Exempt appendices 1, 2 and 3 have been circulated to Members under separate cover.

The motion to accept the Homes England grant offer of £29.4m Housing Infrastructure Funding was proposed by Councillor G Brown and seconded by Councillor Hemsley who reserved the right to speak later in the debate.

Councillor G Brown’s opening remarks included the following points:

·         The decision before Council was whether to accept the Housing Infrastructure Funding. Doing so would allow for the road improvements to be completed so that a clear route, avoiding the surrounding villages, would be available for construction traffic right from the beginning of the development.

·         The decision was not about the Local Plan which was approved by Council in February last year and was with the independent Inspector. On Friday of last week Councillor Brown was advised of the provisional dates of the examination of the Plan which would take place virtually at the beginning of June,…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

·         The Inspector was planning to issue her initial letter and request information both at the same time which suggested that there were no major concerns and the Local Plan had passed the initial hurdle of basic soundness.

·         Councillor Brown had responded to the frequently asked question of why RCC should be liable for costs or other liabilities when the landowner would receive a surplus on the existing use value of their land by stressing that the agreements before Councillors actually protected Council from these liabilities; RCC would not be responsible for the construction of highways, meeting milestones or for remediation for any cost overruns. The risk to RCC was probably less than any other housing project because of the agreements that had been negotiated.

·         SGB would not turn out to be another Barleythorpe development as the grant would enable the Council to influence the development on the site. The outstanding issues at Barleythorpe were outside of the Council’s control.

·         The SGB development was not a private company development but a public sector body development and as such the DIO was accountable to parliament and the tax payer.

·         The development would bring about local employment, shops, hospitality, a school, medical facilities, a country park and potentially a 1 megawatt solar farm with landscaping across the site.

·         RCC had been in talks with the Prince’s Foundation which had been responsible for the visionary Nansleden and Poundbury communities, and had introduced them to the DIO.

·         If the Council rejected the HIF grant the Local Plan would no longer be viable and would therefore need to be reviewed and modified. As the evidence base would need to be updated it could entail starting all over again at a cost to the Council of approximately £1m.

·         Without a 5 year housing supply, planning applications would have to be determined with a presumption in favour of development.

·         Turning down the grant would also damage the Council’s reputation with MHCLG at a time when the Executive had fought hard to win a seat at the table for the Fairer Funding Review.

·         Discussions were ongoing with Homes England to support the Contract Management Team to ensure that processes were set up to handle any significant claims that were received and administration problems were minimised or avoided.

·         ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………....

The Chairman opened the debate to the floor and invited comment. During the debate the following points were noted:

·         Councillor Cross felt that the SGB development, alongside the development at Quarry Farm Ryhall, and the expected Woolfox development which would surely follow, would be calamitous for Rutland and its environment. The matter of SGB arose from an MOU that was discussed at Cabinet only one hour before it was signed. The 650 homes at Quarry Farm were set against South Kesteven District and Lincolnshire County Council housing allocation without agreement from RCC Councillors, and this number, which equated to a four year housing supply for Rutland, could have been used instead to meet RCC’s quota.

·         Councillor Wilby argued that although he wanted to retain Rutland’s rural charm and heritage, the County needed to maintain its economic viability and status. The closure of SGB had presented the Council with an opportunity and he urged Councillors to commit to the next stage for all the right reasons.

·         Councillor Burrows had received a number of emails from her constituents in Oakham South ward and all were against accepting the HIF grant; many questioned the soundness and legality of the Local Plan and others said that the timescale was far too optimistic and the Council would fail to deliver enough houses in the required plan time.

·         Councillor Powell spoke of the lack of transparency and the back to front thinking which had meant that SGB had been added into a dispersed Spatial Strategy without thinking about the essence of the strategy, and before there was a vision for Rutland. To have included SGB when it was dependent on the HIF monies seemed to be fundamentally flawed.  In addition, the HIF grant would go towards roads and utilities and although this would keep construction traffic away from the village centres and make it more attractive to developers, it did not add in infrastructure for the benefit of residents. The health and community centres were dependent on CIL money and were not a feature of the HIF.

·         Councillor Coleman was in no doubt that SGB would be developed but despite the comprehensive material provided by Officers felt that there were still risks associated with accepting the HIF monies as RCC did not have a great track record when it came to management of housing projects, and in particular the management of CIL money.

·         Councillor Woodley failed to see a clear argument for not accepting the HIF monies that was based on the HIF fund being flawed rather than a dislike for the SGB development. The SGB site was going to be disposed of whether Councillors liked it or not and the HIF grant allowed the Council to get a financial package that would enable them to address infrastructure issues that were continually raised as failings in other developments.

·         Councillor Harvey referenced the Strategic Housing Market assessment which made stark reading as to what was classed as affordable housing. Two thirds of households had an income below £50,000 and these included Rutland’s key workers; teachers, nurses, council officers, postal workers, and shop workers who this year above all others had shown how vital they were to the community. Extra, affordable housing was urgently needed in order to build a thriving community for future generations and Members were asked to take action, accept the HIF fund and stop Rutland becoming a retirement village for the wealthy who wanted to retain a faux fifties idyll.

·         Councillor Oxley had originally voted in favour of going forward with the HIF funding and the Local Plan but commented that he had not made a final decision on whether to accept the terms of the HIF and wanted to listen to the debate.

·         Councillor Dale cited issues in the past with developments where the reality bore little resemblance to the plans passed; house designs had been altered and green spaces had been filled in with extra houses to maximise developers’ profits.

