Agenda and draft minutes

To sign as a correct record the minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on 16 December 2025 (enclosed). 

The minutes of the meeting held on 16 December 2025 were agreed and signed by the Leader as a correct copy.

(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.

There were none.

There were none.

To provide an update on how the Council is performing for the period 1 July 2025 to 30 September 2025 (report of the Assistant Director – Corporate enclosed).

The Portfolio Holder for Corporate, Governance, Communications and Environmental Services presented an update on the Council’s performance for Quarter 2, covering the period from 1 July to 30 September.

The Portfolio Holder reported that the Performance Monitoring Panel had previously received early sight of the data via the Performance Monitoring Portal in December, and the feedback provided by the Panel had been summarised in Section 3 of the report. The Portfolio Holder confirmed that officers were actively working on responses to the queries raised and would bring the information back to the Panel for further discussion in due course.

The Portfolio Holder highlighted that the Quarter 2 report continued to show a generally positive performance across the Council. As set out in Section 2, 29% of KPIs had exceeded their targets, representing an improvement on Quarter 1. In addition, 10% of KPIs were reported as below target, which was a reduction compared to the previous quarter.

Overall, the Portfolio Holder noted that the report demonstrated a strong performance position, with the majority of KPIs meeting or surpassing expectations.

The Portfolio Holder also drew attention to the appendices of the report, noting that pages 25 to 34 contained the targeted performance measures, while pages 35 to 52 provided trend-only data for information.

DECISION:

That the contents of the report be noted.

Other Options Considered:

·         Not to monitor performance – this isn’t recommended.

Reasons for Recommendations:

·         To ensure Council performance is properly scrutinised.

To approve the South and East Lincolnshire Housing Standards Policies (report of the Assistant Director – Communities and Housing Services enclosed).

The Portfolio Holder for Corporate and Strategic Housing introduced three comprehensive housing standards policies for consideration and adoption.

These policies related to Empty Homes, Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO) Licensing, and Enforcement. It was explained that the policies enabled housing standards officers to apply their work confidently and robustly across the three councils, and ensured readiness for the forthcoming requirements of the Renters’ Rights Act coming into force later in the year.

Members were advised that the policies could be delivered within existing resources, unless there was a specific decision to expand activity beyond the outlined approach. Key elements were highlighted, including the introduction of a scoring matrix within the Empty Homes Policy to prioritise properties of greatest concern, with each council utilising existing powers and tools without the need for additional resources.

The HMO Licensing Policy introduced a consistent fee structure across the partnership.

The Enforcement Policy included updated fixed penalty notice amounts, aligned with the Renters’ Rights Act.

The Portfolio Holder confirmed that all policies had been robustly reviewed and supported by the Policy Development Panel in November.

DECISION:

That the draft Empty Homes Policy at Appendix 1, the draft HMO Policy at Appendix 2, and the draft Housing Standards Enforcement Policy at Appendix 3 be approved.

Other Options Considered:

·         Keep current policies – not recommended

Reasons for Recommendations:

·         To ensure the Council has suitable policies and procedures in place for responding to and dealing with housing standards issues.

·         These polices enable and ensure our Housing Standards Officers apply their work confidently and robustly across the three councils of the partnership and ensure we are ready for any changes that need to be applied as part of the Renters' Rights Act which comes into force this year.

·         For empty homes the main focus is introducing a scoring matrix to prioritise properties at greatest concern with each council of the Partnership enabling their tools available to them without committing to specific resources. For HMO licensing the policy introduces a new fee structure that is consistent across the Partnership and the Enforcement policy includes the revision of fixed penalty notice amounts reflected in the Renters' Rights Act.

To seek approval for the Partnership Social Media Policy (report of the Assistant Director – Corporate enclosed). 

The Portfolio Holder for Corporate, Governance, Communications and Environmental Services introduced the Social Media and Partnership Policy, explaining that the document set out the Council’s overall approach to the use of social media.

They advised that the policy aligned with the wider Communications Strategy approved within the last 12 months and that it provided clear objectives for how the Council created and shared content to maximise engagement with audiences.

The Portfolio Holder highlighted the work of the communications team in analysing data and audience insight to understand what content performed well and what did not. The policy also established a clear set of guidelines and “house rules” for behaviour and respectful engagement across all corporate channels.

Members were informed that the policy offered guidance for staff on appropriate use of social media, emphasising that work?related content should ideally be issued through official corporate accounts. The policy also included a review mechanism to assess the ongoing suitability of different platforms, as well as a response protocol to ensure a consistent and professional approach to interactions online.

Reference was made to the policy document at pages 63–79 of the agenda pack. Page 64 provided metrics relating to platform reach, and pages 67–70 set out further data covering activity and performance across the three partnership councils.

Members expressed support for the Social Media Policy. It was noted that the report clearly demonstrated the evolving nature of social media. Members acknowledged the benefits of social media, particularly its ability to communicate quickly during emergencies, while also recognising the negatives, including online toxicity and the reluctance of some residents to comment publicly due to strong opinions expressed by others.

