No apologies for absence were received.

The Chairman reminded members of the public that they were permitted to film, blog, tweet or take photographs of the meeting but if they did, to do so without causing a disturbance to the meeting proceedings. The Chairman also pointed out that members of the public who were not part of the meeting had not consented to being recorded and therefore should not be included in any recording activity.

---o0o---

The Chairman led a one minute’s silence in remembrance of former Councillor and Leader, Terry King.

---o0o---

In accordance with the Regulations, Members are required 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.

Mr G Brown declared an interest in item 7, the Barrowden and Wakerley Neighbourhood Plan Submission, as he had led the neighbourhood planning group responsible for the report. Mr Brown would withdraw from the meeting during discussion on this item.

To confirm the Record of Decisions made at the meeting of the Cabinet held on 20 November 2018.

The Record of Decisions made at the meeting of the Cabinet held on 20 November 2018, copies of which had been previously circulated, was confirmed.

To receive items raised by members of scrutiny which have been submitted to the Leader (copied to Chief Executive and Governance Officer) by 4.30 pm on Friday 14 December 2018.

Mr B Callaghan, Chairman of the Growth, Infrastructure and Resources Scrutiny Panel had submitted an item to the Leader on behalf of the panel. The submission was as follows;

In your discussions in regard to the St George's Barracks Masterplan, please can I ask that you take account of the following concerns raised at the special Growth, Infrastructure and Resources scrutiny meeting on 11^th October.

1.    There was concern in regard to inadequate communication, leading to some parishes allegedly being unaware of the project. Therefore please could a communication plan be included in any project plans, to allay any such concerns.

2.    There was concern as to how the project would be affected should the HIF (Higher Infrastructure Funding) bid not be successful. Therefore please could there be some narrative in regard to this scenario.

Mrs H Briggs’ response included the following points:

·         There had been a strategy plan for communications right from the start of the project. All parishes had been invited to public meetings and the St Georges Advisory Group included members from the affected parishes.

·         An e-newsletter giving information on the St George’s Barracks project went out to a significant number of Rutland residents

·         If the HIF bid was unsuccessful the MoD would need to revisit the proposal. The HIF process did allow for a lesser amount of HIF as well as none at all.

Report No. 234/2018

Report No. 234/201 was received from the Chief Executive.

Mr Oliver Hemsley, Leader of the Council, introduced the report, the purpose of which was for Cabinet to review the evolving Master Plan for the St George’s Site and the associated HIF Business Case and assess whether it should be recommended to Council for approval.

During discussion the following points were noted:

·         Rutland was growing and needed to continue to grow and prosper.

·         Comprehensive consultation had taken place to make sure that the plan was sound and that it would retain the unique nature of our villages

·         In order to avoid retrofitting infrastructure, investment in infrastructure would be made right from the beginning.

·         The bid would enable £95 million of funding for infrastructure the benefits of which would be seen right across the County.

·         The bid submission did not commit the Council to anything further.

·         In a response to comments submitted in writing by Ms G Waller, Ward Member for Normanton which included the villages of Edith Weston and North Luffenham, Mr R Stone, Head of Estates at the MoD confirmed that although compulsory purchases couldsometimes take longer than a year, 2.5 years had been allowed within the timeline and therefore delivery of the project would not be affected.

·         The level of financial detail would increase and improve as the project moved forward. An experienced development company would be brought onboard which would be able to supply more details on the design works and the viability assessment needed for a planning application.

·         The project’s inclusion in the Local Plan in the early part of 2019 would require a level of information in order to produce a detailed viability study.

·         The MoD would be happy to share with Cabinet information that they had had to date although some would be exempt to the public as it was commercially sensitive. Mrs H Briggs would liaise with the MoD regarding the provision of these papers.

·         The Head of Estates at the MoD reassured Councillors that they were already working closely with the design team to ensure that the project would deliver something much more akin to the layout of a Rutland village rather than another generic housing estate, especially as that was what would generate the value from the site.

·         If successful in its bid, funding from the Garden Communities Fund would allow the Council to set the standards for the development very early on in the process. As part of its submission, the Council requested funding to design an exemplar community in terms of health benefits and encouraging community engagement and had support from Lord Matthew Taylor, a housing policy expert on the design of garden villages.