·         Councillor Fox argued that the risks of the Council accepting the bid were minimal compared to the risks if it did not. If SGB was unviable without HIF then the Council would be forced to produce a new Local Plan at a cost of £1m and in the meanwhile would be fair game for developers.

·         Rutland schools produced some of the best results and most able students in the Country and rather than that talent leave, Councillor Begy wanted to be able to offer those young people a future in Rutland, with affordable housing and employment opportunities.

·         Only 8 residents in Oakham South ward had raised any concerns about HIF to Councillor Razzell and in contrast hundreds were in complete support as it would address resident’s concerns about health, education and employment in the County.  Rejection would set Rutland back decades and pose the biggest threat to the County’s independent status.

·         Councillor Ainsley saw no logical connection between the motion and the Oakham Heights development. He had been persuaded, and had confidence, that Councillor Brown, the Strategic Director for Places and her team had negotiated an excellent agreement that protected the Council’s interests and would secure a prosperous future for Rutland.

·         There was a global vision about encouraging sustainable living and Councillor Stephenson felt it was imperative that future residents had an opportunity to live sustainably.  Accepting £30m of HIF money would propel us on that journey as how we were currently living was not sustainable.

·         Councillor Hemsley understood the passions of Members but cautioned against looking in the rear view mirror to see where things had gone wrong and letting that decide the future. To get a seat at the table for the fairer funding review or to attract funding from any of the Government associations going forward, Members needed to take this decision and aim for a fantastic Rutland rather than a mediocre one.

·         Councillor Waller was saddened that the public had been excluded from the debate as apart from Councillor Brown’s introduction nothing had been said that was confidential. The issue before Members was not about affordable housing, nor about sustainability or about facilities, which were funded by HIF, but was about the role of HIF. Although there was no doubt that the SGB site would be developed, the HIF did not ameliorate the infrastructure concerns of local residents as, for example, the roads did not lead straight out to the A1. The deadline of March 2024 gave the Council 3 years in which to approve a Local Plan, have a new masterplan consulted and agreed upon, a planning application consulted on and approved, infrastructure completed and houses underway. Corners might be cut in order to achieve this and any modifications would have to go through consultation again. RCC was liable under the GDA if there was a delay, due perhaps to weather conditions or the Covid situation and the system of address was the allocations agreement. Councillor Waller queried that, if it came to it, would the MCHLG push against another government department on RCC’s behalf? Addressing whether it was a risk to reject HIF, Councillor Waller argued that if the Local Plan was sound when it was submitted it was sound without HIF and there would be no need to redo it.

·         Councillor Bool felt that the Council risked bankruptcy as there were far too many issues that needed to be resolved by the deadline of March 2024. SGB was not a development of a clean greenfield site but a brownfield site and former nuclear base; adverse weather, discovery of a protected species, Historic England interest and the MOD planning applications were all unknown variables that could affect delivery. Unlike SGB, the Nansleden development, which took 9 years to develop, was sited next to Newquay with a population of 20,000. Living on the SGB site in a rural site next to small villages was not sustainable living and would generate up to 5,000 additional cars.  Councillor Bool also challenged the need to produce a new Local Plan and the resultant costs, should the bid not be accepted, as the previous plan from 2017 could be resurrected. If there were to be costs of £1m Councillor Bool would have expected to see this as a separate agenda item having been professionally costed and scrutinised. This suggested to him that managing the HIF bid would be outside the scope of officers’ expertise.

·         Councillor Baines felt that as Chairman he should remain completely impartial and he would therefore be abstaining from the vote. The parish councils in Councillor Baines’ ward had urged him to vote against accepting HIF but he felt that he had an overriding responsibility to the residents of the County as a whole.

·         In his closing remarks, Councillor G Brown addressed some of the issues raised. These were:

-       The MOU was not a legal agreement but a voluntary agreement about how to move the site forward. Councillors needed to look forward not backwards.

-       As the Local Authority, RCC was responsible for Planning and Highways. The DIO was the developer and the responsibility for the development lay with them.

-       The suggestion of underhand activity was completely unfounded; Councillors had been given as much information as was available and all matters had been transparent. The team were working with Weightmans, the solicitors, to redact any sensitive parts of the HIF bid with a view to getting it out to the Community.

-       The Strategic Director for Places had confirmed that the Local Plan may not go ahead without acceptance of the HIF bid as it required that sites were viable.

-       Because of Woolfox’s speculative bid the Local Plan had been delayed by 18 months so some of the evidence went back to 2015. If the Local Plan was rejected new evidence would have to be produced.

-       By accepting the grant, on top of receipt of £29 million of HIF funding for infrastructure, Compulsory Purchase Order costs would be covered by the DIO, there would be £110k to cover historic costs, the costs of administration would be covered by the DIO and the Garden Community funding could be used to support the involvement of the Prince’s Foundation.

-       Rejecting the grant would mean that the Council would have no idea what the DIO would do with the site, the Local Plan would have to be reconsidered, greenfield sites all around Rutland would be at risk of development and influence with the MHCLG, at a critical time with the Fairer Funding Review under discussion, would be lost.

The Chairman called for a recorded vote to be taken and support was given.

There voted in favour:

Councillors Ainsley, Begy, G Brown, Fox, Harvey, Hemsley, Payne, Razzell, Stephenson, Walters, Wilby and Woodley.

There voted against:

Councillors Blanksby, Bool, A Brown, Burrows, Coleman, Cross, Dale, Jones, Lowe, MacCartney, Powell, Waller and Webb

Abstentions:

Councillors Baines and Oxley

The vote being 13 against, 12 in favour and 2 abstentions, the motions 1, 2 and 3 fell.

The Chairman declared the meeting closed at 10.50pm.

---o0o---