Showing posts with label Special Meeting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Special Meeting. Show all posts

Friday, September 03, 2021

Rutland County Council Local Plan Special Meeting Held at the Agriculture Society Rutland Showground Video

Rutland County Council Local Plan Special Meeting Held at the Agriculture Society Rutland Showground Video

Three Parts 


 


Rutland County Council Special Meeting Local Plan Decision Part 1



Rutland County Council Special Meeting Local Plan Decision Part 2



Rutland County Council Special Meeting Local Plan Decision Part 3












Wednesday, September 01, 2021

Rutland County Council Conservatives Defeated By Liberal Democrats, Local Plan Will Be Withdrawn and a New Plan to be Created but at what cost?

Rutland County Council Conservatives Defeated By Liberal Democrats, Local Plan Will Be Withdrawn and a New Plan to be Created but at what cost?

Councillors listened to petitions, deputations and questions.  

There was a proposal to adjourn for a toilet break, this was not supported, leaving most of the public bemused, with comments being whispered, if they can't agree on that what hope to we have for the rest of the evening. At this point one Cllr jumped out of his seat and slumped against the glass clearly suffering from discomfort possibly a dodgy curry before the meeting. Fortunately he did not have to wait much longer before the loo break was permitted.

The infighting among the Conservative group was very obvious this evening, disagreements over increased prices of garden sheds. 

The Libdems and at least on Tory suggested if the council supported the Conservatives proposal it would bankrupt the council rather like Northamptonshire.

Personally I think the council is heading that way the figure of a £2 million deficit was mentioned this evening.

So I was surprised the Libdems proposed to scrap the current plan knowing millions had already been spent on it and now they were proposing a further £1.4 million be spent on a new one. I wonder why the existing plan could not be revised.

Whichever option was agreed St Georges Barracks will be developed.

At the end of the meeting the Leader of the council certainly looked defeated, I wonder if this defeat will see a change of leadership. It was one of the biggest Tory defeats I have ever witnessed at Rutland County Council.

I am not sure this was a good day for the future of Rutland. There is a long period of uncertainty ahead. As the new plan is created. There will be an election in 2023 that should be an interesting one. with the possibility of increased council tax bills to pay for the new plan, I am not sure the next few year are going to get any better for Rutland.

It was good to see a Cllr wearing a Rainbow LGBTQ+ tie to show his support against discrimination. I was expecting a Cllr to take the knee during prayers that did not happen. Although it is unlawful for councils to pray in council meetings, Rutland County Council decided it would be fine to says prayers just before the meeting starts. Personally I think they should set aside a prayer room and not inflict that upon those who think it is pointless or even hypocritical. 

A video of the full meeting will be publish tomorrow. 

The Council agreed:

That Council:

1. Withdraw the submitted Local Plan (submitted to Government in February 2021) under

Regulation 22 of the Local Plans Regulations from the process of Examination in

Public following the decision made by Council on 22nd March 2021 not to accept the

offer of £29.4m Housing Investment Fund (HIF) grant funding which has impacted the

viability and deliverability of the proposed St. George’s Garden Village scheme and,

therefore, the wider development strategy affecting the soundness of the Local Plan.


2. Approves the creation of an earmarked reserve of £1,395,000 to resource the making

of a new Local Plan for the County and operating without a plan (as detailed in Section

5) and that authority be delegated to the Strategic Director of Places and the Section

151 Officer in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Planning and the Portfolio

Holder for Finance, Governance and Performance, Change and Transformation to

release funds from the earmarked reserve as required.


3. Approves that Council receives a quarterly statement of the Budget position in light of

the cost uncertainty so that it can track whether the earmarked reserve is sufficient or

can be released accordingly.


