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

The Chairman noted that a question had been submitted by Councillor MacCartney as set out below:

“Could the portfolio holder please give us an update on the latest situation in the negotiations with the MOD et al., regarding the terms and conditions of the HIF grant.  Also the latest developments in terms of who will bear responsibility for what, and finally, an update on the costs involved as I imagine that these have changed / progressed since we last had sight of them in December.  This may require entering private council session at the exclusion of the public, and if so I am happy to propose this”.

In response, Councillor G Brown, as the relevant Cabinet member responded as below:

“As Councillors will recall, we were provided with a set of outline conditions which were discussed by Council in January. It was agreed at that meeting that when the details on the terms and conditions were ready, they would be brought back to Council following a recommendation from Cabinet.

Since that time progress has been slow. Earlier in the year outline agreement was reached  between RCC, DIO and HE that there should be a tripartite agreement which would identify the respective parties responsibilities, however it was not until late July that Homes England produced their standard template agreement which did not deal adequately with a tripartite arrangement.

Subsequent discussions have resulted currently in a broad understanding between the parties that all three parties will agree to the Homes England template, suitably modified, and that there will be a separate agreement between DIO and RCC which will layout each parties responsibilities. Personally this was not the process which I would have preferred but Homes England are insisting on both DIO and RCC generally following their template, called the General Distribution Agreement.

The three sets of lawyers and officers are just starting to discuss the principles which are incorporated in the General Distribution Agreement. This currently runs o over 80 pages and I suspect will be over 100 pages by the time that we are finished.

In addition, the first draft of that document between DIO and RCC called the Allocation Agreement was produced by our legal team just last week and I understand that the DIO plan to review it with their legal team during this week. It is a slow process.

From my experience of completing legal agreements, these take time, first to resolve the principles which is where we are at now, before you can get down to the detail and then the final dotting the “I”s and crossing the ”t”s.

Homes England are keen to see completion of the documentation at the earliest possible date but both the officers and myself have made it clear the final agreement must be right for Rutland in terms of the risks to which we might be exposed, the delivery mechanisms which DIO will be putting forward and that we need an appropriate timescale to take it through Cabinet and Council.

With regard to your reference to costs I am not sure which costs you are referring to and if you can clarify that for me I can provide written response”

In response to a supplementary question asked by Councillor MacCartney, Councillor G Brown explained that the process had already taken a year and it was anticipated that it would be completed and shared with Councillors by the end of the year.