To receive any petitions, deputations or questions received from members of the public in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 28. 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.

i.    The following deputation was presented by Mrs S Seed - South Luffenham Parish Council:

 

I wish to address the issue of how the quarry impacts on the financial viability and therefore scale of St Georges barracks project.

 

My lack of confidence in the MOD and RCC outline financial viability model which has driven the commitment to build this huge development. Such a development and indeed its sheer size is not simply not needed in this county.

 

It is assumed the MOD owns the mineral rights though we are aware that some people strongly contend that.

 

Let’s assume they do, there is an estimated 20 million tons of minerals lying beneath the mineral extraction site. The value of these minerals that could be extracted has not yet been identified or published.

 

At the 27th February advisory board meeting the viability model was discussed. It is this viability model which has driven the MOD to identify that they need to build 2,215 houses within the wire at St George’s barracks to ensure the financial viability of the site.

 

At the same time we were advised that the MOD considered the mineral extraction site a separate project. Therefore the significant value of the minerals underneath the 200 hectare’s outside the wire have been excluded from the viability equation.

 

This has resulted in the MOD’s view that to break even, they need to build a new town the size of Uppingham on the site.

 

Any viability assessment should be supported by appropriate available evidence. This should follow the government’s national planning guide and be proportionate, simple, transparent and publicly available. This will help with future assessment and provide more accountability.

 

What is the mod’s plan of restitution? This must be in place. We have seen no evidence that the MOD or RCC will be adopting best practice in the requisite environmental principles established by the government’s 25 year plan.

 

The indicative time frame for the massive adjacent quarry which will blight the site for many years has yet to be identified.

 

Who will want to buy, bring up children and raise a family or go to school near such a quarry site?

 

We believe that RCC need to broaden their vision for St Georges barracks. The starting point should be to identify appropriate employment which will attract high quality jobs to the site. Our leaders and planners need to look at large corporations like pharmaceutical co / tech co or universities. Quality jobs well paid jobs that could encourage younger families to live in a small quality development.

 

Both MOD and RCC need to be honest and include properly all the financial income that can be expected from this St Georges barracks site. We can then move forward together knowing we are working for a better county future.

 

Questions from Members:

 

• Mr Brown requested clarification on the claim that the mineral rights did not belong to the MOD.

Mrs Seed confirmed that the statement referred to the fact that this was unknown, she did not know the answer.

• Mr Cross thanked Mrs Seed for the information provided in the deputation.

 

ii.    The following deputation was provided by Mr N Newton - Empingham Parish Council:

 

On behalf of Empingham Parish Council I present the following deputation.

 

At the Council meeting on January 21st last, a grant submission bid was used by the residents of Rutland as a proxy to vent their anger and opposition to the scale of the mooted development at St Georges barracks. Telling that a seemingly innocuous grant bid was the first time that residents, or indeed most Councillors, had the opportunity to make their views known. I exclude the tick box Scrutiny Panel which had no outcome, no report, no request for clarification or further information, which simply disappeared into the ether without any opportunity for Councillors to debate its findings.

 

With well over 300 residents from across the County expressing their opposition, and councillors voting 12 to 11 with two absentees and the Chairman voting against, Empingham Parish Council, and no doubt others, had hoped that the scale of the opposition would cause the leadership to pause, re engage with the MOD and the residents, to try and find a solution to the closure of the site that would be more in keeping with the characteristics of Rutland.  More in keeping with the existing Local Plan widely re endorsed in the review in 2017.

 

We were sadly disappointed. The morning after, the Leader issued a press release, which from its content was clearly written before the meeting took place.

 

I quote “this was a hugely important decision for Rutland”  ...agreed... I quote again “and I think we had a result that clearly indicates the feeling within the County” unquote. Again we can only agree, there is massive opposition to the scale of this development.

 

Our exasperation as a Parish Council was exacerbated by two further comments in the press release quote “we are determined that a development which has been heavily influenced by local people" and “we need to work very hard with the residents through the Advisory Group to ensure we get what is right for Rutland” unquote.

 

As a member of the Advisory Group, usually chaired by the Leader, we both know that the overwhelming view of the Parish Councils on the Advisory Group has been that the scale of the development is bonkers in a Rutland context. As to the development being heavily influenced by residents I can only surmise he means the removal of some very obvious mistakes pointed out in the Advisory Group to the first iteration of the Masterplan.

 

Nevertheless we are grateful to the Leader for one thing, using the banner Right for Rutland. Residents do have the imminent election to really express their feelings.

 

Questions from Members:

 

• Mr Walters requested further information on how the representations provided to the January Full Council meeting represented the feeling of Rutland residents and to what extent the turnout at the meeting was orchestrated?

Mr Newton confirmed that the Parish Councils of Edith Weston and North Luffenham amongst other Parish Councils across the County encouraged attendance at the meeting.  Mr Newton stated that the votes against the resolution for submission of the business case under the Housing Infrastructure Programme at the January Council meeting represented the views of residents across the County.  Mr Newton highlighted that there were a significant number of votes against the resolution.

