This Council begins the review of this Local Plan as soon as practicable following the decision of this Council regarding HIF”


Then amend (2) to read:


“To support the Local Plan as amended”




During debate of the amendment the following points were noted:


       i.          Mr G Brown stated that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) required policies to look ahead at a minimum of 15 years. A plan that comes forward with less than 15 years of strategic policies would be very unlikely to be found sound at inspection.

      ii.          The currently developed area at St George’s Barracks had water, sewage and electric facilities and would be sufficient for 350 houses. Adding more houses would require the need to increase the water and electrical supplies.

    iii.          Miss Waller stated that the HIF money would not be needed for the 350 homes proposed on the site.

    iv.          Mr G Brown stated that the 350 homes would not be viable in the current form.

     v.          The MOD would have to agree to it before it came into the Local Plan.

    vi.          If the Local Plan was changed significantly, another sustainability assessment would need to take place.

  vii.          The Monitoring Officer stated in regards to the Plan period proposed that Councillors are required to have regard to guidance from the Secretary of State when deciding on their Plan. The Plan period of a minimum of 15 years from the determination is something Councillors should have regard to during considerations.

 viii.          Mr Baines stated he had talked with the Planning Inspectorate and noted that if the Council wished to make changes to the Local Plan following the Regulation 19 consultation and wished for the changes to be considered as part of the submitted plan, an addendum could be written containing the proposed changes.



The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 493.