To receive any petitions, deputations and questions received from Members of the Public in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 216.

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.

The Chair reported that a deputation had been received in accordance with the procedure rules set out in the Constitution.

The Monitoring Officer noted that an additional late deputation had been received and as an exception to the rules, in consultation with the Chair of the Committee and the Leader of the Council, the deputation would be heard, without further questioning.

Ms Sue Walling addressed the Committee.

“For the first time since 2008, the Cabinet has chosen not to consult the public on the Corporate Plan - we understand they are not obliged to do so.

However - in the Local Government Association’s NEW Guide to engagement, the importance of building trust, by working with communities and consulting is highlighted.   

And I quote - “By bringing people in on decision- making, Councils can get decisions right, manage expectations and improve relationships with residents.”

Given there has been no consultation with the public, we are seeking reassurance from Scrutiny that the work that has been done to date on the Corporate Plan accurately reflects our county’s priorities.  

The Corporate Plan must be an accurate working document - one that every Councillor has a stake in and importantly feels confident that it truly reflects the needs and aspirations of our residents.  

The Cabinet will have used evidential reports from the portfolio holders and the Strategic Management Team to inform their decisions - but have OUR front line professionals also been consulted. 

Our Police, our GPs, the mental health teams, MOD, tourism boards, local businesses, youth leaders, head teachers, our parish and county councillors and the Town Councils of Oakham and Uppingham – there is a long list of people in Rutland that have their fingers on the pulse on a daily basis and their views are imperative. 

Our concern is whether Scrutiny are fully satisfied that the cabinet have drawn their conclusion for both the priorities and subsequent actions from a current and broad evidence base to determine this Council’s role in the future success of Rutland. 

Our major markets towns of Oakham and Uppingham have major influences on both tourism and employment and deserve sufficient consideration. 

Lastly given the position we find ourselves in with the Corporate Plan it is vital that we voice our concerns now on the proposed 50 Year Vision within Strategic Aim 1.1

This Corporate Plan features some 68 objectives (each listed by a bullet point). Out of these 68 there are two objectives which the plan states will be agreed or approved by Cabinet and those relate specifically to the plans for our 50 year vision.

This makes it difficult not to conclude that the outcome of the Vision will be heavily influenced by Cabinet’s Vision for Rutland, rather than a People’s Vision, if, from the outset the Cabinet agree the process and approve the draft.  

We trust that both the process to achieve the Vision, the draft plan itself and the consultation is one that will reflect the considered opinions of the experts in our community and the professional expertise that we have within our Councillors before it goes to the public for consideration.  

I appreciate the time that Scrutiny will no doubt give to our valid concerns.  Thank you”.

No further questions were raised by Members.

Mr Camp read out his deputation:                                                            

“My name is Richard Camp. I am Vice-Chairman of Manton Parish Council and last year played a key role in setting up Manton Action Group, a group of about 60 local residents who are concerned about the proposed re-development of St George’s Barracks.

I greatly respect County Councillors for the fact that they commit so much of their time to the service of the County, often under difficult circumstances, and for pretty minimal financial reward. But I do worry about governance here. The Corporate Plan, now being subjected to scrutiny, has been rushed through, adopted by Cabinet recently, without involvement of the community, and initially scheduled for adoption by the full Council in four days’ time, on 11th November (although this full Council meeting has at the last minute been cancelled due to election purdah). 

The Corporate Plan is projected to cover the next five years, but it seems more like a one-year than a five-year plan, and is of course more of a vision than a clearly structured plan. Many targets are due to be attained in the next 1-3 months. For example, the Leader and Chief Executive actually appear to be responsible for agreeing a definition of ‘affordable’ housing by 31st October this year (as indicated in Priority Theme 1.3 on page 14 of the Corporate Plan). The present Scrutiny Committee should, I recommend, ask the Leader and/or Chief Executive Officer, who are listed as responsible for this priority, to clarify exactly what the expected cost of an ‘affordable’ home is. Empingham residents, for example, have recently welcomed a nice, new development, but the affordable homes apparently started at £235,000, which is way beyond the means of households with an income of under £50,000 per year. And the Corporate Plan indicates that, of the 160 new homes planned for each year, 30% will be affordable, that is around 50 affordable homes per year in Rutland. This Scrutiny Committee should require the Leader and Chief Executive Officer to clarify exactly how this is likely to succeed.

Near its beginning the Corporate Plan states that the Council wants to cherish and sustain the characteristics that make Rutland special, and then gives the first such characteristic as the fact that Rutland is ‘rural and sparsely populated.’ And then one sees in the Corporate Plan the ongoing strategy to deliver 2,315 homes at St George’s Barracks to produce a town near Rutland Water that in population terms is larger than Uppingham. We should all know of the unprecedented opposition to the initially proposed St George’s masterplan following Local Plan consultation last year. Now, I think, is the time for the Cabinet and Executive to work more seriously with residents to contain what so many of us believe is utterly unreasonable development. It is unfortunate that the Corporate Plan has gone so far as to suggest the 2315 St George’s housing development ahead of any formal planning acceptance. It would be good governance for ‘appropriate development’ at St George’s to be mentioned in the Corporate Plan, but for the 2,315 number to be removed, considering also that there is no reference in the Plan to the enormous 7000 home development proposed at Woolfox.

As time is limited I shall stop, having made these few points which I know are of great concern to many people of Rutland”.

The Chair explained that she would not allow questions of the deputation as it had been allowed with exception.