4. Approves the need to positively prepare and submit a new Local Plan informed by an

updated evidence base for the benefit of the County of Rutland, its residents and

businesses that will:

i. Deliver the corporate plan vision and themes for the County;

ii. Provide for sustainable growth to meet its objectively assessed housing and

employment needs, utilising and promoting sustainable transport wherever

possible, which will combine to contribute towards achieving the Government’s net

zero carbon emissions 2050 target;

iii. Protect and enhance the County’s heritage, character and natural capital (including

air quality, water resource management and biodiversity); and

iv. Ensure the timely delivery of all necessary infrastructure.


5. Approves the development of robust and effective strategic partnerships to support

plan-making through the duty to cooperate and required for a viable, deliverable and

sound plan.


6. Approves the establishment of a cross-party group to provide oversight of the process

of making a new Local Plan and delegates authority to the Strategic Director of Places

in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Planning to establish a governance

structure in line with the Corporate Project Management governance framework. 

Tuesday, August 06, 2013

Rutland County Council, Special Meeting, 29th July, Minutes, UKIP, Legal Action

Rutland County Council
Catmose Oakham Rutland LE15 6HP

Telephone 01572 722577 Facsimile 01572 758307 DX 28340 Oakham
Minutes of the TWO HUNDRED AND TWENTY SIXTH (Special) MEETING of the
COUNCIL held in the Council Chamber, Catmose, Oakham on Monday 29 July 2013 at
7.00 pm.

PRESENT: Mr M E Baines (Vice-Chairman) – in the Chair

Mr R B Begy OBE
Mr J M Lammie
Mr K A Bool
Mr J R Munton
Mrs C J Cartwright
Mr C A Parsons
Mr G J Conde
Mr G Plews
Mr W Cross
Mr M D A Pocock
Mr J T Dale
Mr D L Richardson
Mrs C Emmett
Miss G Waller
Mr R J Gale
Mr A S Walters
Mr D C Hollis
Mr M R Woodcock
Mr T C King

OFFICERS

Ms C Chambers Deputy Chief Executive and Strategic Director for
People

PRESENT: Mrs H Edwards Interim Monitoring Officer

Miss M Gamston Democratic Services Officer

Mr C Jones Strategic Communications Advisor

APOLOGIES:

Mrs J K Figgis,
Mr B A Montgomery,
Mr M A Oxley,
Mrs L I Stephenson,
Mrs C L Vernon,
Mr N M Wainwright.

219 CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS

The Chairman reminded all present that this was a meeting open to the public
not a public meeting and that only Members to speak.

220 ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM THE LEADER, MEMBERS OF THE CABINET
AND THE HEAD OF THE PAID SERVICE

No announcements were received from the Leader, Members of the Cabinet or
the Head of the Paid Service.

221 DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS
Mr Gale and Mr Richardson declared that they had “a personal and prejudicial
interest”, as they were mentioned in the report.

Mr Gale and Mr Richardson informed the Chair that they would not remain for
the rest of the meeting.

7.02 pm Mr Gale and Mr Richardson left the meeting.

DEPUTATIONS AND QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC
Thee following deputation
and questions from members of the public were received.
Questions received from Ms Helen Pender, Oakham

Due to political interference by Leicestershire Police I can not publish the deputations,
questions or most of the minutes because they mention a employee of the council, 
even though this is a published public document. 

DS McDonald accuses me in his statement of effecting their political standing nationally and within the Conservative party?

(I am sure there is a law that prevents paid council staff being political involved, rather like the one that is meant to apply to our fine police force.)

For the full minutes of the meeting please click here 

Sunday, July 28, 2013

Rutland County Councillor Alan Walters voted for legal action, spoke against fellow independent councillors (UKIP) may have changed his mind, Special Meeting

Councillor Alan Walters who previously voted that the council take legal action and spoke against fellow independent councillors as they were at the time, he also supported the Tory mob by voting to set aside
£90,000 for this action.

It now looks as if he is about to change his mind at Monday's Special meeting at Rutland County Council.

This is shown on his new blog post.

The council report says the UKIP Councillors conduct has not changed since the last special meeting.

Is Mr Walters watching his back after the electorate objected to the large sum of money he approved
to be spent on legal action against the three councillors.

So why is he now saying "I will be listening closely to the debate as it unfolds, and looking for any evidence which would support the call for legal action and thereby  justify the potential risk to tax-payers money of pursuing such action. At the moment, I am not convinced, but will listen."

Cllr Walters constantly changes his mind and has often supported the Tory majority.
He claims to be a closet Labour Party Supporter. I see the problem for Alan is he is
Oakham School educated and all his old chums are Tory.

He has also published a point that is incorrect.

The public do not have to submit their questions/deputations for approval.

He is correct to say a request to speak or ask question must be put to the council before
the meeting.

The deadline passed last Thursday for this Monday's meeting.

There are some types of meetings when you can give short notice.

Rutland County Council democratic services used to fool  people in the past by asking them to submit questions and deputations and they were edited to suit the council.

This was stopped after the last special meeting, when Geoff Pook agreed they could not edit the
deputation I gave. This Monday I can not attend due to  police interference and will wait outside for the outcome of the meeting.

Mr Walters speaks of debate? is it really a debate when an independent councillor can only speak once and then respond once to the answer if it was a question?

At the last meeting the Tories and Alan Walters used the time for debate to attack the UKIP Councillors
and Tory Baines even publicly pointed the finger of corruption firmly in the direction of Cllr Gale.

And we must not forget the private meeting recently held by the Tories to discuss their proposed outcome
when a few trusted independents were invited to attend, I am not sure if Leicestershire Police were invited
to join that meeting.

I am not sure if Bevan Brittan are still advising the Council on this matter.

The last financial year 2012- 2013 Bevan Brittan received payments totalling £26,000
from Rutland County Council



Special Council Meeting

Alan Walters

Posted on July 28, 2013 by onecouncillor

Local readers will probably be aware that a group of 3 councillors recently decided to join UKIP.

A Special Council Meeting has been called for this Monday the 29th July 2013, at which reports will recommend bringing (further) legal action against this group of councillors, who previously called themselves the Anti-Corruption Group.

Residents are welcome to attend the meeting, to be held in the Council Chamber at 7pm, to listen to the debate and witness the vote.  However the public cannot now speak at the meeting unless they have previously submitted questions/deputations and had them approved.

I will be listening closely to the debate as it unfolds, and looking for any evidence which would support the call for legal action and thereby  justify the potential risk to tax-payers money of pursuing such action. At the moment, I am not convinced, but will listen.

Readers are strongly urged to attend this meeting if they are able to do so.

Date: 29 July 2013
Time: 19:00

Special Meeting of the Council

Thursday, February 28, 2013

Rutland County Council, Special Meeting, Rutland Anti Corruption, Bevan Brittan, Paid £711 to attend

Many people found it unacceptable that Bevan Brittan Solicitors were paid by Rutland County Council the grand sum of £8,000 or a bad report.

Their wonderful solicitor was permitted a seat at the council table at the special meeting "kangaroo court"

For this wonderful service Bevan Brittan Charged a further £711

17-Dec-12 2163040 1375966 £711 Bevan Brittan 505961 Monitoring Officer Services - Fees and Charges Professional Services R4401 Supplies & Services

Saturday, January 19, 2013

Rutland County Council, Special Meeting, Public Deputation, Rutland Anti Corruption, Bevan Brittan,


Rutland County Council
Catmose Oakham Rutland LE15 6HP

Telephone 01572 722577 Facsimile 01572 758307 DX 28340 Oakham

TWO HUNDRED AND SIXTEENTH (Special) MEETING of the COUNCIL held in the Council Chamber, Catmose, Oakham on Thursday 10 January 2013 at 7.00pm.


DEPUTATION FROM A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC

In accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 24, the following deputation  from a member of the public were received.

