Partners working together to build a better Rutland
LSP Infrastructure Group
Thursday 8th December 2011, 8am at Greetham Valley
1. Introduction and apologies for Absence
1.1 Those present were:
Terry King
Chair
Maxine Aldred
Federation of Small Businesses (FSB)
David Austin
Linecross
Gary Bell
Job Centre Plus
Sarah Bysouth
Head of Lifelong Learning, Rutland County Council (RCC)
Paul Bywater
Hawkesmead
Gillian Doughty
RPC
Lindsey Henshaw-Dann Voluntary Action Rutland
Robert Hinch
Vice Chair of the Tourism Committee
Jonathan Munton
C S Ellis
Adrian Salt
G B Welding
David Troy
Team Manager Planning Policy
John Williams
Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE)
Katy Lynch
Partnership Support
Brett Culpin
Guest – RCC Planning Policy
Sally Killips
Guest – RCC Transport Strategy
TK
MA
DA
GB
SB
PB
GD
LHD
RH
JM
AS
DT
JW
KLy
BC
SK
1.2 Apologies for absence were received from Sharon Paul (Textbook Teachers), Nick Goodman
(Change Agents UK), Gillian Doughty (RPC), Richard Shaw (Hanson Cement), John Hayward
(Skills Funding Agency), Victoria Brambini (RCC) and Ron Simpson (Uppingham First).
=
2. Minutes of the meeting held October 2011
Action
2.1
The minutes were agreed as a true record.
3. Matters Arising
3.1
Item 4.5 from the previous minutes – BC confirmed that housing sites initially put
forward but rejected through the site allocations consultation could be considered for
employment sites.
4. Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and the need for a Community Infrastructure Plan
Covering the County
4.1
The government has made provisions for local planning authorities to draw up a
Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), in effect a local tax on new development.
CIL will then fund much of the need for infrastructure generated by housing and
employment growth rather than Section 106 Agreements between the developer
and the local authority as is currently the case. The government will be scaling
back S106 by March 2014 so Rutland County Council is looking to have a CIL in
place before then (by Spring 2013).
4.2
CIL is proposed to be a simpler and less time consuming approach to Section
106 as there will be no need for individual legal agreements when processing
planning applications.
4.3
RCC needs to be clear about what infrastructure is required in the future; CIL
will be the funding mechanism to fill any gaps. BC is co-ordinating input from
across the County Council and also speaking to a range of stakeholders
including utility companies and government quangos to find out the
infrastructure development needs for the future. BC is encouraging a
comprehensive approach to the consideration of all potential items of
4.4
4.5
infrastructure to be prioritised to 2026 and beyond.
RCC is aiming to produce a draft infrastructure schedule and its preliminary CIL
charges by Spring 2012; this will then go out for consultation. Following
consultation there will be a re-draft which will be subject to further consultation
later next year. This will then be brought into force by Spring 2013.
BC invited questions from partners:
DA – will CIL affect only wholly new developments or will it also affect existing
commercial sites that are looking to extend or renovate? BC suggested that the
Council would have to be satisfied that the proposed category of development
met a test of viability to establish that CIL could be applied. If it was proved
possible to apply CIL this would affect existing sites only where there is a
significant net increase (e.g. taking account of any demolitions) in gross internal
floor space (over 100 sq mtrs).
MA – Will some developers get away without providing anything for the
community? BC stated that developers would not have to contribute CIL for
those types of development where there is no margin on viability. RCC will not
impose CIL as RCC won’t want to stifle development. However there will also
be scope for exceptions to categories of development where there is a case for
it (eg development land is contaminated). Overall it will be a balancing act to
ensure that a fair contribution is provided.
DA – Will the money raised through CIL be ring fenced? Not necessarily
although RCC will be the charging and imposing authority, RCC will monitor and
review CIL payments and how the funding raised is used and this will all be
transparent.
RH – Where will a hotel fit into the new framework? The viability test will be
applied to assess if this category of development can afford to pay CIL evidence from elsewhere suggest that this will vary across local authorities.
BC noted a key difference between CIL and S106. If RCC, for example, does
not spend all of the S106 money ‘ring fenced’ for a specific project eg a
community hall associated with a specific planning application any unspent
money can be ‘clawed back’ to the developer, whereas with CIL, the
infrastructure schedule will determine the spending and therefore the levy is not
tied to a specific initiative thus there is no ‘claw back’ involved.
4.6
The consultation process for this new levy and schedule will form part of the
LDF process, therefore it will be formally publicised through existing databases
held by planning policy.
4.7
MA suggested that clear and simple guidelines regarding this would be helpful
as this is not a straightforward topic. BC agreed to provide a report that outlines
the detail in simple terms; this is to be made available to the wider community.
