Rutland County Council Website, In memory of His late Royal Highness Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

 

In memory of His late Royal Highness Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

Visitors to Rutland County Councils website will find a tribute page

www.rutland.gov.uk

In memory of His late Royal Highness Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

It is with deep sadness that Rutland County Council marks the passing of His late Royal Highness Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

At this time of national mourning, this website has been changed out of respect and in accordance with protocol.

While normal service delivery and Council functions continue, there are actions required of the County Council to ensure appropriate, proportionate and dignified arrangements are in place for the mourning period.

An overview of these and information relating to flowers, flags and other forms of tribute will be available as soon as possible.

Rutland County Council has also posted the following on Twitter and other social media accounts.

Rutland County Council is deeply saddened by the death of His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh. Our sincerest condolences go to Her Majesty the Queen and the Royal Family. Flags outside our offices are being flown at half-mast as a mark of respect

Rutland County Council Election of a Councillor for Uppingham Town Council 6th May Election Tom Johnson and Barry John Read

Rutland County Council Election of a Councillor for Uppingham Town Council 6th May Election  Tom Johnson and Barry John Read

Rutland Information Service, Rutland County Council, NHS, Active Together, Oakham, Rutland

Rutland Information Service, Rutland County Council, NHS, Active Together, Oakham, Rutland

https://ris.rutland.gov.uk/kb5/rutland/directory/home.page

List of How Councillors Voted Last Night Rutland County Council votes to decline Government Housing Infrastructure Fund grant of £29.4m

List of How Councillors Voted Last Night Rutland County Council votes to decline Government Housing Infrastructure Fund grant of £29.4m 

Rutland County Councils Public Statement Rutland County Council votes to decline Government Housing Infrastructure Fund grant of £29.4M

Rutland County Council votes to decline Government Housing Infrastructure Fund grant of £29.4M

Date Published: 23 March 2021

Last night Rutland County Councillors voted to not accept Government Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF) grant totalling £29.4m.

Rutland County Council submitted a successful bid to the Government to help fund infrastructure improvements for the proposed future redevelopment of St. George’s Barracks in North Luffenham as a garden village.

HIF is a national programme managed by Homes England that has made £5billion available to support the building of new homes by making sure important infrastructure, such as improvements to roads and public transport, can be put in place at the right stage. Only local authorities were eligible to apply for HIF.

Full Council met last night to consider the HIF grant and after considerable debate, Councillors voted to not accept the Government grant and will not receive the additional central government funding to support the St. George’s development. In the vote, 13 members voted against accepting the HIF grant, 12 voted for and two abstained.

“The decision on whether to accept HIF was extremely important and Full Council has now had their say. The Council will now be looking to work through the implications of this decision.” Council Leader, Cllr Oliver Hemsley

Rutland County Council submitted its application for HIF funding in February 2019, based on the latest Evolving Masterplan for the St. George’s site. A report noting the bid’s success was presented to Cabinet on 19 November 2019, with Full Council given the final say on whether to accept the funding. In January 2020, with some of the terms and conditions for the HIF grant still to be confirmed by Homes England, Councillors voted unanimously to defer their decision on HIF until final details were known. 

St. George’s Barracks, which is owned by the Ministry of Defence, is due to close in 2021/22, prompting proposals for a new Garden Community that would include up to 2,215 new houses, together with a further 30 possible houses on the site of the current Edith Weston School. 

Conservative Cllr Kenneth Bool Says Rutland County Council Chief Executive Helen Briggs Signed A Memorandum of Understanding With The MOD in secret, Edward Baines Described the previous leader as arrogant

At special council meeting at Rutland County Council last night. 

Former CEO of Rutland County Council Helen Briggs 

Conservative Cllr Kenneth Bool Says Rutland County Council Chief Executive Helen Briggs Signed A Memorandum of Understanding with The MOD four years ago, which was kept secret from 24 out of 26 Councillor for an entire year.

Conservative Rutland County Councillor Kenneth Bool 

 

When the councils monitoring officer advised the meeting should should go into exempt he said.

"If we go into excluded now, we started out in secrecy and we are ending in secrecy and I have to say this makes me and the general public wonder, what else there is to hide".

 "There is a dark shadow over this project. This is a matter that affects everyone in Rutland and I can't see why residents can't hear their elected representatives discussing this." 

"We can do so in a manner that adheres to our obligations and of the none disclosure agreement, transparency is important in a democracy, so that those in power are held to account for the common good. Let us therefore be open and transparent with those who put us in office. We should remain in the public domain."

Conservative Rutland County Councillor Kenneth Bool 

The Chairman of the Council Edward Baines  said he agreed with Cllr Bools comments about the previous leader of the council and he went on to describe the previous leader as arrogant and that they behaved as if they had powers of an elected mayor rather than the leader of this elected council.  

(as Mr Bool did not speak about any former leader of the council it is not clear if Cllr Baines was referring to a former leader of the former CEO some on social media have decided he was referring to the former CEO)

Edward Baines stated all that is in the past, is he not forgetting he has been a large part of that past? I do hope the man who refuses to move into the modern world and even use basics such as email steps down at the next election.

Fifteen councillors voted to continue the meeting in private. Twelve others voted against.

Rutland County Cllrs voted against accepting the HIF grant.  13 against, 12 for and 2 abstentions

What next?

There has been some discussion on social media this morning 

Cllr Nick Begy Conservative Rutland County Councillor 

Conservative Councillor Nick Begy said, the outlook is bleak. We have lost control on the development and now greenfield sites in our villages are in danger.

Councillor Ian Razzell  Conservative Rutland County Council 

Conservative Councillor  Ian Razzell  said,  there are some who need to hang their heads in shame. Banging on about their community and failing to represent them at countless meetings. I hope they are able to explain to their community why green fields will now be torn up to build on.

