A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Council and councillors

Agenda item

PETITIONS, DEPUTATIONS AND QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC

To receive any petitions, deputations or questions received from members of the public in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 28. The total time allowed for this is 30 minutes.  Petitions, deputations and questions will be dealt with in the order in which they are received and any which are not considered within the time limit shall receive a written response after the meeting.

Minutes:

2 deputations and 5 questions had been received from members of the Public and, in accordance with the virtual meeting procedure rules, these had been published on the website and circulated to Councillors before the meeting.

 

Before the first speaker was invited to give his deputation, the Chairman proposed that Procedure Rules 28, 29 and 58 were suspended for the meeting.

 

Suspending Procedure Rules 28 and 29, that restricted the time allowed for deputations and questions, would enable all the deputations and questions submitted to be heard and as Chairman, Councillor Baines was particularly in favour of this in light of the fact that the matter before Council was proposed to be heard in confidential session.

 

Suspension of Procedure Rule 58 would mean the cut-off time would not be enforced and so Council could continue to sit beyond 10pm, if necessary, to ensure that Council’s consideration of the matter was finalised that evening.

 

Councillor Bool seconded the motion and a vote was taken.

 

Council voted unanimously to suspend Procedure Rules 28, 29 and 58.

 

Deputations:

 

The first of the deputations, (appended to the minutes) was delivered by Mr M Touchin on behalf of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England.

 

Councillors did not ask any further questions of Mr Touchin.

 

The second deputation (appended to the minutes) was received from Mr R Camp on behalf of Manton Parish Council.

 

Councillors did not ask any further questions of Mr Camp.

 

Questions:

 

Mr D Hodson asked a question (appended to the minutes) on behalf of Greetham Parish Council.

 

Councillor G Brown, Portfolio Holder for HIF and the Local Plan, responded to the question by stating that Council had approved the draft Local Plan for submission to the Planning Inspectorate following the Regulation 19 consultation and this included the allocation of the brownfield site at St. George’s Barracks (SGB) for the new Garden community. The decision in front of Councillors was whether to accept £29.4m of HIF monies to support delivery of approved Local Plan policies. If Council voted against accepting the HIF monies then, as many different parties had assessed, the SGB Garden Village would no longer be viable unless alternative ways could be found to meet the £29.4m gap, and Local Plan Policies H2 and H3 could still be met.

 

It was likely that should the HIF monies not be accepted the Local Plan would need to be withdrawn from the Planning Inspectorate for review and modification in order to meet the requirement for 160 homes per year. Councillor Brown further stated that it could take up to three years to get to the point the Council was currently in which would result in the Council not having a five year housing land supply; there would then be a presumption in favour of development and a real risk of uncontrolled development.

 

There was no supplementary question from Mr. Hodson.

 

Ms J Stuttard then asked a question (appended to the minutes)

 

Councillor G Brown, Portfolio Holder for HIF and the Local Plan, responded to the question by stating that 14 hectares of employment land had been set out in the Local Plan and the Council’s vision was to have 1 job created per household as reflected in the Masterplan.

 

The vision for the business zone at SGB remained unchanged because of Covid, and indeed the pandemic had acted as a catalyst for more people to work from home. The strategy was for there to be a community that supported home working, had collaborative community workspaces and space for a range of larger businesses. The Council’s preference was for high value businesses which offered opportunities for advancement and they had been working with the Greater Lincolnshire Local Enterprise Partnership to develop and implement plans not only to support Rutland’s economic recovery, but to prioritise investment infrastructure such as the employment zone at SGB.

 

In response to a supplementary question from Ms Stuttard Councillor Brown stated that an employment sub group had identified the types of employers that they hoped to attract to SGB as being those that offered high tech and creative jobs rather than warehousing and distribution jobs.

 

The third question (appended to the minutes) was received from Mr J Donaldson.

 

Councillor Brown in response stated that the viability of SGB had been assessed by many different parties; the Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO), Homes England, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) and the Treasury, all of which had confirmed that the development was viable and deliverable with the acceptance of the HIF monies.

 

Councillor Brown assured Mr Donaldson that the agreements before Councillors limited the risks to those duties that the Council would normally perform as a highways and planning authority. The costs and timescale risks all lay with the MOD through the DIO.

 

As a supplementary question Mr Donaldson commented on Councillor Brown’s extensive business career and asked whether if someone had presented him with a proposal to spend £140m that would have received a return of £3-5m in 10-20 years but which had made no allowance for studying the impact of Covid, would he have signed it off?

 

Councillor Brown replied that during his past career he had been responsible for delivering two different 1 million square feet distribution centres so he definitely understood the question of risk. In Councillor Brown’s opinion the key was having very capable people delivering the project and a very clear plan. The documentation supplied to Councillors showed that the SGB project had been very clearly worked through and had met the Treasury’s strict requirements. The HIF monies would not have been offered to the Council had this not been the case.

 

The fourth question (appended to the minutes) was received from Mr T Gibson, a resident of North Luffenham and a member of the village’s Neighbourhood Plan Group.

 

Councillor Brown replied that CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy) was established by RCC in 2016 and provided a fund for infrastructure, such as schools and medical facilities, that was required throughout the county. Parish Councils would be allocated 15% of the total CIL revenue for dwellings built in their parish up to a maximum of £100 for each existing tax dwelling in their parish. Where funding exceeded that cap the money would go back ‘into the pot’ for projects identified in the Infrastructure delivery plan.

 

Where parishes had an adopted Neighbourhood Plan in place, the neighbourhood funding of the CIL rose to 25% of the receipts received for the development in that area following adoption. This portion was uncapped and there would be direct payments in line with these regulations.

 

In response to a supplementary question from Mr Gibson, Councillor Brown confirmed that the CIL money had been allowed for in the cashflow created by the DIO and that once RCC received the money, every six months the money would be allocated out to the Parish Council.

 

The final question (appended to the minutes) was received from Mr P Burrows, a resident of North Luffenham.

 

Councillor Brown replied that due to the allocation agreement the only potential financial risk to the Council was for £110k, should it be drawn down, which funded the costs associated with the HIF contracting process. These were historic costs and Councillor Brown’s recommendations to Cabinet and Council would be to place these in earmarked reserves until the Council were sure that risks had been fully mitigated; possibly in two or three years’ time. All the risks around the delivery of the housing and the infrastructure rested with the DIO.

 

Supporting documents: