Partners working together to build a better Rutland
Partners are asked to note discussions held at the LSP Infrastructure meeting in October,
particularly item 5.
Minutes from the LSP Infrastructure Group
Thursday 13
thOctober 2011, 8am at Barnsdale Lodge
1. Introduction and apologies for Absence
1.1 Those present were:
Terry King
Chair
TK
David Austin
Linecross
DA
Cllr Roger Begy
Chair of the LSP Executive
RB
Gary Bell
Job Centre Plus
GB
Victoria Brambini
Head of Asset Management, Rutland County Council (RCC)
VB
Sarah Bysouth
Head of Lifelong Learning, (RCC)
SB
Lindsey Henshaw-Dann
Voluntary Action Rutland
LHD
Robert Hinch
Vice Chair of the Tourism Committee
RH
Libby Kingsley
Economic Development Manager, RCC
LK
Peter Jones
Culture & Leisure group chair/ Oakham Town Partnership
PJ
Jonathan Munton
C S Ellis
JM
Sharon Paul
Textbook Teachers
SP
Adrian Salt
G B Welding
AS
Ron Simpson
Uppingham First
RS
Carl Smith
Rutland County College
CS
Kent Stuehmer
Hanson Cement
KS
David Troy
Team Manager Planning Policy
DT
John Williams
Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE)
JW
Katy Lynch
Partnership Support
KLy
1.2 Apologies for absence were received from Paul Bywater (Hawkesmead), Nick Goodman
(Change Agents UK), Gillian Doughty (RPC) and Ed Burrows (Tourism Committee).
1.3 KS announced that Richard Shaw will be taking over from KS as operations manager at
Hanson Cement, TK thanked KS for his involvement within this group.
2. Minutes of the meeting held August 2011
Action
2.1
The minutes were agreed as a true record.
3. Matters Arising
3.1
The “employment opportunities for young people” footage was filmed last week at 3
commercial locations; there was a good response from businesses and plenty of
enthusiasm from young people involved in the filming. CS confirmed that it wouldn’t
be a problem for a second round of filming to take place, LK to follow up. TK
recommended using John Shone (Landscaper) who does dry walling etc.
LK
3.2
RAF Cottesmore will be occupied by the Army; this will be phased as troops return
from Afghanistan and Germany, exact timescales are not known. RCC is continuing
to explore the potential impact of having an additional army base.
3.3
Ashwell Prison continues to be work in progress; RCC is keen to ensure that this
does not go to a housing developer that may potentially sit on the land, TK hopes to
provide a further update within the next couple of months.
TK
4. Site allocations and policies document (seeking collective view from partners) &
Consultation on National Planning Framework
4.1
The key issue within the site allocations and policies document of interest to this
Paper B
group is employment land, specifically to see whether additional employment
areas are required, views from this group based on the documents circulated in
advance of the meeting were invited.
4.2
Loss of employment sites for housing is an issue (e.g. the Wood Yard at North
Luffenham is a good example); such instances reduce employment
opportunities in rural settings meaning that residents may have to travel further
for work; this is particularly a problem for those in lower paid jobs where travel is
less affordable.
4.3
There is a policy in the core strategy that protects employment sites.
4.3
CPRE have raised a number of concerns around the National Planning
Framework; DT noted that Rutland is in a stronger position to resist pressures
than in other areas because RCC has only recently adopted its current core
strategy. JW noted that CPRE are concerned about potential loop holes that
developers will take advantage of.
4.4
DA sought clarification on whether there are more businesses in Oakham than
there are people requiring jobs, and whether this was a mismatch and if this
needs to be addressed. For example, do we need to deliberately plan to create
businesses in other areas across the county outside of Oakham? It was noted
that there are some cold spots such as Cottesmore; there may be non-military
employment site opportunities for land to come forward on the vacant base in
Cottesmore as it is expected that not all of the land will be taken up by the army.
4.5
RCC relies on the sites already put forward for development and views are now
being sought on these. The focus of the strategy is on the 2 towns and larger
villages; Uppingham Gate is the main site being put forward in Uppingham. TK
noted that housing sites in Uppingham are oversubscribed; it is unclear whether
it’s possible to have a second phase to consider rejected housing sites as
potential commercial sites at a later stage? DT to see whether this would be an
option.
DT
4.6
JM suggested that employment near to housing developments in Rutland is
good in theory but often businesses have to look out of county for their
workforce as those living in the county are going elsewhere for higher paid jobs.
It is expected that there will be more affordable homes built through developer
contributions which should counteract these concerns.
4.7
It was suggested that more use could be made of the A1 corridor, this is an
ideal location for distribution and re-work companies as it would avoid lorries
from travelling on the rural roads, however this is not so ideal for organisations
with a high number of employees due to the lack of proximity to large
settlements.
4.8
Businesses are urged to feedback to the planning policy team by 30 November,
business comments tend to be under represented in the consultation.
All businesses
4.9
TK has attended a number of events regarding the National Planning
Framework, hosted by planning Minister Bob Neil. There is recognition that the
policy as it stands needs modification. However, the Rutland Plan needs to
mirror the National Planning Framework and the Neighbourhood Plan must
mirror the Rutland Plan. Furthermore it is possible that some local decisions
may be over written, e.g. the National Infrastructure Commission may deal with
applications depending on the scale.
5. LSP Bid Update
5.1
KL summarised the following allocations made by the LSP Executive for this theme
group to manage:
• £5 000 capital approved for Electric Car Charging Points in public places
• £10 000 capital approved for Uppingham Town toilet improvements
• £10 000 capital approved for signage and empty shop facades
•
£25 000 revenue for events across the county, to be managed by both the
culture and leisure theme group and this group
5.2
PJ outlined the views of culture and leisure partners regarding county wide events:
• Spread events over a couple of years
•
Events that regenerate income
•
Split equally between Uppingham and Oakham
5.3
TK made a proposal as to how the £25 000 could be split, partners were asked to
give their views on the following:
•
Reserve £5 000 for Olympic Event
•
£8 000 for events in Uppingham
•
£12 000 for events in Oakham
It was suggested that the two town partnerships work up the detail of events taking
place within their towns.
5.4
Car boot sales in Oakham have been very successful, these will continue to take
place in order to bring in Sunday visitor’s to the town, it is hoped that this will over
time encourage shops to open. It is sceptical whether something similar will work in
Uppingham due to the high number of local traders who may not have the resource
to open 7 days a week.
5.5
The allocation proposal outlined in 5.3 was supported. The two town partnerships are
to develop a business plan and regular reporting from each Town Partnership will be
required at both infrastructure and culture and leisure meetings.
5.6
Sally Killips (Transport Strategy Manager) will be attending the meeting in December
to update partners on the Sustainable Transport Bid, feedback from the minister on
the original bid was positive however further work to demonstrate a return on
investment is required.
5.7
RS has reservations about the Uppingham allocation being distributed to the
Uppingham Town Partnership as there is more than one town partnership operating
in Uppingham.
5.8
DA questioned the evaluation and monitoring process, i.e. what will success look
like? Examples of measures could include:
•
The event brought people into the town
• No loss of money (e.g. breaks even or makes a profit)
• The event realises a benefit for the community
• Carried out in partnership
• Economically self supporting
5.9
PJ to feedback the outcome of this proposal to the culture and leisure theme group.
PJ
5.10 The electric car charging project is progressing well:
•
RS and a number of other leads have met with leading companies, and
pricing has been sought.
• Hawkesmead is willing to match fund the LSPs contribution of £5000 to
establish a number of charging points on public land.
• The next stage is to approach establishments across the county to seek
potential charging locations, it is anticipated that there will be charging points
at a number of locations across the county on both public and private land.
•
RS is currently looking into the plugged in places scheme to see what
potential benefits there are if Rutland was to be part of this. The scheme
offers match-funding to consortia of businesses and public sector partners to
support the installation of electric vehicle recharging infrastructure in lead
places across the UK.