Rutland County Council decided whether to accept £29.4m to redevelop St George's Barracks in private Rutland County Cllrs voted against accepting the HIF grant.

Rutland County Council decided whether to accept £29.4m to redevelop St George's Barracks in private after voting to exclude the public from the online meeting.

Rutland County Council decided not accept the Housing Infrastructure Funding which has been allocated to build a garden village on the site at North Luffenham.

It will provide 2,245 new homes and associated facilities including a new school and health centre.

More than 100 members of the public had joined the virtual meeting to listen to this evening's debate, but on the advice of the council's monitoring officer, the debate has gone into closed session.

Several councillors had called for the meeting to continue in public because of the scale of public interest.

Including Conservative Councillor Kenneth Bool, he said: "We've always tried to keep meetings as open as possible and this should apply here, particularly as we have so many people listening and following the issue." He told members the St George's Barracks issue began four years ago "shrouded in secrecy" adding: "If we go into excluded debate it makes me and the public wonder what else there is to hide. "There is a dark shadow over this project. This is a matter that affects everyone in Rutland and I can't see why residents can't hear their elected representatives discussing it."

Lib Dem Councillor Gale Waller backed the call to continue in public. She added: "We are often told that this development is as key to Rutland as the reservoir was in the seventies. We owe it to residents to make a decision in public."

Fifteen councillors voted to continue the meeting in private. Twelve others voted against.

Rutland County Cllrs voted against accepting the HIF grant.  13 against, 12 for and 2 abstentions

Housing Infrastructure Fund St George's Barracks Rutland County Council Already Listed on Government Website as a Successful Forward Funding projects before Council decision is made

Housing Infrastructure Fund St George's Barracks Rutland County Council Already Listed on Government Website as a  Successful Forward Funding projects  before Council decision is made this evening?

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/housing-infrastructure-fund

Successful Forward Funding projects

Local authority Project HIF funding (£million)

Buckinghamshire Aylesbury Garden Town Growth Enabling Infrastructure Programme £172.3m

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Northern Fringe East £227m

Central Bedfordshire Transformational Growth in Biggleswade £69.6m

Cheshire East North Cheshire Garden Village £21.7m

Cornwall Truro Growth Area - Northern Access Road £47.5m

Cornwall Hayle Junctions Infrastructure Project £12.9m

Cumbria Carlisle Southern Link Road £134m

Devon South West Exeter £55.1m

Essex Beaulieu Station and North East Bypass £218m

Essex Tendring Colchester Borders Garden Community £99.9m

GLA Docklands Light Railway - growth capacity £290.7m

GLA Meridian Water Infrastructure £170m

GLA East London line - growth capacity £80.8m

Gloucestershire M5 Junction 10 Improvements Scheme £219.8m

Greater Manchester Combined Authority Manchester Northern Gateway Urban Growth Programme £51.6m

Kent Swale Transport Infrastructure £38.1m

Lancashire South Lancaster Growth Catalyst £140m

Leicestershire Melton Mowbray Southern Distributor Road £14.7m

Medway New Routes to Good Growth £170m

Milton Keynes Milton Keynes East Sustainable Urban Extension £94.6m

North East Combined Authority South Sunderland Growth Area Cluster £25.4m

North Somerset West of England: Enabling Infrastructure for M5-A38 Strategic Development Locations £97m

Oxfordshire Access to Didcot Garden Town £218m

Oxfordshire A40 Smart Corridor £102m

Rutland St George’s Barracks £29.4m

Surrey A320 North of Woking £41.8m

Surrey A320 Woking Town Centre £95m

Surrey Slyfield Area Regeneration Project £52.3m

Swindon New Eastern Villages, Southern Connector Road £18.9m

Thurrock Purfleet Centre £75.1m

Wiltshire Chippenham Urban Expansion £75.1m

Ricky Gervais slams rabbit farm plans that could see 30,000 slaughtered each year, T&S Rabbits, Rutland County Council Planning Application

Ricky Gervais slams rabbit farm plans that could see 30,000 slaughtered each year, T&S Rabbits, Rutland County Council Planning Application 

Campaigners including television star Ricky Gervais have signed a petition against plans to create a rabbit farm at Rutland Water.

The site at Lyndon Top Farm would house up to 250 does and breed 10,000 rabbits each year.

T&S Rabbits has proposed similar schemes at sites in Cornwall and Buckinghamshire

The Rutland Planning Application can be viewed here

https://publicaccess.rutland.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=QLBKW7NNLTO00

Petition

https://www.change.org/p/rutland-borough-council-refuse-planning-for-an-intensive-rabbit-farm-in-rutland

​

Leicestershire Police Anti Corruption Unit Almost 3 Years On The Investigation Is complete Oakham Town Council, Rutland County Council

Leicestershire Police Anti Corruption Unit Investigation Almost 3 Years On The Investigation Is complete Oakham Town Council, Rutland County Council.

Today I received an email from the investigating officer who will be visiting me this week
to update me of the outcome.




From: ##############@leicestershire.pnn.police.uk>
Sent: 09 September 2016 12:38
To: 'Martin Brookes'
Subject: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED:- Leicestershire Police

Mr Brookes

I wish to updates you regarding the current position regarding the complaints that you currently have registered with Leicestershire PSD.

These include the investigation (relating to a number of specific allegations with which you will be familiar) that I have submitted to the Appropriate Authority for review and a separate complaint that we agreed should be dealt with by local resolution (relating to the Localism Act) which I will seek your agreement with in respect of my findings and the action I propose.

I feel it would be easier if we met to discuss the matters in person; do you have any availability during the early part of next week?

Best regards

#######
Detective Constable ###
Anti Corruption Unit
Professional Standards Department
Leicestershire Police
Force Headquarters
St. Johns
Enderby
Leicester
LE19 2BX
www.leics.police.co.uk

Mail to: ##########@leicestershire.pnn.police.uk
Switchboard: #######
Ext No.#####
Mobile: #####

Helen Briggs Returning Officer, Rutland County Council, Disregard for Confidentiality, Named Election Communications, Stored In Unsecured Public Area.

