To receive any questions submitted from Members of the Council in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rules 30 and 30A.

i.                 Mr Cross

Would the portfolio holder for planning and development wish to comment further upon the allocation to South Kesteven of 650 houses to be developed at Quarry Farm, Little Casterton with regards the loss of such housing to our own Local Plan? This number that would be well over 25% of the proposed development at St. George’s barracks. Were Councillors involved in the making of such a decision?

Mr G Brown responded with the following:

“The National Planning Policy Framework sets out the requirement for local authorities to have a duty to co-operate with each other, and with other prescribed bodies, mainly national bodies. On strategic matters that cross administrative boundaries. Strategic planning policy authorities should collaborate to identify the relevant strategic matters they need to address.

I’m sure Councillor Cross will remember the 2017 consultative draft document which set out in developing new local plans for both South Kesteven and Rutland, the two authorities have worked jointly to assess the need for the suitability of land which spans the county border boundary to north of Stamford. This work has concluded that some land within Rutland will be needed as part of a large urban extension to support the sustainable growth of the town of Stamford and to facilitate and appropriate road connection and necessary infrastructure improvements to support the amount of growth proposed. The proportion of land within Rutland is known as quarry farm. The site will only be brought forward for development in conjunction of the land in South Kesteven as a comprehensive mixed use scheme with a new road connection to the west. This plan also stated the quarry farm capacity from the comprehensive Stamford North development will contribute to South Kesteven’s assessed housing requirement. That plan was approved by Cabinet and more importantly was considered by the Growth, Infrastructure and Resources Scrutiny Committee in November 2017 when Councillor Cross was present.

The focus consultation regarding St George’s undertaken in 2018 also set out the same principle that the quarry farm capacity from the comprehensive Stamford North development will contribute to South Kesteven’s assessed housing need. Again, this was approved by Cabinet.

ii.                Mr Cross

Should not that allocation have been included within our own Local Plan if there were to be any uncertainty about Rutland’s future housing stock?

Mr G Brown responded with the following:

“The size of the Local Plan had been fully assessed for suitability and deliverability on a robust basis to enable to be allocated. Sufficient sites had been identified in line with the spatial strategy to meet the requirement for identified housing needs and allowing for a buffer to address contingency, market choice, and address affordability facing your residents.”

iii.             Mr Ainsley

Can the Local Plan still be found sound if agreement of the terms and conditions of the HIF agreement are significantly delayed beyond examination by the planning inspectorate?

Mr G Brown responded with the following:

“There is no requirement to have completed negotiations or have approved the grant. Many authorities have included sites, some very significant sites, much larger than St George’s within their Local Plan at the pre-submission regulation 19 stage. While sites require that grant to be delivered for that authority to deliver the houses accordingly, when they’ve neither had the offer of a grant nor entered into discussions in terms of terms and conditions.

There are many examples of that which Councillors are aware of them.

The Melton Borough Council Local Plan was adopted in 2018, the Melton Mowbray relief road was included within that. That required HIF money to deliver that particular road and the houses associated with it. Melton Council did not receive the offer of that money until November 2019 on the same day that Rutland County Council received theirs and that’s almost 18 months later. Therefore, the plan had already been adopted with a project which required a HIF bid and the inspector accepted that and it was adopted 18 months earlier than the HIF bid offer was received, and they still have not accepted their terms and conditions with Homes England.”

iv.              Mr Ainsley

What are the implications for the Local Plan, and in particular St Georges, should there be a failure to reach agreement on the terms and conditions of the HIF?

Mr G Brown responded with the following:

“If we are unable to reach an agreement with the MOD or for that matter the Council does not approve the terms and conditions that are presented to them. Then St George’s will no longer then be viable in its current form. The MOD will then need to reconsider their position in respect of delivering a viable deliverable project. Given the pressure on the MOD to monetise the site, members will recall a letter from the former Secretary of State of Defence which has been circulated, and this makes us very clear no doubt in due course the MOD will build houses however we may not have the ability to influence the design and layout etc. in the same way that we can with the help of the support of the grant from HIF.”