·         An extra Council meeting would be scheduled in addition to Annual Council in May to hear the Regulation 19 Report. New members would be fully briefed on the matter.

·         The Masterplan included provision for a Health and Wellbeing Centre and consultation with GPs and the CCGs had already taken place. The HIF business case  ...  view the full minutes text for item 484.

(KEY DECISION)

Report No. 215/2018

Report No.215/2018 was received from the Strategic Director for Places.

Mr O Hemsley introduced the report the purpose of which was to seek Cabinet’s authorisation to carry out consultation on the proposed Barrowden and Wakerley Neighbourhood Plan followed by submission to an independent examiner and holding of a local referendum.

During discussion the following points were noted:

·         A huge amount of work went into producing a neighbourhood plan so it made sense for neighbouring communities with similar aspirations, even if, as in this case, it involved adjacent but differing counties, to join together.

·         As the majority of the population of the area involved resided in Rutland, Rutland County Council (RCC) would act as the chief counting officer and oversee the referendum, but would act in consultation with East Northants District Council.  Voting in the referendum would be carried out in the localities.

DECISIONS:

Cabinet:

1.    AUTHORISED publication of the Submission Draft Barrowden & Wakerley Neighbourhood Plan, for consultation with the local community and key stakeholders.

2.    AUTHORISED submission of the document and supporting information to an independent examiner appointed by the Council in order to carry out an examination of the plan.

3.    AUTHORISED the Strategic Director for Places to:

         i.        undertake the statutory consultation required as part of the submission procedure and on completion of that consultation, prepare a post-submission Statement of Consultation for consideration by the independent examiner; and

       ii.        prepare the necessary documentation to accompany the Submission Draft Document through the local referendum process, including consultation and publicity material.

      iii.        appoint an independent examiner to carry out an examination of the Barrowden & Wakerley Neighbourhood Plan and, following receipt of the examiner’s report, to organise a local referendum to consider the Neighbourhood Plan.

4.    AUTHORISED the Strategic Director for Places, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Rutland One Public Estate & Growth, Tourism & Economic Development and Resources (other than Finance) to:

         i.        identify, in consultation with Barrowden & Wakerely Parish Councils, any such minor changes to the Submission Draft Barrowden & Wakerley Neighbourhood Plan that may be required in response to representations received and submit them to the independent examiner;

       ii.        seek to determine, in consultation with Barrowden & Wakerley Parish Councils, any modifications identified in the independent examiner’s report before it can proceed to the referendum; and

      iii.        agree any changes to the referendum area if recommended by the independent examiner.

Reasons for the decision

The submission draft Barrowden and Wakerley Neighbourhood Plan is considered to comply with the statutory requirements for submission of a neighbourhood plan to a local authority. It is recommended that it be publicised and submitted for independent examination as required by legislation and regulations.

---o0o---

Mr G Brown returned to the meeting

---o0o---

Report No. 235/2018

Report No. 235/2018 was received from the Chief Executive.

Mr O. Hemsley introduced the report the purpose of which was to provide Cabinet with strategic oversight of the Council’s performance for 2018/19 in delivering the Corporate Plan Aims and Objectives. Members were accountable for the delivery of the Council’s Corporate Plan and this monitoring information reported on progress and highlighted any key challenges.

During discussion the following points were noted:

·         At the Cabinet’s request a lighter touch report had been provided.

·         Average progress scores from KS1 to KS2 in Reading, Writing and Mathematics had not achieved positive progress but it was highlighted that the percentages could be affected by very small numbers and sometimes it was just related to the particular cohort that year.

·         Although most of the schools were academies and therefore outside of the Council’s direct control, there was a real community will by all to move children forward.

·         In order to move children beyond just achieving predicted results there needed to be a focus not just on the depth but also the breadth of the curriculum and a collective sharing of resources to achieve this.

·         The number of children subject to a Child Protection Plan (CPP) for a second time was, at 26%, higher than the national average of 20.5% but represented a very small number of children (6 out of 23 currently on a CPP) and it was felt that it was better to be fully engaged with children and their families rather than to try and chase percentages. The families involved were closely monitored and fully supported.