Helen Briggs Returning Officer, Rutland County Council, Disregard for Confidentiality,
Named Election Communications, Stored In Unsecured Public Area.



Thousands of letters addressed to the Rutland Electorate are sitting in a public area unattended.

A member of staff said they were not council tax bills, "they are election communications"

The Council had placed a green screen in front of the Royal Mail cages, but none around
the back or sides.

Anyone could have popped in of the street and stole the letters or made records
of the intended recipients names and address.

I wonder why Mrs Briggs did not store them in the secure part of the building?

Rutland County Council, New Computers, Data Security, left unattended for hours in the council carpark?

Rutland County Council New Computers Data Security.


As computer were replaced the old ones were chucked out the door onto the pallet
shown.

I wonder how secure data on the councils old computers is when left unattended for
hours in the council carpark?

Before the last election Rutland County Council had a mass paper shred
Are the replacement computers an advancement from paper shredding?

Rutland County Council, Councillors Attendance Record, Poor Attendance

Rutland County Council, Councillors Attendance Record, Poor Attendance

Click on image to enlarge or right click and download


Rutland County Council has published attendance record for the past year.

Many of our Councillors found it difficult to attend even 70% of meetings.

The worst attendance is achieved by Conservative Councillor Lucy Stephenson
daughter of old time Conservative Cllr Edward Baines, she managed to fit in
50% of all meeting. Probably too busy continuing her dispute with local pub
owners?

Councillor Dave Richardson UKIP is the second worse offender, only attending
55% of all meetings.

Rutland County Council, prospective candidates event, Helen Briggs Alex Daynes, Video

Rutland County Council, prospective candidates event, Helen Briggs Alex Daynes, Video

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

Rutland County Council, prospective candidates event, Report

Rutland County Council,  prospective candidates event, Report

Video To Follow:

I filmed the presentation for those who could make the time.

I said I would not record the question session.

No one asked any questions during that session, Some asked  questions
during the presentation, given by Alex Daynes and Helen Briggs.

The turn out was make better than the last election. I did sense most
were hoping to be prospective parish councillors.

There were a few familiar faces, like the former UKIP parliamentary
candidate Mr Baker who is hoping to win a seat on the County Council.

I am sure I spotted Rutland's only Labour candidate.

Someone from adult learning and the window cleaner.

And Cllr Adam Lowe.

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

New Election Rule, Will Mess Up Rutland Conservative Tactics

New Election Rule, Will Mess Up Rutland Conservative Tactics

In the past it has been possible for Rutland Conservatives to be
elected unopposed, due the ability of candidates being able to
be nominated in more than one ward and pulling out of the
other wards after nominations were notified.

The new rule means this can no longer happen.

A candidate can still be nominated for more than ward, but
there is little point. Because before the deadline for nominations
they must pull out of all but one, if they don't they will be disqualified.

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

Election Counting For Rutland County Council and Rutland Parish Councils to be delayed to accommodate Helen Briggs

Election Counting For Rutland County Council and Rutland Parish Councils to be delayed to accommodate Helen Briggs

Why won't the Tory returning officer Helen Briggs let go and trust her deputy to supervise the
count for Rutland County Council and Parish Council elections?

Mrs Briggs announced due to past experience she would be delaying the count.

The count will not start until 2pm on Friday 8th May 2015.

Leaving ballot papers hanging around, her excuse was because a 9.00 am start was
too much for her.

The problem is, she is also the deputy returning office for the Melton and Rutland Parliamentary Elections and will be assisting at Melton with that count.  At the last election the count finished
around 5 am and she said she needs time to "refresh" for the County and Parish count.

This years Rutland County Council and Parish Council counts will be held at Victoria Hall
and not the usual venue of Rutland County Council.

Rutland County Council, prospective candidates event, Report

Rutland County Council,  prospective candidates event, Report

Video To Follow:

I filmed the presentation for those who could make the time.

I said I would not record the question session.

No one asked any questions during that session, Some asked  questions
during the presentation, given by Alex Daynes and Helen Briggs.

The turn out was make better than the last election. I did sense most
were hoping to be prospective parish councillors.

There were a few familiar faces, like the former UKIP parliamentary
candidate Mr Baker who is hoping to win a seat on the County Council.

I am sure I spotted Rutland's only Labour candidate.

Someone from adult learning and the window cleaner.

And Cllr Adam Lowe.

Great turnout for our prospective candidates event this evening - lots of good feedback - thank you Elections Team
— Helen Briggs  (@HbriggsR) February 24, 2015

Our briefing for prospective candidates and agents is about to get underway in the Council Chamber #Elections2015 pic.twitter.com/bhnmGvqxzb
— Rutland Council (@rutlandcouncil) February 24, 2015

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

New Election Rule, Will Mess Up Rutland Conservative Tactics

New Election Rule, Will Mess Up Rutland Conservative Tactics

In the past it has been possible for Rutland Conservatives to be
elected unopposed, due the ability of candidates being able to
be nominated in more than one ward and pulling out of the
other wards after nominations were notified.

The new rule means this can no longer happen.

A candidate can still be nominated for more than ward, but
there is little point. Because before the deadline for nominations
they must pull out of all but one, if they don't they will be disqualified.

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

Election Counting For Rutland County Council and Rutland Parish Councils to be delayed to accommodate Helen Briggs

Election Counting For Rutland County Council and Rutland Parish Councils to be delayed to accommodate Helen Briggs

Why won't the Tory returning officer Helen Briggs let go and trust her deputy to supervise the
count for Rutland County Council and Parish Council elections?

Mrs Briggs announced due to past experience she would be delaying the count.

The count will not start until 2pm on Friday 8th May 2015.

