Agenda and minutes

To sign as a correct record the minutes of the 24 June 2025 Policy Development Panel meeting (enclosed).

AGREED:

That the minutes of the Policy Development Panel meeting held on 24 June 2025 be signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

An update on actions that arose at the 24 June 2025 Policy Development Panel meeting and the tracking of outstanding actions (enclosed).

Consideration was given to the update on actions which arose at the 24 June 2025 Policy Development Panel meeting and the tracking of outstanding actions.

AGREED:

That the update regarding actions be noted.

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.

There were none.

To consider responses of the Cabinet to reports of the Panel. 

Consideration was given to the six-monthly progress update on the Cabinet approved recommendations from the Business Frontage Task Group.

The Director of Economic Development introduced the six-monthly progress update, noting that the Business Frontage Task Group had made several recommendations which were approved by Cabinet.

A six-monthly progress report was presented to the Panel.

The Director of Economic Development highlighted that:

• A draft South Holland Shop Front Design Guide had been commissioned and was being prepared for consultation alongside the conservation area appraisal and heritage strategy. The consultation was scheduled to commence in October 2025.
• Monthly meetings with the Business Improvement District (BID) Manager had been established to share updates on business openings, closures, and street scene matters.
• Enforcement options would be explored following the adoption of the conservation area appraisal and heritage strategy.
• While no grant funding was currently available for shop frontage improvements, this was being considered as part of the Spalding Town Board’s ‘Plan for Neighbourhood’.
• A communications plan would accompany the approval of the design guide to promote good design practices.
• The proposed design guide would not be a supplementary planning document but would be a material consideration for future planning applications.

Members considered the update and made the following comments:

• The Chairman of the Task Group noted that the issue was cross-departmental and involved external partners. He emphasised the importance of getting the consultation right and welcomed the guide being treated as a material planning consideration.
• A member queried how the Council would engage with multinational businesses that had their own branding standards.
  • The Director of Economic Development responded that the guide would include advice on how branding could be adapted constructively, and that successful case studies from other areas would be included.

• A member suggested that the word ‘enforcement’ be replaced with ‘encouragement’ to attract businesses to the district.
  • The Director of Economic Development clarified that the guide was not enforceable in the same way as planning policy but would carry weight as a material planning consideration.
• Members asked what support would be available for businesses wishing to improve their frontages.
  • The Director of Economic Development confirmed that no grant funding was currently available but that the ‘Plan for Neighbourhood’ could potentially support a funding scheme in future.

• A question was raised about whether the guide would apply to other towns in the district.
  • The Director of Economic Development explained that while the initial focus was on Spalding, the principles could be extended district-wide depending on resources.
• Members discussed if the guide should be applicable to all towns across South Holland.
  • The Director of Economic Development explained that the focus would be on Spalding town centre, but the consultation would include businesses across the district and parishes.

• A member noted that enforcement might be required under licensing, and the Chair reiterated the cross-departmental nature of the issue, including the varied origins of window vinyls.
• Members welcomed the progress made and emphasised the importance of consistent communication and practical support for businesses.

AGREED:

a)    That  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

To receive a six-monthly progress update on the Cabinet approved recommendations from the Business Frontage Task Group (enclosed).

There were none.

Consideration was given to the Key Decision Plan dated 2 September 2025.

• Members queried when the Trees and Hedgerows Strategy would be brought forward for member consideration.
  • The Democratic Services Officer confirmed that the Trees and Hedgerows Strategy Action Plan would be considered by members at the meeting scheduled on the 25 November 2025.

AGREED:

That the Key Decision Plan be noted.

To note the current Key Decision Plan (enclosed). 

Consideration was given to the SHDC Policy Register and the S&ELCP Policy Register.

AGREED:

That the SHDC Policy Register, and the S&ELCP Policy Register be noted.

To consider a proposal to retire the Derelict and Untidy Sites Policy (enclosed). The Strategic and Operational Property Manager will be in attendance to answer member questions.

