Minutes:
Question to: Councillor Worth
Question from: Councillor Gibson
Subject: Anaerobic digester – Rangell Gate
Councillor Gibson commented that he was receiving a lot of correspondence from the public regarding the proposed installation of an anaerobic digester at Rangell Gate. Concerns were being raised around the smell that could drift across residential areas. As a Council, could we undertake any due diligence to see how these residents may be affected and if so, could any action be taken before building commenced. Councillor Worth responded to advise that this was subject to a Planning application. Environmental Health would be able to have input into the application and would monitor this very carefully, due to its proximity to residential areas.
Question to: Councillor Tyrrell
Question from: Councillor Brewis
Subject: Missed refuse and recycling collections
Councillor Brewis stated that there had recently been more complaints over missed refuse/recycling collections than for some time. How could it be ensured that the confusion around changed dates over the Christmas and New Year period did not happen again next year? Councillor Tyrrell responded by stating that the re-routing of collections had been undertaken to find out whether a better job could be done. Until the six-month trial was completed (end of March), it would be difficult to evaluate this. There had been a number of issues creating problems – a huge amount of additional waste had to be collected over the Christmas period, and there had been staff sickness. The Pride Team had assisted in the collection of as much waste as possible. A clearer answer would be given once the six-month trial period had ended and the results evaluated.
Question to: Councillor E Sneath
Question from: Councillor Tennant
Subject: Conservation areas and protection of the environment
Councillor Tennant stated that new planning legislation would make it easier for authorities to monitor conservation areas and protect the environment. Could consideration be given to adding Long Sutton to the agenda – it was felt that the area had been neglected over the last 15-20 years and it was blighted by a Grade 2 listed hotel in the town centre. It was also requested that the way in which other authorities addressed enforcement be considered in order that successful practice could be used locally. Councillor E Sneath responded that she would be happy to visit Long Sutton and meet with individuals to discuss the issues and to move things forward.
Question to: Councillor Astill
Question from: Councillor Eldridge
Subject: Prevention of digital exclusion
Councillor Eldridge asked what the Council was doing to ensure that its customers were not excluded digitally. Councillor Astill responded that there were currently two documents in place – the Customer Strategy that had been approved by Cabinet earlier that month, and the IT Strategy. Both documents would ensure that any projects brought forward would not have a detrimental effect on the community. In addition to this, one focus project group around sheltered housing had been undertaken and there were various other bids being submitted for Levelling Up funding to undertake more digital inclusion training across the district.
Question to: Councillor Carter
Question from: Councillor Harrison
Subject: Success of Christmas Pantomime at the South Holland Centre
Councillor Harrison commented that she had heard a lot of positive feedback regarding the pantomime at the South Holland Centre – were there any figures available for tickets sales, and how did they compare to previous years? Councillor Carter advised that the figure for this year was £10,646, a rise from £10,339 last year. This had brought in an increased gross revenue of 3% compared to last year. In addition to the pantomime, there was a lot of growth at the South Holland Centre – ticket sales for 22/23 was £24,691, and ticket sales for 23/24 were forecast at £30,000. A rise in attendance of 8% was also forecast. There had been some great feedback regarding the pantomime, and an extra performance would be added to the 2024 pantomime schedule.
Question to: Councillor Taylor
Question from: Councillor Spencer
Subject: Swimming Pool
Councillor Spencer stated that members had been advised that a report regarding the replacement of the swimming pool would be available before Christmas, but that no information on responses to the consultation had been made available. Work on the pool was due to start later in the year – when would there be information available to scrutinise? In addition, members had been advised that there were no monies available for an Olympic-sized pool, which could bring in additional income – had this been considered and costed and had consideration been given to any match funding? Councillor Taylor responded by clarifying that the leisure replacement project was for a health and well-being hub and not purely a swimming pool. Members had been provided with a briefing in October of last year where many councillors had taken part and provided feedback. Councillor Taylor, the Leader and the Finance Portfolio Holder had met the project manager again this week where some good designs had been seen and it was pleasing to see the progress that had been made. There had been consultation with user groups, and the issue of a 50-metre pool had neither been raised by the swimming groups, nor at the briefing in October. Regular briefings and updates for Councillors would be arranged and there would be the opportunity to provide comment.
Question to: Councillor Tyrrell
Question from: Councillor Alcock
Subject: Littering and litter bins
Councillor Alcock firstly asked the Portfolio Holder if part of his Portfolio was to ensure that the district was litter-free as far as possible, and to assist the public in doing this? Councillor Tyrrell responded that it was part of his Portfolio. Councillor Alcock then followed up by asking why there was no money in the budget to replace litter bins – would he ensure that there was a fund available for the replacement of existing bins and adding more if required. Councillor Tyrrell advised that the Authority could only replace those that were already damaged. With regard to paying for them, he would confirm the situation regarding the budget with officers. In relation to bins currently on the street, if they could not be easily accessed, they could be moved or replaced. Councillor Alcock commented that the budget was zero and it had been suggested to him that if a replacement was required, that members’ designated budgets could be used to fund replacement – he did not agree with this and stated that provision of litter bins was an Authority function and member budgets should not be used for this purpose. Councillor Tyrrell stated that he would look into the issue and respond in due course.