BC to send to KL to consider for wider circulation.
4.8
JM asked for an example of a margin? CIL will allow for a sufficient developer
profit margin on the development to incentivize development. It will also factor in
an uplift on land value to incentive the landowner to release the land (ie sell it)
to enable the developer to deliver the project.
4.9
PB asked what the benefits of doing joint consultation with Leicestershire is over
Peterborough (LEP links). BC stated that the consultation with Leicestershire is
simply to share resources, gain some capacity to be able to develop the work
and benefit from economies of scale on the consultancy costs; however the
Rutland CIL will be different to other charging authorities in Leicestershire.
4.10
RCC will continuously be open to re-prioritisation of its infrastructure list
BC
KL
2
depending on need etc. It was recognised that this will expose a competitive
environment with other areas; RCC will need to be careful not to miss out
through the process.
4.11
BC to return to a future meeting to provide a further update on this.
BC
5. Sustainable Transport Bid
5.1
SK was present to update partners on the progress made with the revised
Sustainable Transport Bid.
5.2
Part of the feedback from the Department for Transport (DfT) regarding Rutland’s
initial bid for funding outlined the need to gain some firm support from employers
regarding the employee shuttle bus, preferably in the form of a financial contribution.
5.3
SK is willing to meet with businesses to discuss the proposed bus route in more
detail.
5.4
There is currently a tendering process taking place to identify the annual operating
cost for the shuttle bus. SK anticipates that firm figures will be available in January
2012.
5.5
The DfT funding is for 2 years and therefore a financial contribution from businesses
would not be required until 2014 when the initial funding runs out. RCC anticipates
that the bus would be self funding within 5 years.
5.6
In order to satisfy DfT, SK is looking for businesses to provide a letter that states that
their company would be happy to fund X no. of seats on the bus for X amount of
time.
5.7
DA suggested that a further meeting with individual employers is required to talk
about the practicalities (e.g. bus time table and costs in order to move this forward.
JM agreed to have a joint meeting with Linecross.
5.8
MA requested information so that she can make FSB aware of the bid.
5.9
Approximately £1m of the total bid will go towards the tourism and employee shuttle
bus.
6. a) Enterprise Clubs
6.1
MA noted that Business Link has gone (as of November 2011), however the brand
name Business Link has been kept with information and advice is still available
through the website.
6.2
Enterprise clubs run every month (this is not an FSB run event); support is available
to any small business across the area of Leicestershire, Rutland and Leicester City.
The workshops commence at 2.30-4.30pm, followed by networking for 1 hour, a
further workshop then commences at 5.30-7.30pm on a different topic. Each
workshop focuses on a specific business element. RCC is on board with the
initiative, MA to provide KL with further information to circulate to partners.
6. b) Think Local
6.3
This is a business support programme which MA hopes to roll out across the
neighbouring Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs). MA is meeting with Local
Authorities to get them on board with the initiative.
6.4
KL to assist MA with potential venues in Rutland.
SK
DA
JM
SK
MA
KL
KL
SB left the meeting
7. a) Unemployment Trends
7.1 GB noted than unemployment is still a national problem; the removal of the default
retirement age has had an impact. GD asked whether GB could supply figures relating
to the over 65s that are still working.
7.2 Currently there are 3 times as main job seekers allowance (JSA) claimants as there are
vacancies.
7.3 Unemployed young people are the current focus. PB queried what percentage of the
total JSA claimants are between the ages of 18-24. Approximately 1/3 of JSA claimants
nationally are young people.
7.4 There are currently 95 young people in Rutland unemployed and seeking work, BC to
look at LDF data to understand the total number of 18-24’s there are across Rutland,
GB
BC
3
7.5
7.6
this will help understand exactly what proportion of young people in Rutland are
unemployed (see update 1)
JM suggested that CS Ellis continues to have difficulty employing reliable local young
people (e.g. 6 young people were employed in 1 month and there is only 1 person still
employed). GB recognised that work ethic amongst young British workers is an issue.
Government has introduced a tougher benefits system which hopes to address those
people that choose not to work.
The chair thanked GB for the information that he provided (see update 2 for full paper
circulated at the meeting). TK would like to see this information available to the wider
business community, KL to ensure this information is put on the economic development
website.
7. b) Employment Footage Work Update
7.7 4 employers have now been filmed, partners agreed to have the clips uploaded to You
Tube. TK requested that KL ensures that Ellie Buchanan liaises with Chris Jones
(Strategic Communications Officer at RCC) to ensure that the search criteria within
search engines such as Google will display the footage, clear search terms such as
Rutland Employment to be used.