Members of the Policy Development Panel considered a proposal to retire the Derelict and Untidy Sites Policy.

The Derelict and Untidy Sites Policy document was included from page 37 of the agenda pack and the Strategic and Operational Property Manager outlined the following reasons for the proposed retirement of the policy:

• That the policy had originally been introduced to provide a structured approach to addressing untidy or neglected sites across the district in the post-COVID period.
• The policy had proven largely duplicative of existing statutory powers already available to Planning, Environmental Health, Anti-Social Behaviour, and Building Control teams.
• Those services routinely deployed legal mechanisms independently of the policy, which had not enhanced enforcement capability.
• The policy did not fill a gap in service delivery or governance, nor did it introduce any new powers or frameworks beyond existing procedures.
• Its presence had not demonstrably improved outcomes or operational efficiency and was considered hollow in practical application.
• From a legislative standpoint, robust powers already existed under:

• These powers provided effective routes for intervention without the need for a supplementary policy.
• Members were informed that if the Council wished to acquire a property or site, it could develop its own business case independently of the policy.

Members considered the report and made the following comments:

• Members expressed concern about retiring a policy that had only been in place for three years.
  • The Strategic and Operational Property Manager stated that the original intention of the policy was to establish a register of untidy sites and provide a framework for addressing them.
• Questions were raised about whether the Council was currently fulfilling the aims of the policy and whether existing powers were sufficient.
• Some members felt the policy had merit as a guidance document, particularly in helping councillors understand how to report untidy sites in their wards.
• It was suggested that the policy could be repurposed to support members in navigating existing enforcement routes rather than being retired outright.
• There was a consensus that the definition of “untidy” needed to be clarified, as perceptions varied and not all vacant buildings posed the same level of concern.

• Members highlighted the importance of distinguishing between properties that were simply empty and those that were genuinely long-term untidy sites.
• Several members volunteered to form a Task Group to review the policy in more detail, assess its relevance, and determine whether its objectives could be better achieved through other means.
• The Task Group was proposed as a short-term initiative to quickly evaluate the policy’s value and potential future use.
• The following members expressed interest in joining the Task Group:

AGREED:

That a short-term Task Group be established to review the policy’s original intent, assess current enforcement mechanisms, and consider whether a revised approach was needed.

To ensure that the Committee receives a thorough briefing on the system that the Council wishes to use in preparation of the 2026/27 Budget, is able to ask questions of the Section 151 Officer and able to gain assurance from the arrangements described (report of the Interim Director of Finance (Section 151 Officer) enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Interim Director of Finance (Section 151 Officer) which sought to ensure that the Panel received a through briefing on the system the Council wished to use in preparation of the 2026/27 Budget, could ask questions of the Section 151 Officer and gained assurance from the arrangements described.

The Interim Director of Finance (Section 151 Officer) presented the report and highlighted that:

• The new approach would involve earlier engagement with Portfolio Holders and service managers to ensure that budget proposals were realistic, deliverable, and aligned with strategic priorities.
• The process would also include scrutiny input at key stages, allowing members to challenge assumptions and contribute to shaping the final budget.
• The framework aimed to improve transparency, accountability, and collaboration across departments, with a focus on financial sustainability and service delivery.

Members considered the report and made the following comments:

• Members welcomed the report and the proposed approach. It was noted that the new system would likely make Portfolio Holders more accountable for their budget areas and encourage more meaningful scrutiny.
• Members noted that page 67 of the agenda pack was particularly useful and commented that the process would help ensure Cabinet considered feedback from budget scrutiny more seriously.
• There was support for involving Governance and Audit Committee members in the process, as their perspective could add value to financial oversight.
• Members noted that while budget planning always involved differences in expected costs, the proposed structure offered clearer guidance and a more robust framework for managing those variations.

AGREED:

That the report be noted.

