To receive any petitions, deputations or questions received from members of the public related to items on the agenda in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rules 24 and 28. The total time allowed for this is 30 minutes.  Petitions, deputations, and questions must be made in person and will be dealt with in the order in which they are received, any which are not considered within the time limit shall receive a written response after the meeting.

Any petitions or questions must be received by 4:30pm on the second working day before the meeting, due to the Bank Holiday on Monday, 30 August this will be on Friday, 27 August. Requests to make deputations must be received by 12pm on the day of the meeting.

Eight deputations and two questions had been received for the meeting, the details of which had been circulated to Councillors and published alongside the agenda and minutes on the Council’s website. 

The Chairman invited Members to consider whether Procedure Rule 29 should be suspended, this was in order to allow all members of the public to be heard by removing the 30-minute limit on time allowed for the presentation of petitions, deputations and questions. This was moved by Councillor Waller and seconded.

Council voted unanimously to suspend Procedure Rule 29.

The first deputation was delivered by Sinclair Rogers, Chairman of Ketton Parish Council. Members did not ask any further questions of Councillor Rogers.

The first question was delivered by David Vickery, who explained that his question was intended to encourage the Council to think about possible ways to alleviate or combat a situation where it may not have a 5-year housing land supply.

Councillor I Razzell, Portfolio Holder for Planning, responded to the question by stating that the Council was aware of the stated Court of Appeal judgement and that this would be relevant in future decision-making irrespective if other actions available to the Council. However, it was explained that the weight given to policies in the existing adopted Local Plan would be a matter for the decision-maker for any proposal and the tilted balance in favour of development under paragraph 11 (d)(ii) of the National Planning Policy Framework would still need to be applied.

It was further explained that Mr Vickery’s suggested document listing in-date policies in the existing adopted Local Plan would be helpful for public awareness but would have little or no weight in planning decision making and would require time and staff resource that would need to be balanced against the need to focus on the preparation of a new Local Plan as soon as possible. Reference was made to Report 105/2021 which set out how the recommendation to begin preparation of a new local plan was considered to be the most effective way for the Council to achieve a 5 year housing supply in a planned way.

It was explained the options presented by Mr Vickery of preparing several Supplementary Planning Documents would also take time and staff resources which would need to be balanced against the need to prepare a new Local Plan, which itself could address some of the policy considerations raised by Mr Vickery. It was also highlighted that there was a risk of new policies introduced through an SPD that could be subject to legal challenge based on examples of other Councils.

Councillor Razzell recognised the benefit of updating Conservation Area appraisals, it was confirmed that the proposed funding for operating without a Local Plan included the recruitment of a full-time Conservation Officer who would work in part to support a review of Conservation Areas, it was  cautioned that the extent of Conservation Areas requiring re-appraisals would make this a long-term task for the Council. 

There was no supplementary from Mr Vickery except to wish the Council well in coming to a decision.

The second deputation was delivered by David Hodson. Members did not ask any further questions of Mr Hodson.

The third deputation was delivered by Ron Simpson, Chair of Rutland CPRE. Members did not ask any further questions of Mr Simpson.

The fourth deputation was delivered by Andrew Johnson, Chairman of Morcott Parish Council. Members did not ask any further questions of Councillor Johnson.

The fifth deputation was delivered by Pat Ovington of Langham Parish Council. Members did not ask further questions of Councillor Ovington.

The sixth deputation was delivered by Tim Smith, Chairman of North Luffenham Parish Council. Members did not ask any further questions of Councillor Smith.

The second question was delivered by Jeremy Orme.

The Chairman responded to the question by confirming that a delay to a decision by three weeks was an option for Council to consider and Council could re-consider the Housing Infrastructure Funding at a later meeting if it resolved to do so.

Mr Orme was offered the opportunity to ask a supplementary question and requested explicit confirmation that a delay to a decision for three weeks was a possible option for the Council. In response Phillip Horsfield, Monitoring Officer, confirmed that this could be an option if proposed, seconded and voted on by Council.

The seventh deputation was delivered by Richard Hurwood. Members did not ask any further questions of Mr Hurwood.

The eighth deputation was delivered by Richard Camp, Vice-Chairman on Manton Parish Council. Members did not ask any further questions of Councillor Camp.