Council and councillors

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

Councillor A Brown presented his question as set out in the agenda supplement.

The Chairman invited Councillor O Hemsley to respond which was as follows:

“Procedure is vitally important in how we record votes in meetings. We must ensure that any Council vote is lawful and compliant with legislation and procedure. The alphabetic method of recording votes is used across all councils in England and Wales in accordance with the Local Government Act 1972. Consistency is the key in how to record council meeting votes. Votes should be recorded in the same way for every meeting if required so that anyone reading the meeting minutes can quickly see how a councillor voted. There would have to be very good reason for the Council to depart from the alphabetic approach. Members need to have the courage of their convictions when voting and not be swayed by the votes of others. Whatever method is chosen will enable those whose names called later to be aware of earlier votes. If Cllr Brown is suggesting, we introduce secret ballots at council meetings, I would be against this. This would be extremely unusual as it is not conducive to the principles of openness and transparency which are so important within local authority decision-making.

However, I have asked the Chief Executive to explore options to introduce electronic voting alongside the work going on to invest in systems to allow live streaming of council meetings”.

In response to Councillor Brown’s supplementary regarding the option for paper to be used and for the Monitoring Officer to read out individual votes. Councillor O Hemsley would consider that option.

Councillor A Walters presented his question as set out in the agenda supplement.

The Chairman invited Councillor O Hemsley to respond which was as follows:

“As set out in the written responses to questions raised at Council, the matter of how any development proposed for the quarry farm site will be attributed to respective housing needs for either Rutland or South Kesteven is a complex matter on which we had sort legal advice. This is likely to take time and resolve but I am happy to update Members on this matter on a regular basis. Members will be aware the Local Plan Issues and Options Report was approved by Cabinet at its meeting on 5 April 2022 for public consultation. The report will seek the views of the public as to whether any development at Quarry Farm should count towards Rutland’s housing needs. Paragraph 3.4.8 of the Issues and Options Report sets out that the Council has opened up discussions with South Kesteven on the basis that development on the Rutland element of any urban extension of Stamford should count towards Ruland’s housing numbers and so reduce the requirement of new housing elsewhere in Rutland. The preparation of the new Local Plan for Rutland provides the opportunity to resolve this situation through development plan system. Taking account of the Councils duty to co-operate with neighbouring local planning authorities on strategic matters, I would agree that it would be appropriate for the Chief Executive to write to the Chief Executive of South Kesteven District Council setting out what is proposed in the Local Plan Issues and Options Report inviting their response through the consultation. A report on this  Council’s intention, setting out that development would count towards Rutland’s housing needs, could then be presented to Council following the completion of the Issues and Options consultation. Members should be aware that there is a clear programme and process for the Council to prepare the Local Plan, this was outlined in the report to Cabinet on 5^th April and it was agreed at that meeting. There are 3 distinct stages on the preparation on the Local Plan, each of which include the public consultation and relevant approval prior to this. Issues and Options, Preferred Options Local Plan and a pre submission Local Plan. The final stage of this requires a decision from Full Council, the early stages of this require a decision from Cabinet”.

In response to Councillor Walter’s supplementary regarding the status of a Statement of Common Ground from December 2020 stating that any housing would count towards South Kesteven’s allocations , the Leader confirmed that this document was deferred and had not been signed by anyone at Rutland County Council and therefore had no legal weight, it was confirmed the Council had been in contact with South Kesteven to discuss the matter of returning the 650 homes, but it was highlighted there were a number of legal complications so it would take some time.

Councillor L Toseland presented her question as set out in the agenda supplement.

The Chairman invited Councillor O Hemsley to respond which was as follows:

“I do share your concern, but I also believe change is one thing that is certain and we as residents, elected members and organisations need to accept change and ensure the future offer supports our communities even better. I know the buildings well having worked on them for Voluntary Action Rutland (VAR) and have served a purpose and evolved and I’m sure VAR have thought long and hard about the future and did not take the decision into look at the opportunity to relocate to a modern space that serves their purposes lightly. I understand that car services have been in the heart of the VAR will continue and we should help to align concerns as elected members on this matter and support VAR. I think a solid change is of course a concern in Rutland and the largest one being Rutland Water, closing of BC’s factory, meals on wheels, Closing of Barleythorpe’s old people’s home and in my village the closing of a brewery. They’ve all allowed our communities opportunities; we should not be frayed but welcome the opportunity and the possibility that it provides”. 

In response to Councillor Toseland’s supplementary regarding the support for organisations and charities in finding new venues, Councillor Hemsley reassured that the Council would support as much as possible with their journey in finding suitable locations, but they would also have to work with the Council, so we understand what support they desire.

Councillor P Ainsley presented his question as set out in the agenda supplement.

The Chairman invited Councillor S Harvey to respond which was as follows:

“The report setting out the findings of the Primary Care Survey was welcomed by the Health and Wellbeing Board which noted the significant number of people who responded to the survey, the overview of feedback across the practices and the recommendations set out. The survey demonstrated inequality in access in primary care services. The difficult context of the pandemic in the period where the survey was conducted was acknowledged as were constraints such as available GP premises which limit service options. The potential for good practice to be shared between practices with different performance profiles was also discussed. Recent progress in addressing some of the issues highlighted was also noted. Primary care services are evolving including through the introduction of specialist roles, this work compliments pre-existing services including prescribers and care co-ordinators. The following was agreed:

-       It was noted that after presenting the report to Council on 11^th April, the Task and Finish Group would be disbanded, and it was agreed that the responsibility to follow up on the reports recommendations would transfer to the Health and Wellbeing Board.

-       The recommendations being taken forward but will be integrated into the Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategies delivery plan, working with the Primary Care Network, Integrated Care Board and other partners to ensure follow up and to enable the Health and Wellbeing Board to track progress.

-       A follow up survey driven by the Health and Wellbeing Board would be undertaken by January 2023, recognising the importance of these services to the public, and finally:

-       The Health and Wellbeing Board would work with partners to present a short report at the Health and Wellbeing Board meeting in July 2022 to update residents on the outcomes of the recommendations from the Task and Finish Group”.