•
The technical solution for Rutland is still to be decided although it is clear that
any infrastructure should be modular in order to meet future standards of
electric cars.
•
RS to look into whether charging points can also accommodate electric bikes.
• The pricing policy is yet to be confirmed, it is possible that hosts will benefit
from the profit made at each charging point.
• Electric car charging points will be free for users until March 2013.
•
It was noted that it would be beneficial to have some signage to publicise the
charging points. TK confirmed that discussions regarding brown signs
guidance has started; TK to speak with Dave Brown (Head of Operations at
RCC)
RS
TK
5.11 RS noted that there have been some questions raised over the current location of
the Uppingham toilets and whether there is a better site for the toilets before
renovation work starts. VB to be advised of any discussions regarding this as RCC
will need to be made aware of changes to the original proposals.
5.12 Oakham Town Partnership to produce a detailed plan for signage in Oakham;
Oakham Town Partnership will be expected to report back to this group before
money is released.
6. Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) & Business Rates (NNDR) update
6.1
Alconbry will become an Enterprise Zone, this falls within the Greater Cambridge,
Greater Peterborough LEP; this is being used as a consultation device.
6.2
The LEP board meeting was being held in Rutland for the first time today (13
thOctober) at Hanson Cement.
6.3
There is a question mark over where LEPs sit in relation to the National Planning
Framework.
6.4
TK explained the proposed national changes to Local Authority funding and the role
that business rates will play within this:
• The government plans to freeze the level of funding from 2012/13 with this
position not being reviewed for 10 years
• Business rates will be a new source of income and is expected to drive local
area funding.
•
This will mean that if areas increase business rate income the county will get
to keep more money, if rates drop then the county would lose money,
therefore there is an incentive to grow the local economy.
• The theory is that this will encourage communities to accept business growth
more easily.
• Council tax will continue to bring in 75% of RCC’s income; this is a much
bigger proportion than in other areas.
•
RB is working nationally to try and get the current funding proposal tweaked
so that rural areas are not at such a disadvantage.
7. Digital Rutland
7.1
LK to invite Rob Rowan, the Digital Rutland project manager to the next
Infrastructure meeting to introduce himself.
LK
7.2
Rutland is being given £710,000 to help introduce high speed broadband across the
county by 2013. Rutland has been announced as a pilot project.
7.3
Rutland is now in a competitive dialogue process.
7.4
Residents and businesses are being invited to complete a survey on broadband
speeds etc.
7.5
Rutland plans to be in a position to secure a provider by November this year, the aim
is to roll out the project in early 2012.
7.6
It has been recognised that some residents are not engaged with their ISP provider
and as a result people are missing out on the potential opportunity to upgrade their
internet speeds free of charge. However, more remote locations in Rutland e.g.
Ashwell have very poor speeds that cannot currently be improved on, therefore the
project will look to focus on rural areas.
7.7
RS declared an interest in this agenda item.
7.8
An open market consultation is going out to all known suppliers.
8. Oakham West End Update
8.1
Oakham Town Partnership will be discussing improvements to Oakham High St. at
the west end of the town.
8.2
The Highways department at RCC still anticipate a programme of work to be rolled
out in 2013 through Section 106 money.
9. a) Enterprise Clubs b) Think Local
9.1
Maxine Aldred was not in attendance to cover this agenda item; it was agreed to
transfer this item to December’s meeting.
KL
10.1 The vacant Tourism Manager post at RCC is yet to be filled; this role is currently
being reviewed to bring it in line with economic development. There was concern that
bringing in other aspects to this role may give less focus on tourism and may
become more inward looking. VB clarified that bringing tourism in line with economic
development would bring more robustness to the team, the national focus will not
disappear and Rutland will continue to be publicised via events and shows etc. It is
expected that this post will be advertised at the same time as the additional vacant
Tourism & Market Towns post. It was confirmed that RCC will have at least 2.5 posts
dedicated to this area of work.
11. Date of Next Meeting
1.1
Thursday 8
thDecember, 8am at Greetham Valley Golf Club – RH was thanked for
kindly providing this venue.