Leaving ballot papers hanging around, her excuse was because a 9.00 am start was
too much for her.

The problem is, she is also the deputy returning office for the Melton and Rutland Parliamentary Elections and will be assisting at Melton with that count.  At the last election the count finished
around 5 am and she said she needs time to "refresh" for the County and Parish count.

This years Rutland County Council and Parish Council counts will be held at Victoria Hall
and not the usual venue of Rutland County Council.

 

Rutland County Council, Development Control and Licensing Committee, Tuesday 3 February 2015, Video

Rutland County Council, Development Control and Licensing Committee, Tuesday 3 February 2015, Video




APP/2011/0355 & APP/2011/0357
Mr A White
Beech House, Ketton Road, Hambleton

2013/0295/FUL Mr D Matthews
Oak Tree Farm, Main Street, Barrow

2013/0541/MAJ David Miller Homes Ltd
130 Braunston Road, Oakham

2014/0459/FUL Mr P Parker
2 London Road, Uppingham

2014/0842/FUL Mr & Mrs D Skins
3 Kings Close, Market Overton

2014/0962/FUL Mr T White
Ranksborough Hall, Ranksborough
Drive, Langham

2013/0376/FUL Mrs M Goulding
Cosy Dub farm, Braunston Road,
Brooke

2013/0470/FUL Mr & Mrs Shoon
The Caravan, Newstead Lane,
Belmesthorpe










REPORT NO: 33/2015 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND LICENSING COMMITTEE 3RD FEBRUARY 2015 PLANNING APPLICATIONS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND LICENSING COMMITTEE REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR FOR PLACES (ENVIRONMENT, PLANNING AND TRANSPORT) 3Rutland County Council Development Control & Licensing Committee – 3rd February 2015 Index of Committee Items Item Application No Applicant, Location & Description Recommendation Page 1 APP/2011/0355 & APP/2011/0357 Mr A White Beech House, Ketton Road, Hambleton Erection of two storey dwellinghouse, following demolition of existing dwelling. (Revised scheme FUL/2010/0607). Approval 6 2 2013/0295/FUL Mr D Matthews Oak Tree Farm, Main Street, Barrow Removal of condition 2 of planning application 75/0089 relating to agricultural occupancy Approval 16 3 2013/0541/MAJ David Miller Homes Ltd 130 Braunston Road, Oakham Construction of 10 No. Dwellinghouses, vehicular access and associated works. Approval 24 4 2014/0459/FUL Mr P Parker 2 London Road, Uppingham Change of use from doctors surgery (Use Class D1) to dwellinghouse (Use Class C3). Approval 40 5 2014/0842/FUL Mr & Mrs D Skins 3 Kings Close, Market Overton Demolition of existing and erection of a replacement dwelling with integral garage. Approval 48 6 2014/0962/FUL Mr T White Ranksborough Hall, Ranksborough Drive, Langham Use of land as a residential caravan site Approval, subject to modification of S106 Agreement 57 47 2013/0376/FUL Mrs M Goulding Cosy Dub farm, Braunston Road, Brooke Construction of a detached two storey agricultural dwelling. Refusal 70 8 2013/0470/FUL Mr & Mrs Shoon The Caravan, Newstead Lane, Belmesthorpe Construction of log cabin to form agricultural dwelling Refusal 118 Appeals Report 208 5

Oakham Town Council Local Plan? Larkfleet Homes Ltd, Rutland County Council, Uppingham Town Council, High Court

I once asked Oakham Deputy Mayor Councillor Dewis why Oakham Town Council does not
have a local plan?

I pointed out to him Uppingham Town Council run by Ron Simpson was preparing one,
surely it was appropriate for the County Town to do the same.

He responded "Uppingham will regret it" I can't see how? they consulted their residents and
held a referendum and the plan has been very successful in the high court.

I can only think that Oakham Town Council can't be bothered to either consult their residents
or perhaps they are not capable of drawing up even the basic of plans. They can't even organise a Christmas Tree and decent lights so it is probably expecting too much of them to actually be bothered about our towns future.

Recently Larkfleet Homes Ltd owned by the nice Tory Leader of Peterborough City
Council Challenged the Uppingham plan at the High Court in London. I am sure Uppingham are
not regretting their plan.

This is the Judgment



Neutral Citation Number: [2014] EWHC 4095 (Admin)
Case No: CO/3063/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
08/12/2014
B e f o r e :

MR JUSTICE COLLINS 
____________________

Between:

THE QUEEN (on the application of LARKFLEET HOMES LIMITED)
Claimant

- and -

RUTLAND COUNTY COUNCIL

-and-

UPPINGHAM TOWN COUNCIL

____________________

Mr Charles Banner and Ms Heather Sargent (instructed by Marrons Shakespeares) for the Claimant
Mr Martin Carter (instructed by the Head of Legal Services, Peterborough City Council) for the Defendant

Hearing dates: 13th November 2014 

Crown Copyright ©

Mr Justice Collins:

The Claimant challenges the decision of the Defendant of 29 May 2014 to allow the Uppingham Neighbourhood Development Plan (UNP) to proceed to a neighbourhood planning referendum. Neighbourhood Development Plans (NDP) were introduced by the Localism Act 2011. Their purpose was to enable local communities to make a final decision on certain aspects of planning policies which directly affect them. There are a number of steps which have to be taken by planning authorities in drawing up plans setting out policies which will apply in their area. The statutory provisions are complex and as will become apparent, not always well drafted. They also involve relatively lengthy processes and inquiries which does nothing to reduce expense that has to be incurred. However, it is of obvious importance that all necessary procedures are followed and that powers are not misused.