DECISION:

1.    That Cabinet NOTED the overall position in relation to performance so far during 2018/19 and the actions being taken to address areas of underperformance.

Reasons for the decision

At the end of Quarter 2, 96% of indicators measured were on or above target with 4% of indicators (2) currently below target. Main areas of concern have been highlighted in this report and the remedial action being undertaken to improve performance has been identified.

Overall performance based on activity so far in 2018/19 is good.

Report No. 252/2018

Report No. 232/2018 was received from the Chief Executive.

Mr Gordon Brown introduced the report the purpose of which was to approve the RCC Health and Safety Policy (V0.2 draft attached as Appendix 1)

During discussion the following points were noted:

·         The Policy was a foundation on which to build from and improve procedures.

·         The emergency evacuation that had taken place the previous week at the Council had coincided with electrical work that was being done which had affected the alarms.

·         Roll calls were not done as instead there were wardens for each area who ensured that their areas had been vacated.

DECISION:

1.    Cabinet APPROVED the attached RCC Health and Safety Policy (V0.2 draft)

Reasons for the decision

A corporate health and safety policy is a legal requirement and the revision of the existing policy is essential to enable modern health and safety management practices. The new policy will provide a a suitable framework to protect Council officers and members, as well as others who live, learn, work and play in and visit the County.

(KEY DECISION)

Report No. 226/2018

Report No. 226/2018 was withdrawn from the agenda and would be deferred until the Cabinet meeting on 15 January 2019.

Cabinet is recommended to determine whether the public and press be excluded from the meeting in accordance with Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended, and in accordance with the Access to Information provisions of Procedure Rule 239, as the following item of business is likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.

Paragraph 3: Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).

Cabinet RESOLVED that the public and press be excluded from the meeting in accordance with paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 (Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)).

(KEY DECISION)

Report No. 233/2018

Report No. 233/2018, with an exempt appendix, was received from the Strategic Director for Places.

Mr Gordon Brown introduced the report the purpose of which was to;

1.    Seek approval from Cabinet for the placement of one contract to provide Facility Management Services. This approach was being proposed for two reasons; firstly to build additional resilience into service delivery and secondly to provide a service that was more effective and efficient

2.    Seek Cabinet approvals as set out in the recommendations of the report. The approvals requested would ensure that the contract could be placed with the minimum of delays.

During discussion the following points were noted:

·         Concerns were expressed about the motivation of staff if they were not working directly for the Council.

·         The Council needed to be sensitive to the needs of the members of staff involved.

DECISIONS:

Cabinet:

1.    ENDORSED the proposal to contract out Facilities Management as one package of works.

2.    AUTHORISED the Head of Property Services in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Property Services and the Director of Resources to determine a procurement route, award criteria and if a suitable supplier or suppliers were identified to move forward and award a contract.

3.    AUTHORISED the Head of Property Services in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Property Services and the Director of Resources to amend the scope of the project to ensure that the project was of a sufficient size to attract competitive bids.

4.    AUTHORISED the Head of Property Services in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Property Services and the Director of Resources to extend, where required, existing contracts to ensure a smooth transition to the new arrangements.

---o0o---

After debate and decision on this item the Cabinet APPROVEDthat the meeting should return to public session.

---o0o---

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

The following items of urgent business were received from the Chief Executive:

·         The bid to Homes England for funding of £130k to support the preparation of the business case had been successful. The grant conditions specified that the spending had to be in line with the reasons outlined in the bid and there was also a caveat that funding could be withdrawn if the HIF was not submitted. Therefore funds would not be drawn down until Council had agreed to submit the bid.

·         The Digital Rutland team had secured funding of £10k to stimulate take up of superfast fibre broadband. The Council would have to match this fund by £5k and there was money available to do this. The funding would be used to target specific areas of low take-up as overall Rutland had a higher than average take-up rate.

·         The Chief Executive praised the excellent work done by the Digital Rutland team who had put together a much larger bid for £2 million of funding and were shortly to present it.

DECISIONS:

1.    Cabinet AGREED to accept the grant from Homes England to support the preparation of the HIF business case and NOTED the conditions.

2.    Cabinet AGREED to support the Digital Rutland funding award of £10k with a further £5k of spending.

---o0o---

The Chairman declared the meeting closed at 11.40am

---o0o---