Concerns were raised that comments made on social media during Council consultations were not captured within formal consultation data, leading to the risk that some residents believed they had participated when, in fact, informal comments were not included in the official record. Members agreed that the policy needed to be kept under review to ensure it remained fit for purpose.

A query was raised in relation to the social media metrics shown on pages 64 and 66 of the agenda, where follower numbers differed. Officers confirmed that a sweep had been carried out in January to remove inactive accounts and that the verified figure of 10,118 Facebook followers was accurate.

Members also queried the variation in activity and popularity of platforms across the three partnership councils. Officers advised that this largely reflected demographic differences and population sizes within the districts, and that differing community profiles naturally influenced engagement levels.

Positive comments were made regarding the strong performance of the South Holland Centre’s social media accounts, particularly on Instagram, where follower numbers significantly exceeded those of equivalent venues in the other councils. Members felt this demonstrated successful engagement and the effective use of social media to promote events and activities.

Officers also highlighted that the Youth Council was due to meet the following day and had specifically requested a discussion on social media usage. This would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 88.

To consider and provide feedback on the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Business Plan 2026-2056 and HRA Asset Management strategy 2026-2035 (report of the Assistant Director – Housing enclosed).

The Portfolio Holder for Strategic and Operational Housing introduced the report and stated that they were pleased to present the Council’s Housing Revenue Account Business Plan 2026-2056 and Asset Management Strategy 2026-2035. They explained that the documents had been produced in partnership with Savills and had been shaped by extensive consultation with tenants, Members and senior officers.

The Portfolio Holder reported that the Business Plan set out a robust, evidence?led approach to maintaining and enhancing the Council’s housing stock. It was underpinned by up?to?date stock?condition data and responded to significant changes within the social housing landscape.

They confirmed that the Housing Revenue Account remained sustainable over the full 30?year period. The plan was fully fundable, delivered against all the Council’s principal objectives, and aligned with Local Government Association benchmarks. While the plan included an increase in borrowing to deliver the largest investment programme in the history of the South Holland HRA, they emphasised that this investment was both affordable and necessary to meet government expectations and to ensure that Council homes remained safe, decent and energy?efficient.

The Portfolio Holder explained that the Asset Management Strategy translated these ambitions into a clear five?year capital investment programme. They noted that both documents would be updated annually as part of the Council’s budget?setting process to reflect the latest position and to ensure responsiveness to changing conditions.

All agreed that the report represented a thorough piece of work and noted that the Council was ahead of many others in its approach. Thanks were expressed to the team involved.

A query was raised regarding wording within the document that referred to spending £62,100 on each property. It was clarified that this figure represented an average rather than a literal sum allocated to every individual property. It was suggested that the wording should be adjusted to avoid potential misunderstanding by readers. Officers confirmed that the amendment would be made.

Concern was raised regarding the costs associated with sewerage systems, particularly the replacement of sewage treatment facilities. It was asked whether the figures presented took account of private properties that were connected to Council?owned systems, and how such arrangements had been considered within the plan.

Officers confirmed that each site had been assessed on its own merits, with pricing and business?plan assumptions reflecting whether connections served private or Council?owned properties. It was noted that all 49 sites referenced in the report had been individually reviewed.

A further query was raised about whether any additional sites within the district had since been connected to mains sewerage systems, given evolving regulatory expectations from the Environment Agency and Anglian Water. The Member observed that stricter positions were being taken on the discharge from package treatment plants and suggested that this was an area requiring ongoing attention.

Officers advised that alternative options had been explored, including whether upgrades could move beyond like?for?like replacement. Advice received to date had indicated that like?for?like replacement remained the appropriate approach,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 89.

To secure Cabinet approval to transfer land to Sutton Bridge Parish Council using the provisions set out within Circular 06/2003 (report of the Deputy Chief Executive, Programme Delivery and Assistant Director – General Fund Assets enclosed).

The Portfolio Holder for General Fund Assets and Planning introduced the report, explaining that it sought a decision from the Cabinet to dispose of the parcel of land identified within the report to Sutton Bridge Parish Council. They acknowledged that the disposal represented an undervalue of £29,999, but noted that the Council had already taken a series of decisions to dispose of elements of its land portfolio at market and non?market value in order to support the delivery of its wider investment priorities.

The Portfolio Holder advised that the proposed disposal supported one of the Council’s fundamental priorities: the social well?being of its residents. They explained that the transfer of the land to the Parish Council would enable it to be used for car parking, open space, and other uses associated with the enjoyment of the adjoining residential area.

In presenting the recommendations, the Portfolio Holder confirmed that officers had followed the necessary statutory and procedural requirements to enable the transfer of what was defined as land held for leisure or open?space purposes to another public body.  They noted that the proposal represented an appropriate use of Council assets to support community benefit, particularly for land that held limited development potential but significant local value.

