Agenda item
QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL
To receive any questions submitted from Members of the Council in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rules 30 and 30A.
Minutes:
i. Mr M E Baines
In the light of the Haringey ruling on consultation is the Leader satisfied that the recent consultation process for the Local Plan and St George’s Barracks meets these criteria?
The Leader, Mr Hemsley, replied as follows:
The Council is satisfied that the recent consultation in relation to St George’s meets and exceeds the criteria required for consultation.
The Councillor will be aware that the Haringey case referred to was a 2014 decision and since that time there have a number of other legal decisions including Salford, Warwickshire, Trafford and Leicestershire (to name a few).
St George’s is part of the overall local plan process with all the statutory consultation requirements that are included in this process. This Council has and will continue to seek and take into consideration all views to enable us to get the very best developments for Rutland that provide the maximum benefits to our existing communities.
As a supplementary question, Mr Baines sought further assurance that the Council were open to responses and views put forward citing the submission put forward by Wing Parish Council which expressed dissatisfaction with the current consultation and confirmed that they were opposed to the current proposals.
In response Mr Hemsley confirmed that there was no statutory requirement to carry out the further 6 week consultation, but that the decision to do this had been taken to ensure the process remained open and transparent and that all stakeholders including Parish Councils were kept informed. Mr Hemsley highlighted that concerns could be voiced through the St George’s Advisory Board and that the Council was interested in the views of the Parish Councils and wanted to work with them.
I would like to add it would appear that we are damned if we do and we are damned if we don’t but the bottom line is we want what is right for Rutland.
ii. Mr J Lammie (To the Leader)
When establishing the St Georges Project Board in May 2017 there were only two Councillors on the Board (Yourself due to your Cabinet position and Cllr Waller due to her being a Ward Member). Given the wide responsibility of the Board (to agree the vision, objectives, programme and resourcing for the St George’s project for recommendation to the Programme Board) please can you as Leader and Chair of the Project Board inform Full Council -
- Who decided there should only be two Councillors on the Board? And why?
- Why was only one member of Cabinet included on the Board at this time, when the Project is so large and cuts across more than one portfolio?
The Leader, Mr Hemsley, replied as follows:
In April 2017 Cabinet resolved to support the ROPE Programme Board and I am sure that Councillor Lammie will recall from that report to Cabinet that:
2.4 The One Public Estate funding will potentially provide funding of £50,000 to support feasibility work
2.6 The feasibility study will be used to explore opportunities and to test with our partners what might be the best options going forward
2.8 In order to support the initial stages of the project a Programme Board has been established. This is chaired by the Leader. Cabinet are also represented by the Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Health and Social Care. The Board also has representatives from the Cabinet Office OPE Team, our Local Enterprise Partnership, the Local Government Association and the Ministry of Defence. The Chief Executive is the Project Sponsor.
The Programme Board was informed by 4 Task Groups Commercial, Minerals and Leisure, Advance Delivery and Housing, the makeup of the Programme Board was decided at the initial meeting of the Board as there was a need to have representation from the various organisations, the Board has no decision making ability and is only used to help guide the project and work through feasibility of the projects something that is still work in progress.
The Board has always had the ability to change the composition of the Boards subject to Board approval. As the project has changed so has the makeup of the Programme Board and Project Boards. The work that was being done needed a Councillor steer but required the involvement of partner organisations as explained in para. 2.8 of the April 2017 report and hence the two Councillors in the beginning of the Project Board. There is always a need to balance expediency with numbers and as I will come on to explain the board has evolved as the project has.
For clarity I offer the structure of the Boards and would ask that you remember that the Project Board reports to the Rutland One Public Estate (ROPE) Programme Board who in turn report to Cabinet.
We have Scrutiny Panels and the purpose of Scrutiny is to look at just these things.
Like all things the project has moved on and you can clearly see that the role of Chair has been taken by myself in April 2018 and Gordon Brown has been brought onto the Board recently. In addition alongside the St George’s Project we have established an Advisory Group with 6 County Councillors and the relevant Parish Councillors in June.
So to answer your question our former Leader, myself and with advise from officers we arrived at the number of two councillors and please remember that the Leader also sat on the ROPE Board as Chair.
This really answers the first part of your second question and clearly as the project has evolved so has the input from Cabinet and Cabinet are all briefed regularly on where the project is and to answer your third question (below) the reason for bringing on Gordon Brown was that originally I had been on the Board as Deputy and I remained on the Board when I became Leader to give continuity, I am also on the ROPE board and it adds strength to the Board and the integrity of the Board by having Portfolio Holder for Finance.
As a supplementary question Mr Lammie requested whether the representatives from the Project Support Boards still sat on the Delivery Board.
Mr Hemsley confirmed that they still informed the Board and attended as and when required.
iii. Mr Lammie (To the Leader)
At Cabinet on 21st August it was announced that Cllr Brown had been added onto the Project Board. Please can you as Leader and Chair of the Project Board inform Full Council -
- What were the reasons for adding Cllr Brown onto the Board?
- Given that the Board has been meeting for over a year, why is it only now that Cllr Brown has been to the Board?
The Leader, Mr Hemsley, replied as follows:
When Tony Mathias stepped down as Leader in January of this year there was a need to keep business as usual and since this time my Deputy has had to resign and so Gordon has only been Deputy Leader since July. Changes to the Board have to be agreed by the Project Board and so it was proposed to bring on the Deputy Leader because:
- He holds the portfolio for finance and property which will be an important part of the project going forward. He has been active on the Officers Mess Project since February;
- His private sector experience of finance, project management and as well as planning policy across a number of local authorities.
Finally, it should be noted that Scrutiny under the new Chair has specifically asked for a special meeting of the Panel to consider the current status of the feasibility study.
Further detail can be added in a written answer if required.