Freedom of Information

a. What are their names, positions in HCC or other business?

a. What layouts, unit densities, house types and how many numbers?

Can I request a breakdown of the budget for this amount – obviously this can be redacted with regard to the commercial entities I assume will be involved, however the amounts for a high level line items overview should not be commercially sensitive

When will Rutland Councillors decide whether they want Rutland to grow organically or expand massively? What arguments are the Councillors going to adopt when the site gets to the planning submission/examination stage that are compelling to have such a massive excess of houses over and above what the Government expects of the Authority.

Cllr Gordon Brown stated that historically Local Authorities were required to go out and obtain a Strategic Market Housing Assessment. RCC’s was done on a sub-regional basis including South Kesteven, Rutland, Peterborough and Boston. The assessment over the last 4 years produced a range of 150 – 171. Cllr Brown explained that the new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is clear and states to use the new formulate approach except those compelling reasons not to. Cllr Brown stated that many Local Plan’s objectively assessed needs are well below the formula identified in the new NPPF. Rutland’s objectively assessed needs states that Rutland County needs to do more. The number is based on the average house price and income. Cllr Brown explained that Rutland has a high proportion of people who have retired to Rutland with high pensions and a high number of people who are well paid which makes the average income for Rutland artificially high and the prices high which does not give you the actual assessed need for Rutland. Cllr Brown stated that 160 was the right number for Rutland under the old methodology. This was done prior to St George’s. Cllr Brown advised that Rutland had a demographic problem in its younger age group and housing needed to be provided for that group. Cllr Waller asked if the 160 was a figure across the other Authorities. Cllr Brown stated this was purely for Rutland.

A discussion took place in regards to the Quarry Farm site. Quarry Farm has 600 dwellings earmarked within the Rutland boundary. Cllr Brown and Mrs Briggs stated that the 600 dwellings would not work without the other part of the development due to not having the necessary infrastructure in place to support. Mrs Briggs explained that it was in Rutland’s best interests to work around the duty to co-operate to make sure that the school provision and the road network provision was appropriate for the whole of the site and not just Rutland.

1. Cllr Waller asked if the 160 was a figure across the other Authorities. Cllr Brown stated this was purely for Rutland. What are the figures for our neighbouring Authorities?

As a resident of Edith Weston I would like to have access to all the financial projections relating to the potential income to Rutland County Council throughout the life cycle of the planned scheme. So far there has been little or no information as to the financial reasoning behind this development but obviously with c 3000 houses paying the average council tax for the area, plus the normal payments to RCC when developing, I estimate that the income would have a material impact on RCC. I would like to see your projections, financials plans and how this might affect the future financial security of the county and the existing council tax payers.

At the COUNCIL TAX, meeting on Monday, 25th February, 2019 7.00 pm
Question from member of the public:
“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.”

The response from Gordon Brown was:

“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 legalchallenges relating to the Local Plan but as already mentioned, it has significantresources 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”.

1. What advice has been taken by the Council.

I note in the Report No: 18/2019 for the Full Council meeting on 21st January, the options below were listed as being rejected by the MoD – can you provide the documentation to the RCC from the MoD covering their rejection of these options

a. Return to agricultural use – rejected by MOD fails to assist in meeting housing targets and maximising receipt.

b. Transfer of land back to previous owners (Under Crichel Down provisions) – due process followed by the MOD and rejected.

c. Alternative energy site rejected by MOD fails to assist in meeting housing targets and maximising receipt.

d. Marketing as a leisure destination rejected by MOD fails to assist in meeting housing targets and maximising receipt.

e. Alternative Public Sector use e.g. by Ministry of Justice – no interest – rejected.

f. Creation of a new Garden Community – houses in the range 1,500 – 3,500 – preferred option (see section 6.4).

Extract from personal extemporaneous notes taken at St Georges Advisory Group Meeting 27 Feb 19 by Cllr P Cummings

Officer’s Mess Development.

The Chairman advised that having reviewed the financial figures relating to the Officers’ Mess development, that it was the view of RCC that when considering the Risk / Reward ratio that the Risks were, at present, simply too high for RCC to develop the site. Unless the financials changed significantly RCC did not intend to purchase and develop the site themselves.

1. What has changed in the financial figures that has caused RCC to have such a change of plan.

b. The level of on-site employment that was used as part of the input data to produce this forecast of peak hour traffic increase. This is sometimes known as the internalisation percentage for a development encompassing business and residential

c. The request is to know the number of new houses to be built as part of the development that was input to reach the forecast. Was this the number of houses at the end of the development i.e. 2,150, or was a different number used; and if so, what number of new houses did form part of the calculation?