To seek Policy Development Panel’s views on the proposed HR policy (Pensions & Pensions Discretions Policy) prior to report to Council (report of the Assistant Director – Corporate enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Assistant Director – Corporate which sought Policy Development Panel’s proposed HR policy (Pensions & Pensions Discretions Policy) prior to report to Council.

The Group Manager – Organisational Development presented the report and highlighted that:

• The policy aimed to ensure legal compliance, reflect best practice, and support consistent workforce management both within South Holland District Council and across the South & East Lincolnshire Councils Partnership.
• The Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) required the Council to publish and maintain a clear statement on how it applied certain employer discretions. The policy set out the Council’s approach, balancing flexibility for employees with financial prudence.

• A case-by-case approach for areas such as flexible retirement and actuarial reductions, allowed the Council to support staff appropriately while managing cost exposure.
• Alignment across the Partnership to simplify administration and ensure consistency.
• Endorsement of the policy by a Readers Panel, which included officers, trade union representatives (local and regional), and the Senior Leadership Team.

Members considered the report and made the following comments:

• Members acknowledged the complexity of the policy and its importance in ensuring clarity and fairness for staff.
• Members asked about the broader review of local government pension schemes and whether administrative amalgamation was being considered.
  • The Head of HR and Organisational Development confirmed that while discussions had taken place, any changes would require legislative reform. The current policy aligned mandatory discretions across the three councils.

• A question was raised about the percentage of pension funds invested in the UK and its impact on funding schemes.
  • The Head of HR and Organisational Development explained that each council retained its own fund, which was part of a wider pooled arrangement. The triennial review was ongoing, and performance was currently satisfactory, with outputs expected between September and February.
• Members asked whether the policy directly affected staff and how it was being communicated.
  • The Head of HR and Organisational Development clarified that while the discretionary elements were technical, the main policy would be published, and senior managers would ensure staff understood its relevance.

• A question was posed about changes from the previous version.
  • The Head of HR and Organisational Development noted that South Holland had not previously had a formal pensions policy. The new document clarified what was changing and what remained the same and had been developed with input from experts and other councils.
• Members queried the “85-year rule”.
  • The Head of HR and Organisational Development explained that this rule allowed for retirement without actuarial reduction if the sum of an employee’s age and years of service equalled 85. The policy allowed flexibility to switch this provision on or off depending on individual circumstances.

Councillor M Le Sage left the meeting at 19.42pm.

AGREED:

That following consideration of the Policy, the comments and feedback of the Panel be noted.

To consider the adoption of the Housing Revenue Account Governance Framework: Housing Landlord Services 2025/26 (report of the Assistant Director – Housing enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Assistant Director – Housing which considered the adoption of the Housing Revenue Account Governance Framework: Housing Landlord Services 2025/26

The Housing Transformation Manager (HRA) introduced the revised Housing Revenue Account Governance Framework: Housing Landlord Services 2025/26, highlighting the following points:

• The updated version reflected improvements in governance practices that had matured through embedded procedures and ongoing review.
• Key enhancements included:
  • Clearer roles and responsibilities for senior officers.
  • Strengthened Member scrutiny.
  • Improved transparency around performance, risk, and financial management.
• The framework outlined the function of several governance groups, including the Housing Compliance Clinic, Housing Landlord Services Board, and Complaints Working Group, which collectively provided oversight across compliance, complaints, transformation, and capital investment.
• It was proposed that the Housing Governance Clinic be disbanded, with its responsibilities redistributed to existing groups.

• A new Capital Programme Clinic would be established to monitor housing investment delivery, with the potential to influence decisions around sustainable building design, energy-efficient retrofits, and low-carbon materials in capital projects.

Members considered the report and made the following comments;

• Members welcomed the revised framework and praised its clarity and structure.

• Members described the document as “very colourful and thorough,” noting that it was easy to follow and well laid out.
• Members commented on the level of detail and appreciated the inclusion of governance group functions, which helped clarify oversight responsibilities.
• Members highlighted Appendix D as particularly useful, describing it as “clear and simple to read,” and helpful for understanding how the governance structure operated in practice.