• Mr Cross and Mr Gale highlighted that the forthcoming local elections would be an opportunity for members to make theirs views clear in respect of local issues.

Mr Newton expressed that he hoped that candidates would be standing on a banner of what is right for Rutland.

• Mr Bird noted Mr Newton’s comments regarding the vote at the meeting in January and clarified that although he had been unable to be present at the Council Meeting in January, he had read all the papers and listened to the debate in relation to St Georges and he would have voted in favour.

 

iii.    The following deputation was provided by Mr Johnson - Morcott Parish Council:

 

Good Evening - My name is Andrew Johnson. I am Chairman of Morcott Parish Council and a member of the St Georges Advisory Group. I have over 30 years' experience as a Chief Executive and Executive Chairman of private sector businesses up to £250 Million turnover and am currently a Non-Executive Director of one of the largest NHS Trusts in the Country.

 

I would like to talk to you about Leadership and Governance and ask you to reflect on the way you understand and operate governance as an effective council. An effective council is one that represents the best interests of its electors whilst encouraging challenge and seeking assurance. Implicit within this is that you as councillors exhibit the behaviours and governance of a well led public sector organisation where effective governance is achieved through holding those in a leadership position to account.

 

Strong leadership is commonly thought of as a good thing, it provides direction and the drive to get things done. But strong leadership without effective governance can slide into an authoritarian style of leadership. Well led organisations practice good governance, poorly led authoritative organisations do not.

 

What are the characteristics of an organisation that does not practice effective governance? I would like to give you a few examples that may resonate with you:

-         Power is concentrated in a few individuals who wield it to further their own, heart-felt, philosophies and beliefs;

-         Decisions are made by a few, trusted, senior members of the leadership team;

-         Irrevocable commitments are  made  by  individuals within the  leadership team without thorough engagement, consultation, and challenge by those who should be able to hold the leadership to account;

-         Unaccountable bodies “in authority” outside the organisation are able to coerce it into taking actions which benefit them directly whilst putting the organisation at risk;

-         The ability of others outside the “trusted” central leadership team to challenge decisions is compromised by a lack of tolerance and coercion to “toe the line”;

-         Processes to enable challenge and holding to account of the leadership team are weakened and made to be ineffective;

-         Views and opinions that are outside the "party line" are not engaged with and are not tolerated, challenge is not welcomed;

-         Agendas for, and communications from, meetings are controlled and distorted to ensure a veneer of agreement with the "party line";

-         Transparency of information is sacrificed with the justification that information cannot be made available because of "commercial considerations" or other flimsy excuses;

-         Those attempting to engage and hold to account are discouraged and end up withdrawing from engagement;

-         Assurance of compliance with legal and good practice requirements is provided by officers who, as they report to the leadership team, are not independent and are compromised as a result.

 

Do you recognise these characteristics within Rutland County Council?

 

There are those that do recognise these characteristics within this council and can point to examples of each and every point. They believe that the St Georges Barracks proposals in the “emerging masterplan”, and the way that they are being pushed through reflects poor and ineffective governance within RCC.

 

The St Georges proposals result in an increase in the population of Rutland of 15% in a very short period. These proposals will change Rutland for ever. They are not “Right for Rutland”, they are “Right for the MoD”.  The leadership of RCC are not really in control of this process, the MoD are in control. You need to recognise this before it is too late and make sure that you "Stand up for Rutland".

 

You are the people that the electorate of Rutland rely on to challenge the leadership and hold it to account on their behalf. They will not forgive you in the forthcoming elections if you have not exercised this prerogative effectively.

 

Thank you

 

Questions and comments from Members:

·        Mr Walters confirmed that he did not recognise the organisational characteristics that Mr Johnson had spoken about and requested clarification on how the voting on the resolution which, as highlighted by Mr Johnson, was only carried by a narrow margin, reflects control in the way described?

Mr Johnson responded that information released following the vote indicated a greater level of acceptance for the proposals than actually existed.

·        Mr Baines asked Mr Johnson how the new council, post-May, might behave differently?

Mr Johnson stated that he would like to see behaviours change to more effective challenge and improved engagement.  To see how challenge can result in better solutions.

·        Mr Wilby thanked Mr Johnson and assured him that the Council was run as a team, but the council as a whole would challenge when required and as a Cabinet they also challenged. Members believed in democracy and what was good for Rutland and the people of Rutland.  Decisions might not always be popular, but the basis of those decisions was a belief that it would be right for the County.

·        Mr Lammie highlighted that there had been a considerable amount of debate at the Council meeting in January, members were given the opportunity to challenge and put their point of view across.  Mr Lammie asked for acknowledgement that the decision was in fact a Full Council decision, as a body they had voted in favour of the resolution.

Mr Johnson clarified that he thought that decisions were made of their own free will according to what members perceived as good governance based on the information which they had been provided with, however he believed there was opportunity to challenge more effectively.