The Claimant is a house-building company which has a commercial interest in 4.1 hectares of land situated to the north west of Uppingham. The Defendant's Core Strategy, adopted in July 2011, a Development Plan Document (DPD) within the meaning of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, provided for development in land to the west or north west of Uppingham. The location and details of future housing development was to be determined through the Site Allocations and Policies DPD (SAPDPD). The SAPDPD containing preferred options was published in October 2012. There had been inclusion of the site in which the Claimant was interested in the earlier SAPDPD proposals.

In April 2013 the Defendant published its SAPDPD proposed submission document. It was the final version which needed to be approved by an Inspector, who had to be satisfied among other things that it was sound. By then, the Localism Act 2011 had come into force so that NDPs were possible. In paragraphs 1.9 to 1.12 it is said:-

"1.9 A separate Neighbourhood Plan for Uppingham is being prepared by Uppingham Town Council. This will cover Uppingham town and parts of the surrounding area and will be subject to separate consultation, examination and referendum under the Neighbourhood Planning process.

1.10 The Uppingham Neighbourhood Plan will consider proposals for residential, employment and other land use allocations in its area and allocate sites where appropriate. Consequently no sites are allocated for development in Uppingham in this Site Allocations and Policies DPD although all other policies of the plan will apply in this Area.

1.11 Sites for residential and employment development in Uppingham that were previously identified in the Preferred Options version of this Site Allocations and Policies DPD are not carried forward in this version of the plan but will be put forward to Uppingham Town Council together with the responses to consultation that have been received for consideration through the Uppingham Neighbourhood Plan.

1.12 In the event that the Uppingham Neighbourhood Plan does not address the need to allocate residential and employment sites in its area or if the Plan fails to pass the public examination and referendum processes, a review of the Rutland Local Plan (to commence in 2014) will consider the issues and may allocate sites if required".

The initial draft of the UNP was produced in May 2013. In the foreword it states that it gave a "unique opportunity for residents and businesses to influence the development of the town over the next thirteen years". Residential development was seen to be a key aspect of the plan. It identified three sites which had been selected for residential development to the west of the town none of which included the site in which the Claimant had an interest. The Claimant through Mr Banner submitted a document described as a skeleton argument in October 2013 which asserted that the adoption of the NDP would be unlawful. Essentially it included the matters relied on in this claim. The alleged unlawfulness was not accepted and the final draft to go to a local referendum was produced in December 2013. This maintained the three sites for housing, labelling them A, B and C and providing for at least 170 homes during the period up to 2026.

Directive 2001/42/EC (the SEA Directive) applies so that consideration of the impact of policies in plans on the environment was required. The Directive has been applied domestically by the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004/1633. Regulation 5 of the Regulations (which reflects Article 3(2) and (3) of the Directive) so far as material provides that any plan which is prepared for town and country planning or land use and which includes projects which are within the relevant definition, as this does, requires during its preparation and before its adoption the carrying out of an environmental assessment (Paragraph 5(1) and (2)). Paragraph 5(6) provides:-.
"An environmental assessment need not be carried out:-

(a) for a plan of the description set out in paragraph (2)…which determines the use of a small area at local level; …unless it has been determined under Regulation 9(1) that the plan …… is likely to have significant environmental effects…."
Regulation 9 provides, so far as material:-
"(1) The responsible authority shall determine whether or not a plan…of a description referred to in….

(b) paragraph 6(a) of [Regulation 5] is likely to have significant environmental effects….
(3) Where the responsible authority determines that the plan…..is unlikely to have significant environmental effects (and, accordingly, does not require an environmental assessment), it shall prepare a statement of its reasons for the determination"

Regulation 9(2) requires that criteria set out in Schedule 1 of the Regulations must be taken into account. It is not necessary for the purposes of this case to spell them out. Schedule 2 paragraph 6 is important. It provides for assessment of:-

"The likely significant effects on the environment, including short, medium and long term effects, permanent and temporary effects, positive and negative effects….."
It then lists the issues which are material. The important requirement in the context of this claim is that there must be an assessment of both any positive and negative effects which are significant.

Three grounds are relied on by Mr Banner on behalf of the Claimant. First, it is said that the legislation on its true construction does not permit allocation of sites for particular development in NDPs. Secondly, it is said that there was a failure to apply the correct test in concluding that the UNP fell within Regulation 5(6)(a) of the 2004 Regulations in that it comprised a small area at local level. Thirdly, it is said that there was a failure to carry out the required environmental assessment process properly because of a failure to consider whether the proposals would cause any significant positive environmental effects.

The first ground requires consideration of a number of legislative provisions. Section 37 of the 2004 Act as amended by the Planning Act 2008 and the Localism Act 2011 provides so far as material:-
"(2) Local development document must be construed in accordance with Section 17…..
(3) A development plan document is a local development document which is specified as a development plan document in the local development scheme".
Section 38(3) provides that outside Greater London in England the development plan is, so far as material for the claim:-

(b) the development plan documents (taken as a whole) which have been adopted as approved in relation to that area and
(c) the neighbourhood development plans which have been made in relation to that area".
Section 38(3)(c) was added by the Localism Act 2011.

Section 17 of the 2004 Act is headed 'local development documents'. It has been amended by the Planning Act 2008. As amended and as far as material it provides:-
"17(3) The local planning authority's local development documents must (taken as a whole) set out the authority's policies (however expressed) relating to the development and use of land in their area….

(7) regulations under this section may prescribe:-
(za) which descriptions of documents are, or if prepared are, to be prepared as local development documents….

(8) A document is a local development document only in so far as it or any part of it:-

(a) is adopted by resolution of the local planning authority as a local development document;
(b) is approved by the Secretary of State under section 21 or 27".
It is not necessary to refer to the powers of the Secretary of State. Sections 19 and 20 contain details of the processes required in preparing local development documents.