There was general agreement that the proposed changes would improve operational efficiency and ensure that governance arrangements remained fit for purpose.

AGREED:

a)    That the recommendation to Cabinet to adopt the Housing Revenue Account Governance Framework: Housing Landlord Services 2025/26, be supported.

b)    That the recommendation to Cabinet to delegate minor operational amendments to the Framework to the Assistant Director – Housing, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Strategic and Operational Housing, be supported.

To consider the adoption of the Vulnerable Person and Reasonable Adjustments Policy: Housing Landlord Service 2025-2029 (appendix a) (report of the Assistant Director – Housing enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Assistant Director – Housing which considered the adoption of the Vulnerable Person and Reasonable Adjustments Policy: Housing Landlord Service 2025-2029 (appendix a).

The Housing Transformation Manager (HRA) introduced the Vulnerable Person and Reasonable Adjustments Policy, and highlighted the following points:

• The policy defined how vulnerability would be assessed, the types of reasonable adjustments that could be made, and the process for appealing decisions where adjustments were not granted.
• It had been developed through targeted consultation with a wide range of stakeholders, including members of the new Tenant Forum, to ensure tenant voice and lived experience were reflected.
• External partners and age-friendly experts had praised the document for its clarity and practical approach, particularly in supporting tenants who were digitally excluded or had sensory impairments.
• A steer was sought on whether the current title should be retained or replaced with a more inclusive alternative, such as Inclusive Housing Support and Reasonable Adjustment Policy.
• The policy also supported the Council’s compliance with consumer standards and demonstrated a compassionate and structured approach to tenant support.

Members considered the policy and made the following comments:

• Members expressed support for the policy and praised its clarity and structure.
• A question was raised about the reference to a 2023 survey, with concern that the data might be outdated.
  • The Housing Transformation Manager (HRA) clarified that the tenant census had evolved into regular Tenant Satisfaction Measures, which continued to inform policy development.
• The Panel discussed the proposed title and whether the term “vulnerable persons” was appropriate. It was suggested that a broader, more inclusive title would better reflect the policy’s scope and avoid unintended stigma.
  • The Housing Transformation Manager (HRA) confirmed that the title could be revised to align with Housing Ombudsman guidance, and that feedback from the Panel would help shape the final version.
• It was requested that the policy would return to Panel in a year for review, allowing time to assess its impact and gather further feedback.

AGREED:

a)    That the policy title adopted a broader, more inclusive framing such as “Reasonable Adjustment Policy: 2025-2029” to better reflect the scope and intent of the housing landlord service.

b)    That the recommendation to Cabinet to adopt the Vulnerable Person and Reasonable Adjustments Policy: Housing Landlord Service 2025-2029 (or other title for the policy as agreed upon), be supported.

c)    That the recommendation to Cabinet to delegate minor operational and legislative amendments to the Assistant Director – Housing in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Strategic and Operational Housing, be supported.

d)    That the Policy Development Panel be presented with an update on the Vulnerable Person and Reasonable Adjustments Policy, one year from its adoption at Cabinet.

To consider the adoption of the Housing Landlord Services, Disabled Adaptations Policy 2025 – 2028 (report of the Assistant Director – Housing enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Assistant Director – Housing which considered the adoption of the Housing Landlord Services Disabled Adaptations Policy 2025-2028.