It was noted that the area had historically experienced issues with antisocial behaviour; however, recent regeneration works including redevelopment of the former veterinary building and the removal of old garages had significantly improved the environment, making it cleaner, brighter, and more welcoming.

The proposal to transfer the land to the Parish Council was considered to provide an opportunity for local stewardship, allowing the community to manage and maintain the space in a way that best met residents’ needs. Accordingly, support was expressed for the recommendation.

DECISION:

That Cabinet:

1)    Relies on the provisions contained within the Local Government Act 1972 - General Disposal Consent 2003, as conveyed through Circular 06/03 and approves the disposal of the land shaded blue on the plan attached at Appendix 1 for £1, representing an undervalue of £29,999 to Sutton Bridge Parish Council as doing so ‘is likely to contribute to the achievement of…… the promotion or improvement of social well-being……. of all or any persons resident or present in its area. (Circular 06/03).

2)    Delegates authority to the Strategic and Operational Property Manager, General Fund Assets, to conclude the transfer, following any and all advice received from the Council’s legal advisors in securing suitable and sufficient restrictive covenants within any resulting conveyance that limit the use of the land shaded blue to car parking for and other uses attendant to the use and enjoyment of the adjoining recreational land only, with a 100% overage clause in favour of this or any successor Council being included within any conveyance and triggered by any alternative use the land may be put to, and that;

3)    Notes that the Strategic & Operational Property Manager, General Fund Assets has effected the process set out by Section  ...  view the full minutes text for item 90.

To seek approval for the write off of uncollectable debt (report of the Director of Finance (Section 151 Officer) enclosed).

The Portfolio Holder for Finance introduced the report, emphasising the importance of maintaining an efficient and well?administered debt management system to support the Council’s financial operations. It was noted that, through sustained recovery and enforcement activity over several financial years, the Council had consistently achieved collection rates exceeding 99% for both Council Tax and Business Rates. However, due to the scale and nature of annual revenues, some debts ultimately became irrecoverable.

The Portfolio Holder confirmed that the Council applied robust and comprehensive recovery processes, with debts only considered for write?off once all recovery and enforcement options had been exhausted and no realistic prospect of recovery remained. Recovery steps had included issuing statutory notices, obtaining liability orders, engaging proactively with debtors, arranging payment plans, making deductions from earnings and benefits, referring cases to enforcement agents, undertaking multiple tracing attempts, and initiating appropriate action in cases involving insolvency.

The report sought Cabinet approval to write off £114,957.44 of irrecoverable debt, with the direct loss to the Council amounting to £42,481.33. Details were provided in the confidential appendices and summarised within the report, and it was highlighted that 56% of the total debt related to insolvency cases. All write?offs were charged against existing bad debt provisions, meaning there was no impact on the Council’s budget, and debts could be reinstated should new information arise.

It was further noted that the existing delegation threshold, under which debts above £1,050 required Cabinet approval, had remained unchanged for many years. In the current financial year, the Section 151 Officer had approved £33,948.13 of write?offs under the delegated limit. The Portfolio Holder therefore proposed increasing the delegation threshold to £5,000 to reflect the scale of Council revenues and streamline the authorisation process.

It was noted that the level of debt proposed for write?off was significantly lower than in comparable previous periods. Members were reminded that a comprehensive recovery exercise had been undertaken approximately 18 months earlier, and that overall collection performance had improved since that time. Although financial pressures for many households had increased, the anticipated rise in irrecoverable debt had not materialised, indicating that early engagement and proactive dialogue with residents experiencing financial difficulty had been effective.

Reference was also made to the extension of the Council Tax reduction scheme, which had supported some households and contributed to stabilising collection levels.

In relation to the proposed change to the Section 151 Officer’s delegated authority for debt write?offs, it was noted that the revised threshold aligned the Council more closely with neighbouring authorities, many of which operated at higher levels. While the uplift represented a substantial increase from the current limit, it was emphasised that it still related to relatively low?value cases and that write?offs would continue to be visible to Members through reporting in the appendices.

DECISION:

That Cabinet approves: -

1)    The write off of debts identified in this report, pending further information on an individual matter; and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 91.

Note:         (i)      No other business is permitted unless by reason of special circumstances, which shall be specified in the Minutes, the Leader is of the opinion that the item(s) should be considered as a matter of urgency. 

(ii)     Any urgent item of business that is a key decision must be dealt with in accordance with the Constitution’s Access to Information Procedure Rules.

There were none.

DECISION:

Under Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public were excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.

To sign as a correct record the restricted minute to the Cabinet meeting held on 16 December 2025 (enclosed).

The restricted minutes of the meeting held on 16 December 2025 were agreed and signed by the Leader as a correct copy.

To consider exempt appendices to item 12 (enclosed).

The recommendations from the Debt Write Off report had been approved at agenda item 12.

Members wished to discuss specific information detailed within the exempt appendices, and these were considered in closed session.

DECISION:

That the exempt information be noted.