Section 20 requires that any development plan document must be submitted to the Secretary of State. There will be an independent examination carried out by a person appointed by the Secretary of State who must be satisfied that it complies with the requirements of the Act and any regulations and is sound. That exercise was carried out for the SAPDPD. The inspector reported on it on 27 August 2014. He did not accept that to put site allocations into the UNP was unlawful thus rejecting Mr Banner's submissions. So far as the environmental assessment was concerned, he made the point in paragraph 40 of his report that, while there has been no assessment of the cumulative effect of the SAPDPD and the UNP taken together, the development proposal in the UNP was not additional to that already accounted for in the SAPDPD. Thus an assessment of the cumulative effect would have had little value.

Regulations made under s17(7) of the 2004 Act are to be found in the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012. Regulation 5 is material for the purposes of this claim. It provides so far as material:-

"(1) For the purposes of section 17(7)(za) of the [2004] Act the documents which are to be prepared as local development documents are –

(a) any document prepared by a local planning authority individually or in co-operation with one or more other local planning authorities, which contains statements regarding one or more of the following –

(i) the development and use of land which the local planning authority wish to encourage during any specified period;
(ii) the allocation of sites for a particular type of development or use;
(iii) any environmental, social, design and economic objectives which are relevant to the attainment of the development and use of land mentioned in paragraph (i); and
(iv) development, management and site allocation policies, which are intended to guide the determination of applications for planning permissions….

(2) For the purpose of section 17(7)(za) of the Act the documents which, if prepared, are to be prepared as local development documents are –
(a) any document which –
(i) relates only to part of the area of the local planning authority;
(ii) identifies that area as an area of significant change or special conservation; and
(iii) contains the local planning authority's policies in relation to the area; and
(b) any other document which includes a site allocation policy."
Mr Banner submits that regulation 5 makes clear, in particular in 5(2)(b), that any document which includes a site allocation policy must if prepared be prepared as an LDD. He supports this argument by the absence in 5(2) of the identification in 5(1)(a) of any "document prepared by a local planning authority". Thus he submits regulation 5(2)(b) must refer to any document which includes a site allocation policy. Mr Carter contends that regulation 5 is concerned with documents which are prepared by a local planning authority and the absence in 5(2) of the words relied on by Mr Banner makes no difference to that.

It is necessary to consider some of the amendments made to the 2004 Act by the Localism Act 2011. Section 38A defines a neighbourhood development plan to mean "a plan which sets out policies (however expressed) in relation to the development and use of land in the whole or any part of a particular neighbourhood area specified in the plan" (s.38A(2)). The NDP must be made in accordance with the proposal if more than half of those voting in the required referendum have supported it (s38A(4)). In this case, that support has been forthcoming. A Schedule 4B is inserted in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to deal with the process of making NDPs (s.38A(3)). A proposed NDP must be submitted to an independent examiner who must consider whether it meets what are described as 'the basic conditions' set out in paragraph 8(2). These include what can be regarded as standard planning considerations, but 8(2)(e) provides that the order must be "in general conformity with the strategic policies contained in the development plan for the area of the authority (or any part of that area)". It must also be appropriate to make the order having regard to national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State (paragraph 8(a)).
Section 38B of the 2004 Act deals with what provisions may be made in a NDP. Section 38B(3) and (4) provide:-

"(3) If to any extent a policy set out in a [NDP] conflicts with any other statement or information in the plan, the conflict must be resolved in favour of the policy.
(4) Regulations made by the Secretary of State may make provision –
(a) restricting the provision that may be included in [NDPs] about the use of land…."
Further, s.38B(1)(b) precludes NDPs from including provision about development which is excluded development. S.38B(6) applies s.61K of the 1990 Act to define excluded development. Section 61K(a) to (d) covers developments such as are 'county matters', waste, within Annex 1 to Council Directive 85/337/1-2-2 or a nationally significant infrastructure project. All are obviously likely to be developments of considerable significance. But s.61K(e) covers 'prescribed development or development of a prescribed description'. Also s.61J(2) of the 1990 Act prohibits a NDP from providing for the granting of planning permission for any development that is excluded development within the meaning of s.61K(s61J(3)).

The Secretary of State has made the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 (2012 No.637). These contain no prescribed restrictions on what may be included in a NDP. Mr Carter relies on this absence in support of his argument that site allocation can be contained in a NDP. Since it seems an obvious provision which is suitable for local consideration, and it must be surprising if it really was Parliament's intention that it should be excluded, he submits that if it really was to be excluded a positive restriction would have been contained in the 2012 Regulations.

The Claimant in his claim sought to rely on Paragraph 16 of the NPPF to support the argument that NDPs cannot contain housing allocation provisions. While not abandoning the argument, Mr Banner in his skeleton argument, recognising that ministerial guidance in statements could not determine the correct construction of legislative provisions, did not pursue it. No doubt he appreciated, as will become clear, that there are positive assertions both in the NPPF and the relevant policy guidance that NDPs can contain housing allocation provisions. However, I should consider NPPF paragraph 16 since I do not accept that it in any way supports Mr Banner's submissions.

Paragraph 15 of NPPF requires that policies in local plans should follow the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Paragraph 16 so far as material provides:-

"The application of the presumption will have implications for how communities engage in neighbourhood planning. Critically, it will mean that neighbourhoods should:
Develop plans that support the strategic development needs set out in local plans, including policies for housing and economic development.
Plan positively to support local development, shaping and directing development in the area that is outside the elements of the local plan……".
Paragraphs 184 and 185 provide:-

"184. Neighbourhood planning provides a powerful set of tools for local people to ensure that they get the right types of development for their community. The ambition of the neighbourhood should be aligned with the strategic needs and priorities of the wider local area. Neighbourhood plans must be in general conformity with the strategic policies of the Local plan. To facilitate this, local planning authorities should set out clearly their strategic policies for the area and ensure that an up-to-date Local Plan is in place as quickly as possible. Neighbourhood plans should reflect these policies and neighbourhoods should plan positively to support them. Neighbourhood plans and orders should not promote less development than set out in the Local Plan or undermine its strategic policies.