The Housing Transformation Officer (HRA) introduced the Disabled Adaptations Policy, highlighting the following points:

• The policy aimed to support independent living, safety, and dignity.
• Extensive consultation had been carried out with tenants, members, partners, and professional bodies, and the feedback received had shaped the final draft.
• The policy aligned with the Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) model to ensure consistency of support across all tenures in the district, in line with government expectations.
• Key changes introduced in the policy included:

o    Means testing for major and significant adaptations, with exemptions outlined in the policy.

o    A prioritisation system based on need and urgency to ensure timely support for those most in need.

o    An appeals panel including impartial tenants, which was the most popular option during consultation.

o    Support for tenants where adaptations were refused due to the availability of more suitable accommodation, including help with moving and updating services.

o    A service charge for certain adaptations such as stairlifts, that require regular servicing resulting in ongoing maintenance costs.

o    Rent reassessment where significant adaptations (e.g. extensions) were made to a property that add an additional bedroom.

Members considered the update and made the following comments:

• Members welcomed the policy and praised its clarity and tenant-focused approach.

• Members queried whether tenants who lodge appeals would be present at the panel and how impartial tenants would be selected to sit on the appeals panel.
  • The Housing Transformation Officer (HRA) confirmed that panel members would be drawn from the tenant forum and that the tenant applying for the adaptation would not be present during the panel’s discussion to ensure impartiality.Impartial tenants would be selected from the newly formed Tenant Forum.
• Members asked how the panel would comply with GDPR so not to provide personal information on the tenant who lodged the appeal.
  • The Housing Transformation Officer (HRA) confirmed that no personal data would be disclosed. The appeals panel would be conducted using anonymised or non-identifiable information to protect tenant privacy and ensure data protection obligations were met.
• Members questioned what would happen if a tenant struggled to make their contribution following the means testing process.
  • The Housing Transformation Officer (HRA) confirmed that the means testing process incorporated the tenant’s ability to contribute as well as their income and capital and that exemptions to means testing applied for those on certain income related benefits.
• Members raised concerns about Universal Credit and Housing Benefit not necessarily reflecting a tenant’s ability to pay.
  • The Housing Transformation Officer (HRA) acknowledged this and confirmed that the process was designed to be flexible and fair.
• Members asked why the Council’s Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) allocation could not be used to support tenants within council owned housing stock.
  • The Housing Transformation Officer (HRA) confirmed that whilst governments expectation was to align support across all tenures, guidance was explicit that councils could not use their  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

To consider the revised draft Industrial Units Lettings Management Policy to comply with legislative changes (report of the Deputy Chief Executive – General Fund Assets enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Deputy Chief Executive – General Fund Assets which considered the revised draft Industrial Units Lettings Management Policy to comply with legislative changes.

The Strategic Operational & Property Manager presented the report and highlighted that:

• The original policy dated back to 2005 and had previously been reviewed in 2020. A further review was undertaken following changes to the Use Class Order, which impacted how industrial units were categorised and managed.
• The updated policy aimed to:
  • Provide greater transparency for tenants.
  • Ensure legal compliance.
  • Clarify the Council’s approach to letting, managing, and maintaining its industrial property portfolio.
  • The officer confirmed that the revised policy would support consistent decision-making and improve the experience for tenants by setting out clear expectations and procedures.

Members considered the report and made the following comments:

• Members welcomed the updated policy and acknowledged the importance of ensuring the Council’s industrial estate was managed in a clear and legally sound manner.
• Members commented that the document contained quite a few changes but was straightforward and easy to follow.
• There was general agreement that the rewrite was necessary given the age of the original policy and the evolving legislative landscape.
• Members appreciated the effort to make the policy more transparent and tenant-friendly, particularly in terms of outlining responsibilities and expectations.
• No concerns were raised, and the Panel expressed support for the policy’s adoption.

AGREED:

a)    That the revised Industrial Units Letting and Management Policy 2025–2030 be recommended to Cabinet for approval.

b)    That the recommendation to Cabinet to delegate minor operational and legislative amendments to the Assistant Director – General Fund Assets be supported.

To consider the new South and East Lincolnshire Council’s Partnership Safeguarding Policy prior to presentation at Cabinet (report of the Assistant Director – Communities and Housing Services enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Assistant Director – Communities and Housing Services which considered the new South and East Lincolnshire Councils Partnership Safeguarding Policy prior to its presentation at Cabinet.

