To receive any petitions, deputations or questions received from members of
the public in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 24 which
provides that any petition, deputation or question received shall only be
considered if it relates to an item on the agenda.
The total time allowed for this is 30 minutes. Petitions, deputations and
questions will be dealt with in the order in which they are received and any
which are not considered within the time limit shall receive a written response after the meeting.
Minutes:
Tonight you will be considering the FY19/20 Budget in detail. Having attended the excellent Budget Briefing recently, I am aware how taut the Council’s Budget is and how much work has gone into its preparation.
Bearing in mind the significant opposition from within the Council to the submission of an HIF bid in support of the proposed St George’s Barracks Development. Together with the staunch opposition to the scale of the proposed development made by the local Parish Councils through the SGB Advisory Group, the Parish Forum and the Parish Council Liaison Group; and most importantly the concerns of council tax payers of the County, who have expressed their very clear views through the media and indeed in person to the County Council at your last meeting. It is clear that there is a fervent appetite to challenge the County Council every inch of the way, over this development.
It is quite clear that there will be legal challenges to your proposals, especially in respect of the proposed changes to the Draft Local Plan Spatial Strategy, consulted upon in August last year, which many consider to be fatally flawed and frankly indefensible and will therefore inevitably be subject to strong legal challenge. Can you please confirm the amount of the financial provision which has been made within the budget to fund such challenges and could you confirm that you consider this an appropriate use of the funds provided by Rutland Council Tax Payers.
Response provided by Mr G Brown (Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Planning, Environment, Property and Finance):
It would be very disappointing if residents decided to pursue a legal challenge regarding the process around Local Plan and waste both Council Tax payer’s money and those of the residents. Clearly the Council has and will take appropriate advice to ensure that are processes are sound and therefore reducing the risk of such challenges.
It would be more productive for all concerned that the representatives from the community to spend time working with the Council and the MOD to minimise the impact of the development of this brownfield site rather than help lawyers make more money and put even more pressure on stretched Council resources.
I would draw member’s attention to Big Page 135 paragraph 8 where this matter has already been addressed, however for the sake of transparency, the Council has included an additional £160k in its 19/20 to cover costs associated with the development of Local Plan, legal costs and examination.
The Council also has a legal budget of c£260k which funds legal advice required pertaining to all Council matters. It also has a further earmarked reserve for legal activities of c£150k which it can draw upon if required alongside over £9 million of General Fund balances.
The Council has not put aside any specific amount for legal challenges relating to the Local Plan but as already mentioned, it has significant resources and reserves it can draw upon if needed.
It is right and proper that the Council uses its funding to deliver its statutory responsibilities. This can of course include dealing with legal challenges and other matters as part of due process as required by statute.
The Chairman invited Members to ask Mr Cummings questions:
· Miss Waller clarified that the question was asked in the context of being Chairman of the Audit and Risk Committee. Miss Waller asked Mr Cummings what he would do if he were sitting in the seat of Mr Hemsley or Mr Brown in order to minimise the cost in terms of finances and time?
Mr Cummings responded that the concern that the Parish Council had related to changing the long established spatial strategy and settlement hierarchy to meet the opportunity for development that St Georges Barracks might bring and without considering the wider implications and other sites which could change the entire nature of the County. He stated that in the position of Mr Hemsley and Mr Brown he would take the coming pause, before the election, to review the Local Plan and identify ways in which the risk could be removed to ensure there could be no legal challenge.
· Mr Walters questioned how Mr Cummings recent questioning and disapproval of the Council’s application for £30 million grant funding to support the infrastructure squared with his understanding of the pressures on the budget highlighted by his question today.
Mr Cummings responded that at that time the Parish Council was not saying the bid was inappropriate, but premature. That prematurity covered the Housing Infrastructure Fund bid and the Local Plan issues. The Local Plan needed to be resolved before starting a project which at moment sat outside the existing Local Plan framework.