185. Outside these strategic elements, neighbourhood plans will be able to shape and direct sustainable development in their area. Once a neighbourhood plan has demonstrated its general conformity with the strategic policies of the Local Plan and is brought into force, the policies it contains take precedence over existing non-strategic policies in the Local Plan for that neighbourhood, where they are in conflict. Local planning authorities should avoid duplicating planning processes for non-strategic policies where a neighbourhood plan is in preparation."
The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states that neighbourhood planning enables communities to exercise direct power which can enable them "to choose where they want new homes, shops and offices to be built". Paragraph O42 answers the question "Can a neighbourhood plan allocate sites for development" by saying:-

"A neighbourhood plan can allocate sites for development. A qualifying body should carry out an appraisal of options and an assessment of individual sites against clearly identified criteria. Guidance on assessing sites and on viability can be found here."
Mr Banner's contention that the cited paragraphs in the NPPF show that housing policies are strategic in nature and so cannot be dealt with in a NDP is in my judgment clearly wrong. The requirement in paragraph 16 is for NDPs to "support the strategic development needs set out in the local plan". It does not say that housing policies are to be regarded as strategic, merely that the strategic elements in any housing policy must be applied in a NDP. Thus the reference to development being 'outside the strategic elements' simply indicates that strategy in the local plan must be applied in any NDP. Paragraphs 184 and 185 confirm that this is what is intended
The Core Strategy of July 2011 leaves location and details of future development to the SAPDPD. But it provides in policy CS4 that future housing development is to be directed to the most sustainable locations and that Uppingham would be 'a focus for more moderate growth mostly on allocated sites to the west or north west of the town". Uppingham was seen to have the capacity to accommodate about 16 dwellings per annum up to 2026. Policy CS9 provided that the figure of about 16 houses per annum should be applied with about 25% of new development to be on previously developed land. The SAPDPD initially gave specific allocations, but that was before the decision that there should be a neighbourhood plan. The UNP allocates in accordance with the strategy contained in the Core Strategy and the SAPDPD.
In the light of all this material, I must now seek to construe s.17(7)(za) and regulation 5 of the 2012 Regulations. Both counsel submitted that s.17(7(za) dealt with documents which had to be prepared and those which could be prepared as local development documents. I can see no other sensible construction. Regulation 5(1) thus deals with documents which need to be prepared as local development documents. These include in 5(a)(ii) allocation of sites for a particular type of development or use. There is an obligation to deal with strategic considerations in LDDs and this as it seems to me is what 5(a)(ii) is concerned with. It does not mean that precise sites within the scope of the required policy approach need to be identified so that local communities have no say in that. The UNP is limited in this case to the sites being to the west or north west, to a provision of about 16 per annum to 2026 and to 25% being if possible on previously developed sites.
However, it is regulation 5(2)(b) which creates, it is submitted, the problem since it is not limited to documents prepared by a local planning authority. Section 17 is concerned with local development documents and what they must contain so that even without the specific reference in regulation 5(1) the regulation is aimed at documents which are to be or may be prepared by local planning authorities. However, there is in my view no reason to construe regulation 5(2)(b) in wider terms than 5(1)(a)(ii). The language is not the same, but a 'site allocation policy' is wider than an identification of a particular site within a policy. The regulation is badly drafted, but it would be surprising, indeed contrary to what a neighbourhood plan is supposed to achieve, if allocation of precise sites were not able to be dealt with in a neighbourhood plan. Accordingly, I have no doubt that Mr Banner's submission on his first ground must be rejected.
Ground 2 relies on an alleged failure in the screening report prepared in connection with the proposed UNP of January 2014 to give consideration to whether the UNP determines the use of a small area at local level. I can dispose of this ground since in Table 1 headed "establishing the need for SEA" box 5 states:-

"Does the [plan or programme] determine the use of small areas at local level."
to which the answer given is 'Yes' because it "identifies specific uses for sites within the UNP area, including housing, retail, employment and community uses". This shows that the author did indeed consider whether the UNP determined the use of a small area at local level. Mr Banner recognised that a decision that it did was unassailable.

Ground 3 depends on considering the screening report as a whole. The Core Strategy and the SAPDPD were subject to a full SEA assessment which ensured that there were no likely significant effects which would be produced by their implementation. No attack is made on that assessment and its conclusions. What is submitted is that the screening report fails to consider any positive effects which the UNP might have on the environment and the failure renders it unlawful. If there was indeed such a failure, Mr Carter did not argue that I should exercise discretion to refuse relief because the failure could not have affected the decision that a full SEA report was not needed. He submitted that, albeit the language used is not entirely satisfactory, it was clear that regard was had to the obligation to consider whether both positive and negative effects could be regarded as significant.
In paragraph 4.4, it is said:-

"The UNP allocates sites for residential development. The sites allocated are in conformity with the Core Strategy policies as they are located to the west/north west of Uppingham (as identified in Core strategy para 2.17) and the total number of potential dwellings does not exceed the 250 figure stated in policy CS9. The sites were originally assessed through the Sustainability Appraisal/Site Appraisals for the Site Allocations and Policies DPD at the preferred options stage. The evidence base work to support the Site Allocations and Policies DPD and the site appraisals have been used to form the assessment and allocation of sites in the UNP. The site allocated to the south of Leicester Road was not a preferred option in the Site Allocations and Policies DPD, due to its location outside of the settlement limits and several physical constraints to sustainable development identified. However the site has been reassessed by the Uppingham Town Council following its inclusion within the settlement limits and found that the site scored green on Topography, Biodiversity, Cultural Heritage, Townscape, Public Open Space, Water Conservation, Contamination, Proximity to services, Access to Public Transport, Availability, Transport and Available Infrastructure. It was concluded as an appropriate site for allocation and no significant negative effects were identified as a result of its allocation. The other sites allocated for development in the UNP were found to be suitable and no significant negative effects were identified when assessed through the Site Allocations and Policies DPD preferred options Sustainability Appraisal and Site Appraisals. Following these findings it is therefore concluded that the implementation of the UNP would not result in any likely significant effects upon the environment".
The reference to 'green' indicates no negative effects. This paragraph clearly concentrates on and rules out any significant negative effects.

