Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Beal, Tennant and Gambba-Jones.

To sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 22 September 2021 (copy enclosed).

Consideration was given to the minutes of the meeting of Full Council held on 22 September 2021.

DECISION:

That the minutes be signed as a correct record.

(Where a Councillor has a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest the Councillor must declare the interest to the meeting and leave the room without participating in any discussion or making a statement on the item, except where a Councillor is permitted to remain as a result of a grant of dispensation.)

There were none.

The Chairman made the following announcements:

·         The Chairman thanked Councillor Newton for the work she had undertaken in relation to the memorial for Pilot Officer George Furniss.

·         The Chairman thanked those who had provided assistance with the Remembrance Sunday event – Jan Whitbourn, Emily Holmes, Julia Knight, Democratic Services and all the bodies engaged in supporting the event.       

·         The Chairman reminded members that he was holding a Quiz Night on 25 November 2021 in aid of MIND – there were still some tickets available.

·         The Chairman welcomed the Joint Chief Executive (Rob Barlow) to the meeting, who in turn introduced the Deputy Chief Executive (Growth) (Michelle Sacks) and the Deputy Chief Executive (Programme Delivery) and SIRO (Adrian Sibley).

The Leader had no announcements to make.

Councillor Grocock advised that the Government had announced that all new houses built from 2022 onwards would need to include an electric charging point.  This was a Building Control matter, officers would confirm when this would take effect, and Council would be kept updated.

There were none.

Question to: Councillor Grocock

Question From: Councillor Newton

Subject: Key Decision Plan – Acquisition project to purchase s106 rented units

Councillor Newton referred to the item on the Key Decision Plan ‘Acquisition project to purchase s106 rented units – To seek approval to commit capital to purchase s106 rented dwellings’.  At Performance Monitoring Panel on 9 November 2021 she had asked how many properties this related to – could the Portfolio Holder provide any feedback? 

Councillor Grocock responded that this item related to the purchase of 3 s106 rented affordable homes at Albion Street in Crowland, and that this would provide 3 much needed one- bedroom units.  He commented that the Capital Programme had been approved by Council and, the homes subject to this decision would be delivered through the approved budget.  Officers were in discussions with the developer to agree a cost.

Question to: Councillor Grocock

Question From: Councillor Newton

Subject: Key Decision Plan – Property Acquisition to support Housing Options service delivery (A), (E) and (F)

Councillor Newton referred to the items on the Key Decision Plan ‘Property acquisition to support Housing Options service delivery (A), (E) and (F) – Acquisition of a second hand property’ and asked how many properties had been targeted or identified, and how much was in the budget?

Councillor Grocock responded that these items related to RSAP properties.  Originally, six entries had been added to the Key Decision Plan, one for each unit to be delivered however, as decision B related to three units and D related to two units, six units had been acquired through three decisions.  Decisions A, E and F had been kept on the Key Decision Planner in case any of the purchases of properties that had been part of the original three decisions fell through, and there was a requirement to purchase alternative properties.  There were six identified property purchases to be undertaken by January 2022 and if decisions A, E and F were not required, they would be removed from Key Decision Planner at that point.

Question to: Councillor Grocock

Question From: Councillor Newton

Subject: Property acquisition in Monkshouse Ward

Councillor Newton commented that, in relation to her previous question, a property had been acquired by the Council in the Monkshouse Ward – she had originally been advised that it would be ready for occupation earlier in the year, that this date had been delayed twice and that it was still not ready.  Could the Portfolio Holder advise when the property would be ready for occupation? 

Councillor Grocock responded that an initial survey had been undertaken on the property which had not identified all issues.  Within the next few days, members will be invited to look at the finished property.  The identified budget that the Council had originally set had been adhered to however, the property had overrun due to COVID and manpower issues, but it would be delivered shortly.

Question to: Councillors Coupland, Worth and Grocock  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.

To receive the minutes of the following Committees and Panels:-

a)    Performance Monitoring Panel - 8 September 2021

b)    Committee of the Licensing Authority - 16 September 2021

c)    Policy Development Panel - 21 September 2021

d)    Planning Committee - 6 October 2021

e)    Special meeting of the Performance Monitoring Panel - 19 October 2021

f)     Planning Committee - 10 November 2021

g)    Committee of the Licensing Authority - 11 November 2021

Please note that the minutes of Performance Monitoring Panel on 9 November 2021 and Governance and Audit Committee on 11 November 2021 are still to be finalised).