7.8 It was agreed to monitor the viewing statistics of the clips, if the clips are successful
further footage is to be filmed in 2012.
KL
KL
8. LSP Projects Update
8.1
A paper outlining the progress made with the LSP projects was circulated to partners
in advance of the meeting.
8.2
Electric Car – An electric car is being made available to Rutland for 1 week in
January 2012, this will aim to showcase the electric car and publicise the project.
The two town councils are currently deliberating over where the public car charging
points should be located.
8.3
Oakham Signage – Oakham Town Partnership is keen to focus the signage on
tourism specifically between Oakham and Rutland Water as there is little signage
visible on the bypass. SKs project will be looking at signage for places to park your
bike, Oakham High St may also become one-way, and this is being consulted on in
2012.
8.4
Uppingham Toilets – the town council has decided against moving the location of the
toilets, RCC and Uppingham Town Council are currently deciding the terms of the
continued maintenance of the toilets and where the responsibility should lie.
8.5
Events package – the LSP culture and leisure theme group has decided what
equipment it wishes to see in the package, costs are currently being worked up.
8.6
Countywide events – the chair suggested that hopefully more detail can be provided
at the next infrastructure meeting when the two town partnerships have met again to
decide what events to hold.
9. A1 Traffic- Tourism Signage
9.1
There have been discussions regarding the need for better signage on the A1 to
advertise Rutland; the Highways Agency has strict signage requirements so
improvements to signage will be restricted.
10. Cottesmore Update
10.1 It is now public knowledge that the Army will occupy the old RAF Cottesmore base
from Summer 2012, approximately 600 troops from Cyprus in 2012 and a further 400
troops from Germany in 2013. This will mean that a large number of spouses will be
looking for work.
10.2 The Local Authority has been undertaking work to better understand how things will
change; there will be a big impact on education. The existing primary school on the
base is the oldest in the county and is in need of maintenance work. It has been
proposed to make the school available to the wider community; in order to achieve
this base boundary (fencing) would need altering.
10.3 The number of people on the base will be similar to when RAF personnel were at
Cottesmore however the key difference is that the Army are likely to live nearer to
4
the base than the RAF or its support staff did.
The logistics are very different; the army base commander looks after the bases and
military but the HQ in Nottingham provides the social support for civilians.
10.5 RCC officers are currently meeting with Army personnel; we are approximately 2
months away from a full plan.
10. b) Ashwell update
10.6 RCC has been in discussions with Ministry of Justice (MOJ)regarding the future of
HMP Ashwell, RCCs original concerns were that the land would be sold off for
housing. There are employment opportunities associated with the facility. RCC will
be taking an update report to council in January 2012.
10.7 RPC has demonstrated an interest in occupying 70% of the site, the company is still
in early discussions regarding this. The remaining 30% of the site would look to be
released to start up businesses.
10.8 RCC has very good relations with the MOJ regarding preferential buyer status.
10.4
11. LEP update
1.1
There are a number of small funding pots around. Through the National Growth Fund
the LEP has £10.6m that RCC can potentially bid into; RCC is considering asking
councillors to bid to fund the development of start up business units.
12. Digital Rutland Update
12.1 RCC will be taking a report in early 2012 regarding the acquisition stage.
12.2 BDUK (government body) has provided an allocation to part fund a county wide
broadband solution, however this is not nearly enough, therefore additional funding
options are being looked at.
13. Carbon Trust Business Event for Rutland
13.1 The RCC climate change coordinator is working with the Carbon Trust to run a
“Carbon Trust Energy Efficient Breakfast” for businesses; this will take place on 13th
March 2012. KL to re-circulate this information electronically.
13.2 PB was interested to know whether there is an opportunity for sponsor the event, for
example Hawkesmead would be keen to give a presentation on the company’s local
energy efficient projects such as solar panels. KL to check with the Carbon Trust
whether it is ok to have local businesses pitch at the event, it was suggested that if
there is the space, businesses could have stands (KL to also check whether the
council chamber annexes are booked). MA is also interested on behalf of the FSB.
KL
KL
PB
KL
MA
14. Any Other Business
14.1 The chair thanked RH for kindly hosting the meeting,
14.2 There was no further business to discuss.
15. Date of Next Meeting
15.1 Thursday 9th February 2012, 8am. JM kindly offered to host the next meeting at CS
Ellis, Woolfox Depot.
Update 1 The total resident population within Rutland aged 18-24
The latest mid-year population estimate (2010) gives the resident population a count of:
15-19 year olds – 4,000
20-24 year olds – 1,800
N.B. These figures are rounded to the nearest 100
5