Council and councillors

Report No 105/2021 was received from the Strategic Director of Places.

At this point Councillor A Walters proposed a brief adjournment to allow Members a comfort break, this was seconded.

With 12 votes in favour, 12 against and 3 abstentions, the vote was tied and the Chairman used his casting vote to defeat the motion, stating he wished the meeting to continue longer before proceeding to an adjournment.

Councillor I Razzell, Portfolio Holder for Planning, introduced the report and the recommendation from officers to withdraw the submitted Local Plan, but highlighted that officer’s role was to make recommendations and the decision lay with Council. Councillor Razzell also drew Members attention to the alternative options set out in Report 105/2021, which included an option for Council to revisit the decision to decline the Housing Infrastructure Grant funding after 22 September 2021 in order to continue with the submitted Local Plan.

Councillor Razzell proposed that Council delay a decision to withdraw the Local Plan in order to revisit the decision to decline the HIF grant after 22 September 2021. this was seconded and copies of an extract from Report 105/2021 setting out the option to revisit HIF were also produced for Members.

In response to a question from Councillor G Waller, Phillip Horsfield, Monitoring Officer explained that an amendment to instead consider the original recommendations set out in Report 105/2021 would have the effect of negating Councillor Razzell’s motion before Council and thus could not be considered. Therefore, a motion on the recommendations of Report 105/2021 could only be moved and considered should the motion from Councillor Razzell fall.

---o0o---

The Chairman adjourned the meeting for 10 minutes to allow Members a comfort break and the extracts of Report 105/2021 to be distributed and read.

---o0o---

A number of Members spoke in support of the option to re-consider the HIF after 22 September. It was highlighted that withdrawing the submitted Local Plan and starting the process afresh could leave the Council without an agreed Local Plan for some years which Report 105/2021 suggested could leave the Council vulnerable to intervention from central Government.

It was also highlighted the withdrawal of the Local Plan would result in the Council being unable to demonstrate a 5-year housing supply, which would leave areas across the county vulnerable to uncontrolled development not restrained by the various planning and environmental policies within a Local Plan. It was also put forward that allowing the submitted Local Plan to proceed would set a clear direction for Members and officers of the Council but also the County as a whole.

Members supporting the motion also gave the view that St George’s Barracks was a brownfield site and any future Local Plan would include development at the site, and re-visiting the HIF grant would allow the Council to ensure a sustainable and self-contained development and that the necessary infrastructure was delivered.

Other Members spoke against the motion and in support of the officer’s recommendation to withdraw the submitted Local Plan and start afresh.

It was suggested that all options before Council would involve the risk of the Council failing to demonstrate a 5-year housing supply. It was suggested that a large source of such risk was the reliance of development at St George’s Barracks in order for the submitted Local Plan to demonstrate a supply. It was also put forward by some Members that beginning a new Local Plan could be beneficial by building on the outcomes of the recent Future Rutland Conversation.

Concerns were also raised by several Members opposed to the motion regarding the viability of the proposed development at St George’s Barracks even if Council revisited the HIF grant decision, and some Members considered that little had changed that would affect their vote should HIF be re-considered at a later meeting. It was also suggested that inflationary pressures on building costs had made the HIF grant worth substantially less since Council’s decision on the matter in March 2021. Several Members also suggested that development at St George’s Barracks should take into account the need to provide jobs for local peoples as well as additional housing.

Members opposed to the motion also expressed concerns over the financial risks for the Council in accepting liability for the delivery of the required works even within the potential new spend deadline of March 2025. When speaking in support of the motion, other Members put forward that the Council would only be responsible for delivery of works such as highways and, with other work undertaken by Homes England and other bodies.

It was also suggested by some Members that the creation of a new Local Plan would allow reconsideration of the decision to gift 650 homes to South Kesteven District Council as part of the proposed Stamford North development. When Councillor Hemsley exercised his right to speak as seconder of the motion, he highlighted that the Council had a Duty to Co-operate with other local planning authorities in the plan-making process when it came to considering such issues. 