Deputation received from Miss Helen Pender, Oakham

I should like to congratulate Bevan Brittan and officers of this council on this
report. Its speedy compilation was miraculously swift. The report was
authorised at a meeting on 12th November 2012. Appendix A is dated 16
November. Was it really delivered within four days?

Never in the field of legal conflict has so much been achieved by a legal firm in
so short a time.

So when were Cllrs Gale, Richardson and Wainwright shown this report? This
Council has, after all, had a copy of Appendix A since 16th November.
I am told they first saw a copy when the agenda and report were published
online at the end of last week. Incredible.

Unbelievable that three Councillors justified questions and concerns are being
brushed aside and deemed to be harassment.

One successful suicide and, it is rumoured, at least one attempted suicide by
members of staff should alert members of this Council to seriously examine their
personnel policies.

On 15th November Cllr Richardson wrote a private email to Kim Sawyer in
Peterborough. This has been published in full in Bevan Brittan report. Yet again
Cllr Richardson did not publish it himself. It reads:

3. “We are informed by the relatives that the meeting which resulted in the
suspension of Mr Mehra was only with the Chief Executive.” Mr Richardson
goes on:
“Surely for a suspension there has to be independent witnesses…”
It would appear that the person who ordered Bevan Brittan to compile this report
also has some difficulty with the definition of INDEPENDENT.

An online dictionary says: “Free from outside control … impartial.”
Is it impartial to get only one side of the story? Bevan Brittan have said that they
are not paid to talk to supporters of these three Councillors, nor had they spoken
to Cllrs Gale, Richardson and Wainwright.

So surely they cannot be said to be independent or impartial? Are Bevan Brittan
eminent QC’s. Why were Bevan Brittan chosen?

We are told in the report that criticism of this Council by a local blogger had been
difficult to tolerate. Bevan Brittan had already been consulted over that.

A citizen journalist has been subjected to false arrest, women’s clothing
delivered to his home, life threatening phone calls funeral literature posted to
him, libellous, untrue and malicious leaflets circulated about him at the Local
Elections. I have been hacked, Cllrs Richardson, Gale and Wainwright have
been hacked. Again and again the police have done nothing.

Yet Bevan Brittan have not ascertained why Cllrs Wainwright, Gale and
Richardson are so wary of this County’s internet system.

This Council refused to be held properly accountable. This Council does not
intend to tolerate questions from these three democratically elected Councillors.
This Council has become so irritated by a brave group of three Councillors they
have gone to a couple of provincial solicitors and have not asked those solicitors
to even talk to Cllrs Richardson, Gale and Wainwright.

Lawyers love legal disputes, they’re always glad of the money and he, or she,
who pays the piper call the tune. And we discover, by Bevan Brittan’s own
admission, that RCC has paid this piper before.

It would appear that Bevan Brittan have only been allowed to talk to officers of
this Council, who by their admission in the report, are finding it difficult to tolerate
questions being put by these courageous Councillors.

It is the duty of those in opposition, in any democracy, to ask questions. That
may be a shock to some members of this Council in the goldfish bowl of Rutland.
But democracy can only be said to work by holding those in power to account.
I won’t remind this meeting, since I blogged it some time ago, of the fight for Cllr
Richardson’s seat that continued in this room long after the ballot boxes closed.
Councillors Wainwright, Gale and Richardson are justifiably concerned about the
death of a senior officer of this Council. Yet questions refuse to be properly
answered. Why? When questions are not transparently answered and efforts
are made to duck them then surely we are all justified in asking: “What have you
got to hide?”

Smother these Councillors; bar them from asking question and Rutland will join
Syria and Egypt as examples of an anarchical tyranny. Bevan Brittan have not
been allowed to be impartial. They only have one side of this argument, but I
would bet that a bus load of lawyers will be delighted by the fees if this goes to
Court and we shall all be democratically and financially poorer if this out of
control autocracy continues.

---oOo---