Agenda and draft minutes

Special Scrutiny - St George's Barracks, Growth, Infrastructure and Resources Scrutiny Committee - Thursday, 11th October, 2018 7.00 pm

Venue: Council Chamber, Catmose, Oakham

Contact: Governance  Email:

No. Item



To receive any apologies from Members.


Apologies had been received from Mr Baines.



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 Act 1992 applies to them.


No declarations of interest had been 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. Questions 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 of the total time for 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.


6 questions had been received from Members of the public. Members had received the full text prior to the meeting:


1.    Mr Neil Newton


“The Memorandum of Understanding, with its reference to a preference for a housing development of between 1500 and 3000 houses, was signed before the wider public, or indeed some councillors became aware of it. I can find no public record of Cabinet or Council discussion, which could have allowed wider debate or indeed a call in by this panel. Given that a modern housing estate with a population twice the size of Uppingham would likely cause some public disquiet to put it mildly, why such secrecy and what advice was taken and from whom about the possible range of alternative responses to the closure of the Barracks?”




The Chair invited the Leader of the Council Mr O Hemsley to respond to the question. The response is shown below.


“The MOU was signed by RCC (CEO) and MOD in September 2017. The MOU is a non-legally binding document and the RCC constitution allows for this to be signed by the CEO.


Prior to the MOU being signed the following had happened working back from November 2016:


Meeting / Event

Public / Not


7/12/16 Meeting RCC CEO and EWPC and NLPC – advised of

RCC working with MOD on base closure

Not Public

30/3/17 Meeting RCC CEO and EWPC and NLPC – advised of

continued RCC working with MOD on base closure

Not Public

10/4/17 RCC All member briefing on St George’s

Members advised RCC in “active discussions with MOD about a

Public/Public Partnership and that a Draft MOU being prepared

Not Public

18/4/17 Cabinet approved OPE report – advised of the on-going

dialog with MOD about the future of St George’s


22/5/17 meeting with EWPC and NL PC advising of continuing


Not Public

17/7/17 Parish Council Forum – Presentation by RCC all advised

active discussions with MOD about a Public/Public Partnership

and that a Draft MOU being prepared

EW 3 Representatives

NL Not represented

Manton and Empingham not represented

Minutes available


Post signing of the MOU


It is available on our web site and has been since February 2018. Initially elements were redacted. This included:


·      The ‘working name for the potential new community’ – since dropped

·      The MOD model for the Land Sale Delivery Partner


Both have since been un-redacted and the MOU has been for some months been freely available on our web site.


So no secrecy – we made it clear that we were working with MOD, made it clear we were developing a MOU and we made it publicly available on our web site in February 2018.


The St George’s project Board including Leader, Deputy and Cllr Waller as Ward Member signed off the MOU and commented at its meeting in August 2017 “a job well done”.


Alternative uses


·      Previous to the closure announcement the Council’s position was clear a preference for on-going MOD use

·      Post closure the MOD position  ...  view the full minutes text for item 332.



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 from Members had been received.



To receive a presentation from Rutland County Council, the Ministry of Defence, and RegenCo.


To receive representation from the St George’s Barracks Advisory Group.



Additional documents:


A representation and presentation was received from Mr Paul Cummings, representative of the St George’s Barracks Advisory Group. Both of which would be attached to the minutes.


A presentation was received from Rutland County Council, the Ministry of Defence, and RegenCo. The presentation would be attached to the minutes.


During discussion, the following points were noted:


      i.        The criteria for the minimum of 1500 houses was established by the Government, it was accepted as the minimum number that could support the sustainability of a community.  Before a decision could be made on the exact number of houses further studies needed to be undertaken, including viability assessments (the cost of sales had to exceed the cost of development) and sustainability assessments a combination of all factors would be taken into account before a decision was made.

    ii.        The Crichel Down Rules were being considered by the MOD and that process was almost complete.

   iii.        The design of houses to be developed would come later down the line, the project was still in the early stages and it would be some time before a detailed planning application would come forward.

   iv.        Any Community Infrastructure Levy would be calculated in accordance with the rules and an estimated figure would be included within viability assessments.

    v.        One of the requirements to bid for the Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF) was an explanation regarding what would be done if the bid was unsuccessful or if less funding was received. If the bid was unsuccessful it would slow down development.

   vi.        The development of a new GP surgery was questioned in light of problems in relation to a national shortage of GP’s. Mr Pearce responded that work was being done with the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and representatives from the health sector to look for ways to get optimum provision of health professionals working in the sector, this could include a variety of practitioners not just GPs. Mrs Briggs noted that social care professionals were being considered as well as health and GPs.

  vii.        It was noted that the jump from a minimum of 1500 houses to 2700 was almost a 100% increase, there was not enough detail to criticise or praise the master plan. More facts and figures were needed to know exactly where the Council was in terms of the development and to enable Council to make an informed decision. Mrs Briggs confirmed that the detail would come towards the end of the year, the Master Plan was evolving and therefore details became available in stages as work on each part of the project progressed and completed.

viii.        Mr Bennett noted that if the Council had not engaged and there was not a Memorandum of Understanding between RCC and the MOD, the MOD would have sought allocation in the local plan and taken forward a master plan of their own. By working with the Council, a sustainable development could be created.

   ix.        Miss Waller noted that whilst she was on the board that made  ...  view the full minutes text for item 334.