Venue: Council Chamber, Catmose, Oakham, Rutland, LE15 6HP. View directions
Contact: Governance Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
To receive report No.23/2020 from the Strategic Director for Places.
The Council were informed that Councillor A Brown had submitted an amendment to the motion as follows:
The motion proposed:
a) Terminates the current Statement of Common Ground with LCC and SKDC;
b) Includes the 650 housing allocation at Quarry Farm within RCC’s housing allocation;
c) Negotiates with SKDC a contribution from RCC’s CIL allocation to the costs of the Stamford North road development; and
d) Delays approving the Regulation 19 consultation until this is done to give RCC enough future housing stock to satisfy legislation for the next 5 years whilst not hampering South Kesteven in their desire for a new road.”
Councillor A Brown questioned whether paragraph 27 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) had been complied with which states that ‘authorities should prepare and maintain one or more statements of common ground, documenting the cross-boundary matters being addressed and progress in cooperating to address these’ in relation to the 650 dwellings that had been given to South Kesteven District Council (SKDC).
Councillor Jones seconded the amendment.
At this juncture of the meeting, Councillor Hemsley proposed a suspension of Rule 58 in the Constitution to remove the requirement for the meeting to finish at 9:30pm.
Councillor G Brown seconded the motion.
Upon a vote, the motion was carried.
Councillor Burrows expressed her disappointment that some of Rutland’s Housing stock had been given to SKDC.
Councillor Jones commented that the amendment submitted by Councillor A Brown was not a delaying tactic on behalf of the Independent Group but had been submitted due to concern as she questioned what the benefits would be residents of Rutland: 650 was a considerable portion of the housing allocation.
Councillor Razzell commented that he supported the proposed Local Plan and that failing to plan would result in a collective plan to fail.
Councillor Baines noted that he was minded to support the amendment as he considered it necessary for additional time to be granted before approving the Local plan. He commented that it was the duty of each Councillor to represent the wishes of residents of Rutland and explained that despite the risks in delaying the plan, the risks to proceeding may prove greater than a delay.
Councillor Oxley reported that there were a
lot of ‘ifs’ contained with the plan and noted the
surprise of the Councillors at SKDC at the decision for Rutland to
give away 650 homes to them.
Councillor Cross stated that 650 homes was the equivalent to a small village in Rutland and asked members to consider the proposal very carefully before agreeing to it and noted his support for the amendment.
Councillor G Brown reported that to support the amendment the Council would be making an unsound decision which could potentially be unlawful. He referred to paragraph 17 in the FAQ’s which explained SKDC’s housing needs. He further noted that the Council had been open and transparent with all aspects of the proposed Local Plan and explained that members had been invited to numerous meetings ... view the full minutes text for item 493.