Question to: Councillor Worth
Question from: Councillor Beal
Subject: Bridge Hotel, Sutton Bridge
Councillor Beal asked for an update on the Bridge Hotel in Sutton Bridge. It was again on the market. When it had last been for sale, the Council had submitted a bid – what was the situation this time? Councillor Worth responded that the last time the Bridge Hotel had been on the market, the Council had submitted a bid for the maximum amount allowed by the district valuer (there was a need to get best value for money). The amount currently being requested considerably exceeded this limit and a bid was therefore not viable on this occasion. In reference to Councillor Tennant’s earlier question regarding action being taken with regard to unsightly buildings, he had taken action with regard to the White Horse and would also work with Councillor E Sneath with regard to the Bridge Hotel in Long Sutton, to hopefully move the issue along.
Question to: Councillor Taylor
Question from: Councillor Sheard
Subject: CCTV hub update
Councillor Sheard asked if there was any update on the CCTV hub and in attracting individuals to monitor the footage. Councillor Taylor advised that a vacancy for monitoring staff had been advertised, along with some vacancies for volunteers. He was also working on an update to be provided to the Spalding Town Forum at its meeting next week.
Question to: Councillor Worth
Question from: Councillor Astill
Subject: Environment Agency – breach of bank between Crowland and Spalding
Councillor Astill commented that, following the recent breach of the bank between Crowland and Spalding, the Environment Agency had come up for some criticism from local farmers and drainage boards around their mis-management of the situation, and their lack of provision of timescales to address the issue. Could a letter be sent by the Authority to the Environment Agency to ensure that they undertook their responsibilities and that they provide assurances on timescales to deal with repairs. Councillor Worth confirmed that he would happily write to the Environment Agency. He was very aware of the good work that the drainage boards had undertaken, and it was unfortunate that the Environment Agency had not met the same good standards.
Question to: Councillor Taylor
Question from: Councillor Booth
Subject: Expansion of CCTV provision
Councillor Booth asked, with regard to CCTV, if there was active promotion of expansion to Parish Councils. His Parish Council had asked for information last year and had received no response. Councillor Taylor apologised for the lack of a response and he would investigate this. It was his and the Council’s ambition to expand CCTV across the district. The type of CCTV coverage in the Long Sutton/Sutton Bridge area relied on the electrical supply from local businesses and this was not the most efficient system.
Question to: Councillor Carter
Question from: Councillor Brewis
Subject: Promotion of markets
Councillor Brewis stated that market users and stall holders were very happy with the new administration’s wish to promote markets. There was a real need to get on with this – when would we start doing this, particularly in the outlying towns and villages with markets? In his opinion, the rent rises had not been helpful. Councillor Carter responded that with regard to rent rises, there had only been one piece of feedback from stall holders which had stated that they were happy to pay the increase. Traders were very happy with the rise. Councillor Carter and the Markets Manager had met last year with traders and would be meeting again to hear their feedback. Signage and promotion had been raised and some large banners had been produced for display. A UKSPF bid to support the purchase of gazebos and marketing/promotion had been successful. Branding had been undertaken and the Facebook page promoted all markets. Much work had already been undertaken, but there was still more to be done.
Question to: Councillor Tyrrell
Question from: Councillor Spencer
Subject: Mixing of landfill/recycling waste
Councillor Spencer stated that he had received several complaints from residents in his ward around bin collection. Referring to an earlier question, he acknowledged that the six-month trial period had not yet expired however, it did not appear to be going well due to the number of complaints. A specific complaint from residents had been the sight of refuse collectors putting landfill and recyclable waste into the same vehicle – if this was the case, what incentive did the public have to follow guidance towards greener initiatives. What was the decision-making process around mixing waste? Councillor Tyrrell asked for information on the dates and roads where this had allegedly happened – vehicles were fitted with cameras and these could be checked once dates and locations were known.
Question to: Councillor Astill
Question from: Councillor Sheard
Subject: Out of Hours service
Councillor Sheard stated that the Out of Hours service had been advertised on digital media - she was aware of a number of people who had tried to contact the advertised number but had received no response. Could this be looked into and if there was a problem, could this be resolved? Councillor Astill commented that the Out of Hours service was operated by Lincolnshire County Council across of a number of the Authority’s services. He was not aware of any issues but would investigate and provide a response.