The minutes of the following Committees and Panels were noted:

·         Performance Monitoring Panel – 8 September 2021

·         Committee of the Licensing Authority – 16 September 2021

·         Policy Development Panel – 21 September 2021

·         Planning Committee – 6 October 2021

·         Special meeting of the Performance Monitoring Panel – 19 October 2021

·         Planning Committee – 10 November 2021

·         Committee of the Licensing Authority – 11 November 2021

It was noted that the minutes of the meetings of Performance Monitoring Panel on 9 November 2021 and Governance and Audit Committee on 11 November 2021 were still to be finalised, and would be added to the next meeting of Council for noting.

Consideration was given to the Key Decision Plan.

DECISION:

That the Key Decision Plan be received.

The following petition has been submitted:

Title: Legal Streetart Wall

Statement: We the undersigned petition the Council to help us organise/find a designated area/wall/walls to become a legal spot in Spalding for street artists/artists to be able to paint there.

Justification:  Many from around the area have commented on social media, after seeing some local work and talent, that it would be a nice attraction for the town to have a legal streetart wall – somewhere people can go to paint.  Peterborough has one and it has been a huge attraction for the city, with people coming from all over the country to visit the artwork.  Having something like this in Spalding will attract many big named street artists to come and paint here, and also be an attraction for the town , bringing more business/customers to the rest of the town whilst they visit.  Schools can also use an area/wall to do art projects, and the local community could put on workshops, to teach the younger generation about the streetart culture, to respect the artwork and to teach them how to do it.

The Council’s petition scheme states that where more than 850 signatories to the petition have been received, that it will be debated by the Full Council.  This petition has received in excess of this number, via electronic and paper versions of the petition.

Karl Barfoot (petition organiser) and Adam Sadd will attend to present their petition to the Council. 

The procedure for the debate is as follows:

·         The petition organiser will be given 5 minutes to present the petition at the meeting;

·         The petition will be discussed by councillors for a maximum of 30 minutes (to be extended at the Chairman’s discretion);

·         The Council will decide how to respond to the petition, and the following options are available:

      i.        To decide to take the action the petition requests;

    ii.        To decide not to take the action requested, and for the reasons to be put forward in the debate;

   iii.        To commission further investigation into the matter, e.g. by a relevant committee

   iv.        Where the issue is one on which the Council executive are required to make the final decision, the Council will decide whether to make recommendations to inform that decision.  The petition organiser will receive written confirmation of this decision.  The confirmation will also be published on the Council’s website.

The following petition had recently been submitted to the Council:

Title: Legal Street Art Wall

Statement: We the undersigned petition the Council to help us organise/find a designated area/wall/walls to become a legal spot in Spalding for street artists/artists to be able to paint there.

Justification: Many from around the area have commented on social media, after seeing some local work and talent, that it would be a nice attraction for the town to have a legal street art wall – somewhere people can go to paint. Peterborough has one and it has been a huge attraction for the city, with people coming from all over the country to visit the artwork. Having something like this in Spalding will attract many big named street artists to come and paint here, and also be an attraction for the town, bringing more business/customers to the rest of the town whilst they visit. Schools can also use an area/wall to do art projects, and the local community could put on workshops, to teach the younger generation about the street art culture, to respect the artwork and to teach them how to do it.

In line with the Council’s petition scheme, the petition organiser was invited to present the petition for debate at Full Council.  The Chairman welcomed Karl Barfoot (petition organiser) and Adam Sadd to the meeting, and they raised the following points in respect of their petition:

·         Karl and Adam had met through doing street art and painting in Peterborough.  Their aim was do something closer to home and to give something back to the town;

·         They had liaised with Spalding Wombles to do some artwork on arches behind the Spalding Rugby Club.  This had resulted in a tribute to Captain Sir Tom Moore, which had received positive feedback;

·         Public reaction to artwork undertaken had been positive – it had been publicised online, on the radio, newspapers and the BBC;

·         They felt that street art would not increase the incidence of graffiti.  Since doing projects around town, there had been no vandalism of the artwork, and very little increase in graffiti in the town;

·         No Council funding would be needed for a legal street art wall – all that was required was a wall on which to do the artwork; 

·         The organisers would keep the wall tidy and were happy to maintain the area if any offensive material appeared on it.  However, it was felt that the artwork would not be defaced;

·         There was a large amount of public support for the proposal;

·         Graffiti artists were looking for a site where they could legally express themselves

·         Karl and Adam were happy to share pictures of work they had undertaken, and much of it was available to view on FaceBook;

Following the presentation, Council members considered the information, and the following points were made:

·         Members congratulated Karl and Adam on their presentation to Council.