The Wellbeing Services Manager presented the report and highlighted that:

• The policy had been developed to create a unified safeguarding framework across the three councils within the partnership—South Holland District Council, Boston Borough Council, and East Lindsey District Council.

• The policy built upon South Holland’s existing safeguarding arrangements and incorporated best practice from across the partnership.
• The policy did not introduce major changes from the previous South Holland version but instead consolidated procedures and terminology to ensure consistency.

• The policy would be subject to a light-touch review annually, with a full governance review every three years.
• The policy was intended to be a living document, responsive to changes in legislation, job roles, and organisational structure. Future versions would include a table of amendments to help members track changes.

Members considered the report and made the following comments:

• A query was raised regarding the lack of highlighted changes in the document.
  • The Wellbeing Services Manager confirmed that this was a new policy combining the three councils’ previous versions, and that future updates would clearly show amendments.

• Members asked whether the policy had been presented to Boston Borough Council and East Lindsey District Council.
  • The Wellbeing Services Manager confirmed that this was the first presentation and that it would be taken through the governance processes of the other councils in the coming months.
• It was requested that review dates and issue dates be added to the document for clarity.

• A question was raised about contingency planning in the event of Local Government Reorganisation (LGR).
  • The Wellbeing Services Manager responded that the policy would be reviewed and adapted as necessary, and that safeguarding responsibilities would be reassessed under any new unitary authority arrangements.

• Members discussed the importance of ensuring the policy remained relevant as job titles and roles changed.
  • The Wellbeing Services Manager confirmed that the document would be updated accordingly.

• A query was raised about how members would be notified of changes.
  • The Wellbeing Services Manager confirmed that a table of amendments would be included in future versions to provide transparency.

• Members asked whether the Council had links with community health teams for safeguarding.
  • The Wellbeing Services Manager explained that while there were no direct teams, the Council engaged fully with the Lincolnshire Safeguarding Adults Board (LSAB) and the Lincolnshire Safeguarding Childrens Partnership (LSCP) run by Lincolnshire County Council, which included representatives from health, police, education, and other agencies.

• A question was raised about information sharing within housing services when safeguarding concerns arose.
  • The Assistant Director – Communities and Housing Services confirmed that Homelessness Officers were well-trained and aware of safeguarding protocols.
  • Concerns were flagged with the County Council, which managed the information-sharing process in line with statutory guidance.

AGREED:

a)    That the comments of the Panel be noted.

b)    That the Policy Development Panel be presented with an  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.

To note the Overview and Scrutiny Annual Report 2024/2025 prior to its presentation at Council (report of the Assistant Director – Governance enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Assistant Director – Governance (Monitoring Officer) which noted the Overview and Scrutiny Annual Report 2024/2025 prior to its presentation at Council.

The Chairman presented the report and highlighted that:

• The report provided a summary of the work undertaken by both the Policy Development Panel and the Performance Monitoring Panel over the past municipal year.
• The report reflected the Panels’ contribution to improving transparency, accountability, and service delivery across the Council.

Members raised no comments on the report.

AGREED:

That the Overview and Scrutiny Annual Report 2024/25 be noted and recommended to Council.

To set out the Work Programme of the Policy Development Panel (report of the Assistant Director – Governance enclosed).

Consideration was given to the report of the Assistant Director – Governance (Monitoring Officer) which set out the Work Programme of the Policy Development Panel.

The Chairman introduced the report to members:

• Appendix A listed the schedule of meetings for 2025/26 with expected items populated against each meeting.
• Appendix B outlined the task groups of the Panel. As there were no current task groups running, the Chairman asked members to consider any meaningful topics that would benefit from the investigatory work of a task group.

AGREED:

a)    That the Work Programme of the Policy Development Panel be noted.

b)    That a Derelict and Untidy Sites Task Group be added to Appendix B.

There were none.