To confirm the record of the meeting of the Places Scrutiny Panel on 26 March 2015    (previously circulated)

The Record of the Meeting of the Places Scrutiny Panel held on 26 March 2015, copies of which had been previously circulated, were confirmed and signed by the Chairman.

In accordance with the Regulations, Members are invited to declare any personal or prejudicial interests they may have 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.

No declarations of interest were received.

To receive any petitions, deputations and questions received from Members of the Public in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 217.

The total time allowed for this item shall be 30 minutes.  Petitions, declarations and questions shall be dealt with in the order in which they are received.  Question may also be submitted at short notice by giving a written copy to the Committee Administrator 15 minutes before the start of the meeting.

The total time allowed for questions at short notice is 15 minutes out of the total time of 30 minutes.  Any petitions, deputations and questions that have been submitted with prior formal notice will take precedence over questions submitted at short notice.  Any questions that are not considered within the time limit shall receive a written response after the meeting and be the subject of a report to the next meeting.

Two questions had been received from Mr Duel.  Mr Duel put the questions to the meeting as Members had received the full text prior to the meeting:

Question 1

I have been challenging the very high costs of marriages on approved premises for over two years. The meaning and intent of the regulations seems to be clear to all but council officials.

Councillor Begy responded to an email I sent to the cabinet and I rang him to discuss the issue. He assured me that I could trust him and promised that the council would not make any decisions on these costs until I had heard back from the Ombudsman regarding the review I had asked for. However, the cabinet later approved a 1.9% increase in the costs for the coming year, despite the ombudsman requiring that the costs be calculated and also knowing that there were serious questions to be answered about the legality of their existing costs.

I believe these very high costs to be illegal and I attach a copy of a letter I wrote to the RCC Cabinet on 9th February 2015 which contains a detailed response to the council's breakdown of the costs that I finally received more than 18 months after I had asked for them.

Q1       Is the council prepared to address each of the points I have highlighted

           in my letter?

Q2       I am not in a position to fund a judicial review of the regulation.      

          Shouldn't the council consider funding this in order to establish whether  

          or not they are acting illegally?

The Chair invited the Portfolio Holder, Mr King to respond to the question.  The response is shown below.

Answer

Mr Duell has previously complained to the Local Government Ombudsman about the level of charges for Registration Services in Rutland.  On 29 September 2014 the Ombudsman made his final decision on the complaint.  The Ombudsman found that the Council was at fault for failing to calculate an accurate cost base on which it could fairly base its fees for conducting weddings at appropriate premises.  He directed the Council to complete a review of the fees within 2 months.  The review was completed, with costs being calculated using “Chartered Institute of Public Finance & Accountancy” (CIPFA) approved methodology.  The report was sent to the Local Government Ombudsman, who felt the report was thorough and useful, and that the agreed remedy had been provided to Mr Duell’s complaint.

The report was considered by Cabinet on 10th February 2015 as part of the setting of Places Directorate Fees and Charges.  Mr Duell was sent a copy of the report in advance of the Cabinet meeting, on 15th January 2015.  Mr Duell did not attend the Cabinet meeting to hear the discussion of the paper.  Cabinet limited the increase in charges to 1.99%, in line with Council’s policy for increase in fees.  This meant that the fees remained below the level of full cost recovery.  The fees are significantly below those charged by most other  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

To consider any questions with notice from Members received in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule No 219 and No. 219A.

No questions with notice had been received from Members.

To consider any Notices of Motion from Members submitted in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule No. 220.

No notices of motion had been received from Members.

To receive Report No. 98/2015.  Report of the Chief Executive.

(Previously circulated under separate cover)

Report No. 98/2015 from the Chief Executive was received. 

The Portfolio Holder for Places (Development and Economy) and Resources, Mr King, introduced the report the purpose of which was to report to Cabinet on the Council’s performance for the fourth quarter of 2014/15.

The following points were noted in discussion:

1.    PI151 – Overall employment rate (working age): Councillor King had requested an explanation from officers as he believed this to be a reversal of figures.

2.    PI155 – Number of affordable homes delivered: That the number of affordable homes being brought forward was high and robust.

AGREED:

1.    That the contents of report no. 98/2015 be noted.

To receive Report No. 110/2015.  Report of the Director for Places (Development and Economy)

Report No. 110/2015 from the Director for Places (Development and Economy) was received.

The Portfolio Holder for Places (Development and Economy) and Resources, Mr King, introduced the report the purpose of which was to consider the updated Local Development Scheme (LDS) covering the Local Plan work programme for the next 3 years period from 2015-2018 prior to forwarding it to Cabinet

The revised Programme for Preparation of Development Plan Documents 2015 – 2018 was distributed.

Members were advised that the Site Allocations and Policies Development Plan Documents (DPD) – part of the last Local Plan specified that that the Local Plan review would  be completed by the end of December 2017.  That as a new Council, it would need to consult with the community on the 20 Year Vision for Rutland; that the main drivers from the community would need to be set against the anticipated future growth of the County.  The more formal Local Plan process would consider the level and location of development.

The Planning Policy and Housing Manager, Mr Troy, highlighted the following points:

1.    It was proposed that the Minerals Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Documents (DPD), Core Strategy DPD and Site Allocations and Policies DPD be replaced by a single Local Plan, the framework by which planning would be determined.

2.    That Neighbourhood Plans were part of the statutory development plan, of similar weight to the Local Plan.  It was a lengthy process; initially a community document that was subject to an external examination and referendum.

3.    That the Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) would be brought to the Places Scrutiny Panel.

4.    Slight delay due to 20 Year Vision therefore it was proposed to present the report to Cabinet in August.

The following points were raised during discussion:

1.    That two and a half years was a compact timescale in which to prepare the documents.  Once produced more formal comment could be made at a later stage.

2.    That the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) replaced Section 106; once set in place would apply to all residential development with some exceptions (e.g. house extensions, annexes).  Town/Parish Councils with a neighbourhood plan would receive 25% of the levy; non-neighbourhood plan councils would receive 15%.

3.    That neighbourhood plans had to be compliant with the Local Plan and policies in place.  The allocation of development sites and the type of development would be detailed in the neighbourhood plan and should not promote less development than set out in the Local Plan.  It is envisaged that the neighbourhood plans would be reviewed and refreshed to ensure compliance with the Local Plan review for the period up to 2036.

4.    That the general focus of/for development was on larger villages and towns.

5.    That only those communities with development would receive CIL.

6.     Concern was expressed that future development would place pressures on the infrastructure.

7.    That the views of communities would be sought at the beginning of the 20 Year Vision process before final decision making.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.

To consider Scrutiny issues to review.

Copies of the Forward Plan will be available at the meeting.

The Chairman highlighted Street Lighting and that a paper would be received at Panel before the end of 2015.

The Chairman undertook to email a list of areas to be considered to Members.

To receive any other items of urgent business which have been previously notified to the person presiding.

There was no other urgent business.

8 October 2015

Reports to be taken:            Integrated Transport Capital Programme

                                              Speed Limit Policy