·         The Leader commented that if the Authority was to provide a Council-owned wall to the individuals, it would have  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60.

To consider recommendations of the Cabinet in respect of:

·         HRA Housing Delivery Framework – To introduce a HRA Housing Delivery Framework to inform future investment decisions for the HRA Capital Programme relating to housing development (Cabinet minute 18) (Cabinet agenda item 8).

Consideration was given to the report of Cabinet which sought approval for the Cabinet’s recommendations in respect of the HRA Housing Delivery Framework.  The report introduced a HRA Housing Delivery Framework to inform future investment decisions for the HRA Capital Programme relating to housing development.

The report was presented to the Council by the Portfolio Holder for HRA and Private Sector Housing.

The following point was made:

·         At section 6.6.3 or the report, second item in the table ‘Do we have the appropriate skillset in-house to deliver the range of different housing delivery models’ – was this statement presently correct and if not, what action did the Authority intend to take?

o   The Head of Delivery advised that, when the report had been written, the appropriate staff had been available. Since then, the Housing Development Programme Manager had left her post.  A recruitment process to fill this role was currently underway and, once this role was filled, the authority would again have the skill set required.

DECISION:

1)    That the HRA Housing Delivery Framework, at Appendix A to the report, which informs and guides future Executive decisions for the HRA Capital Programme for housing development, be approved;

2)    That the HRA Housing Delivery Framework be included as a local choice policy in the Council’s Policy Framework and that the Constitution, at Article 4.3 be amended accordingly; and

3)    That the Deputy Chief Executive (Corporate Development) and S151 be granted delegated authority, in consultation with the relevant Portfolio Holder, to negotiate, approve, enter into and sign grant agreements relating to grant allocations which have been approved by Council, Cabinet or Portfolio Holder relating to the delivery of homes for the HRA.

Approval of the draft revised Gambling Policy (Statement of Principles) - (report of the Portfolio Holder – Public Protection enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Portfolio Holder for Public Protection, which requested approval of the draft revised Gambling Policy (Statement of Principles).

DECISION:

That the revised Gambling Policy (Statement of Principles), as shown at Appendix A to the report, be approved and adopted.

To consider an amended delegation to officers relating to the determination of planning applications (report of the Portfolio Holder – Corporate and Communications, and the Assistant Director – Governance, and Monitoring Officer enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Portfolio Holder – Corporate and Communications, and the Assistant Director – Governance, and Monitoring Officer, which requested members consider an amended delegation to officers relating to the determination of planning applications.

DECISION:

1)    That the amended officer delegation detailed in Appendix B to the report be approved with immediate effect;

2)    That the Constitution be amended accordingly;

3)    That the Head of Planning be authorised, in consultation with the Leader, to re-apply the previous officer protocol/delegation (i.e. the protocol/delegation that applied from 13 May 2020 to 24 November 2021) if at any time legal restrictions made it impossible to hold both physical and virtual meetings of the Planning Committee due to Covid, such protocol/delegation to extend up to and including the date on which the agenda for the physical or virtual meeting was issued; and

4)    That the above delegation to the Head of Planning be applied as often as may be necessary.

To confirm, in accordance with the Local Government (Committees and Political Groups) Regulations 1990, amended Political Balance calculations (report of the Deputy Chief Executive – Corporate Development and S151 Officer enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Deputy Chief Executive – Corporate Development and Section 151 Officer, which asked members to confirm, in accordance with the Local Government (Committees and Political Groups) Regulations 1990, amended Political Balance calculations.

On 1 October 2021, Councillor Bingham joined the Conservative Group, and a review of political group seats was therefore required to be undertaken as soon as practicable.

Calculations for allocation of appointments for the Conservative Group, Independent Group and non-aligned were detailed within the report, the main points being as follows:

Calculation of total allocation of seats across all committees and sub-committees to which the Political Regulations applied, provided:

·         The Conservative Group was entitled to 60 seats.  The calculation of seat allocations at individual committee level resulted in a figure of 61, due to rounding up and rounding down.  However, the overall calculation (of 60 seats) had to take precedence;

·         The Independent Group was entitled to 30 seats.  This figure was consistent with the calculation of allocation of seats at individual committee level;

·         Two seats remained unallocated after the Conservative Group and Independent Group allocations.  Under Regulation 16(3), these ‘spare’ seats are allocated to non-aligned members (i.e. Councillor McLean).  At the individual committee level, the calculation resulted in the non-aligned member being entitled to only one seat.  However, the overall calculation (of 2 seats) had to take precedence;

·         As a result of the above, it would be necessary to allocate one Conservative seat (as calculated at committee level) to the non-aligned member.