The conclusion was as follows in paragraph 6.1:-

"A screening assessment to determine the need for a SEA in line with regulations and guidance was identified and can be found in Chapter 4 of the report. The assessment found no negative significant effects will occur as a result of the UNP. The assessment also finds many of the policies are in conformity with the local plan policies which have a full SA/SEA which identified no significant effects will occur as a result of the implementation of policies".
I should also refer to Table 1.8 which poses the question "Is it likely to have a significant effect on the environment (Art.3.5)" to which the answer given is that there were no likely significant effects. The conclusion in 4.7 is again unhappily worded. It reads:-
"As a result of the assessment in Table 1, it is unlikely there will be any significant environmental effects arising from the UNP. The UNP is in conformity with the Core Strategy (2011) and the proposed SAPDPD which have both had a full sustainability appraisal, incorporating a SEA, finding no negative significant effects. The assessment of the UNP policies identified no significant negative effects and as such the UNP does not require a full SEA to be undertaken".
Mr Carter submits that it would be remarkable if the author of the report was unaware of the need to consider both positive and negative effects, particularly as he was aware of the previous reports on the Core Strategy and SAPDPD. In paragraph 1.4 of his report, having referred in 1.1 to the relevant directions, he says:-
"The legislative background set out in the following section outlines the regulations that require the need for this screening exercise. Section 4 provides a screening assessment of both the likely significant environmental effects of the UNP and a need for a full SEA".
This, submits Mr Carter, shows that he was aware of what needed to be considered in the assessment.

It is, I think, not surprising that possible 'significant' negative effects should have been at the forefront of the author's mind, particularly as he was aware of the previous reports and their findings. As I have said, it is unfortunate that he has given the opportunity in the way he has expressed himself to the contention that he failed to consider whether there were any positive significant effects. But I am not persuaded that on an overall reading and knowledge of the author's clear recognition of what the legislation required of him and his familiarity with the previous reports on the Core Strategy and the SAPDPD he did not, however badly he expressed himself, fail to consider positive when he concluded that there were no significant effects.
Accordingly, I dismiss the claim.

Oakham Cemetery, Oakham Town Council Agree to take over it's management from, Rutland County Council, April 2016

Oakham Cemetery, Oakham Town Council Agree to take over it's management from, Rutland County Council, April 2016 

Highways Operations Manager, Vacancy, Rutland County Council, Has Mr Brown been given the Briggs Boot?

http://jobs.localgov.co.uk/job/110187/highways-operations-manager/?TrackID=117

Highways Operations Manager, Vacancy, Rutland County Council,


Mr Brown who could make any woman cry has been doing this job for many
years.

Has Mr Brown been given the Briggs Boot?

Engel's England, Matthew Engel, Thirty-Nine, Counties, One Capital, One Man, Guide, Rutland County Council

Engel's England, Matthew Engel, Thirty-Nine, Counties, One Capital, One Man

A new guide book has been published, written by Matthew
Engel. A journalist who has written for the Guardian for the
long period of 25 years. Now he is a columnist (not communist!
as I first read out to a friend.) for the Financial Times.

I was told I might be interested in the book and given a
brief summary, so I took the plunge and purchased a copy.

I am pleased I did, apart from the obvious chapter the other
parts I have read are also interesting, Humour and History would
sum up the content.

The book is shelved in the History section in our local
book store Walkers on the High Street. I can see why
because it is full of little snippets of interesting history.

As for Rutland, Chapter Nine refers to our dreadful
Tory Council, A local blogger who I believe is me!
Some familiar names and places. Including a building
that resembles a person who is brain dead and that
is not the council office.

Like the county of Rutland the Chapter and Matthews visit
to Rutland appears small. I wonder if he made the mistake
of visiting the council first? I know if I were to stumble
across the council again for the first I would run a mile.

The above section explains the original reason for the
Rutland Anti Corruption Group which became UKIP.

The late councillor Brian Montgomery explained
'We're saying the system is corrupt'

Brian Montgomery was the founder of Rutland Independence
and I am sure he was truly proud of Rutland and what he had
achieved. I don't disbelieve him and believe his reason is
still valid today. The Tory Council led by Roger Begy
Terry King and Helen Briggs who have bullied and bulldozed
the council into a very poor standing throughout our community.

Matthew Engel was baffled the way the council press officer
veered  - after his visit - from extreme helpfulness to a blanket
failure to reply to messages, One could only conclude he
was acting under orders.

Correct, he was once speaking to me and the Chief Executive
Helen Briggs called him away and he never spoke to me
again, He resigned from the council around the time this
book was published.

Roger Begy, who is often referred to as a thick pile, he is far
from that. Intelligent and devious is how I would describe him.
I can only imagine he was told, there is a man travelling around
the country writing a book, go and humour him, they may have
even described him in the same way I am referred to by Roger
and his team, 'Idiot' Then after a few pints Roger realised
he was in the company of an intelligent man. Possible deduced
he was a journalist. He would have been on his guard due to the
BBC Inside Out production made about corruption in Rutland
which was being filmed at the time.

The book says the court case was thrown out, It would be
correct to say it was not. I was found correctly not guilty.

I am for ever great-full to my advocate David Swingler
and the non corrupted Leicestershire Police and Staff
who gave truthful evidence against the police and council
staff and Councillors.

If they had not I could have been sent to prison.

I still ask what does our councils have to hide? I don't
believe I have ever asked anything particularly big
but they are determined to shut me up. Or is just
because they are purely really rotten nasty people?