---o0o---

As the meeting was approaching 9.30, it was proposed by Councillor M Oxley and seconded that the meeting be extended for 30 minutes, this was put to the vote and unanimously agreed.

---o0o---

In closing the debate, Councillor Razzell highlighted the various topics raised by Members and refuted some of the suggestions regarding the costs of delivering the required infrastructure at St George’s Barracks and noted that the elected Members of the Council were only the temporary custodians of Rutland before passing it’s care onto younger generations, and regardless of the decision made he hoped all Members would come together as one to enact it.

A recorded vote was requested, and voting was as follows. 

There voted in favour:

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

There voted against:

Councillors Baines, Blanksby, Bool, A Brown, Browne, Burrows, Cross, Dale, Jones, MacCartney, Oxley, Powell, Waller and Webb.

With 13 votes in favour and 14 against, the motion was defeated.

---o0o---

The Chairman adjourned the meeting for 10 minutes to allow Members a comfort break.

---o0o---

Upon the meeting being reconvened, Councillor Bool proposed that Procedure Rule 58 be suspended in order for Council to sit beyond 10pm if required for a decision to be made, this was seconded. Upon being put to the vote the motion was carried. 

Councillor Waller proposed the recommendations set out in Report 105/2021 be agreed, this was seconded.

Councillor Cross proposed that the recommendations be immediately put to the vote without further debate, this was seconded. Upon being put to the vote with 14 votes in favour, 11 against and 2 abstentions, the motion to move straight to the vote was carried.

A recorded vote was requested, and the voting was as follows.

There voted in favour:
 

Councillors Baines, Blanksby, Bool, A Brown, Browne, Burrows, Cross, Dale, Jones, MacCartney, Oxley, Powell, Waller and Webb.

There voted against:

Councillors Ainsley, G Brown, Coleman, Fox, Harvey, Hemsley, Payne, Razzell, Walters and Wilby

Abstentions:

Councillors Begy, Lowe and Stephenson

There being, 14 in favour, 10 against and 3 abstentions, the motion was carried.

RESOLVED

That Council:

1)    WITHDRAW the submitted Local Plan (submitted to Government in February 2021) under Regulation 22 of the Local Plans Regulations from the process of Examination in Public following the decision made by Council on 22nd March 2021 not to accept the offer of £29.4m Housing Investment Fund (HIF) grant funding which has impacted the viability and deliverability of the proposed St. George’s Garden Village scheme and, therefore, the wider development strategy affecting the soundness of the Local Plan.

2)    APPROVES the creation of an earmarked reserve of £1,395,000 to resource the making of a new Local Plan for the County and operating without a plan (as detailed in Section 5) and that authority be delegated to the Strategic Director of Places and the Section 151 Officer in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Planning and the Portfolio Holder for Finance, Governance and Performance, Change and Transformation to release funds from the earmarked reserve as required.

3)    APPROVES that Council receives a quarterly statement of the Budget position in light of the cost uncertainty so that it can track whether the earmarked reserve is sufficient or can be released accordingly.

4)    APPROVES the need to positively prepare and submit a new Local Plan informed by an updated evidence base for the benefit of the County of Rutland, its residents and businesses that will:

i. Deliver the corporate plan vision and themes for the County;
ii. Provide for sustainable growth to meet its objectively assessed housing and employment needs, utilising and promoting sustainable transport wherever possible, which will combine to contribute towards achieving the Government’s net zero carbon emissions 2050 target;
iii. Protect and enhance the County’s heritage, character and natural capital (including air quality, water resource management and biodiversity); and
iv. Ensure the timely delivery of all necessary infrastructure.

5)    APPROVES the development of robust and effective strategic partnerships to support plan-making through the duty to cooperate and required for a viable, deliverable and sound plan.

6)    APPROVES the establishment of a cross-party group to provide oversight of the process of making a new Local Plan and delegates authority to the Strategic Director of Places in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Planning to establish a governance structure in line with the Corporate Project Management governance framework.