Political Group calculations were included in Appendix A to the report, and are detailed below:

*Currently one vacancy seat on Governance and Audit Committee  ** Total seat calculations take precedence

DECISION:

1)    That, subject to (2) below, the Council agree changes to the political balance of Committees in accordance with Appendix A; and

2)    That as a result of calculations for the allocation of seats for each Committee and Sub-Committee to which the Political Group Regulations applied resulting in one more Conservative seat than the Group was entitled to, one seat (on the Performance Monitoring Panel), which would otherwise be allocated to the Conservative Group, be allocated to the non-aligned member. 

To receive, from political groups, nominations for any changes to Committees and other seats and to consider any proposed changes to the Constitution.

The following Committee changes were reported to Council:

·         Councillor Bingham to replace Councillor King as a member of the Policy Development Panel;

·         Councillor Walsh to replace Councillor Seymour as a member of the Planning Committee;

·         Councillor Newton to replace Councillor McLean as a member of the Licensing Committee and the Committee of the Licensing Authority;

·         Councillor Bingham to take the vacant position on the Governance and Audit Committee.

DECISION:

That the following appointments be approved:

·         Councillor Bingham to replace Councillor King as a member of the Policy Development Panel;

·         Councillor Walsh to replace Councillor Seymour as a member of the Planning Committee;

·         Councillor Newton to replace Councillor McLean as a member of the Licensing Committee and the Committee of the Licensing Authority;

·         Councillor Bingham to take the vacant position on the Governance and Audit Committee.

To provide South Holland District Council with an update following the latest meeting of the Health Scrutiny for Lincolnshire Committee (report of Councillor Glynis P Scalese enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of Councillor Scalese in respect of Health Scrutiny for Lincolnshire.

DECISION:

That the report be noted.

To provide South Holland District Council with an update following representation at the National Association of British Markets Annual Conference and AGM (report of Councillor Angela Newton enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of Councillor Newton in respect of NABMA Annual Conference and AGM.

DECISION:

That the report be noted.

To provide Council with an update on the progress of the Partnership in conclusion of the Setting the Foundations stage of the approved business case and to establish and recommend the key elements of the Set-Up stage for the Partnership (report of the Joint Strategic Advisor enclosed).

(The Joint Chief Executive, the Deputy Chief Executive (Growth) and the Deputy Chief Executive (Programme Delivery) and SIRO left the meeting prior to discussion of this item).

Consideration was given to the report of the Joint Strategic Advisor which provided the Council with an update on the progress of the Partnership in conclusion of the Setting the Foundations stage of the approved business case, and to establish and recommend the key elements of the Set-Up stage for the Partnership.

Information was included within the report around the proposed Work Programme, Performance Framework, Financial Opportunities, Governance Framework and Employment Terms and Conditions (including pay) for the Integrated Shared Senior Management Team.

It was noted that Boston Council had considered the same report at its Council meeting on 22 November 2021 and the recommendations had been agreed unanimously.  East Lindsey District Council would consider the report at its Council meeting on 15 December 2021.

Members considered the information within the report, and the following points were raised:

·         Members had been advised of savings of £4.65million over 10 years – clarification was sought as to whether this was based on a particular scale, or upon an average.

·         Members noted that Appendix A laid out the Strategic Programme for the Partnership, and Health and Wellbeing/Health and Leisure offer featured within the priorities.  In Section 2 of the appendix (Corporate Priorities), there were a number of statements which in member views required modification in order to make them clearer when clarifying requirements in the future, and to not prohibit any potential solutions in the future.

·         Officers confirmed that, with regard to the Work Programme, what was being proposed was an opportunity across the partnership to work much more closely around leisure provision and health  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68.

There were none.

To consider the restricted minute of the meeting of South Holland District Council held on 22 September 2021 (copy enclosed).

Consideration was given to the restricted minute of the meeting of Full Council held on 22 September 2021.

Members agreed that there was no requirement to discuss the content of the restricted minute and there was therefore no need for the meeting to go into private session.

DECISION:

That the restricted minute be signed as a correct record