Minutes:
Question to: Councillor Casson
Question from: Councillor Booth
Subject: CCTV in parishes
Councillor Booth commented on antisocial behaviour in Spalding and throughout the District – was CCTV being promoted to parishes, and could an update be provided? His Parish Clerk had asked questions regarding this and had not yet received a response – could a meeting with the Portfolio Holder be arranged? Councillor Casson responded that he fully supported the use of CCTV cameras and commented that he would be happy to arrange a meeting with Councillor Booth and representatives from his Parish in order to move things forward.
Question to: Councillor Worth
Question from: Councillor Bingham
Subject: Government announcement on liability of some farmers to pay Inheritance Tax
Councillor Bingham stated that he, along with 20,000 other farmers had last week taken part in a demonstration in London, against the Government’s proposals to change the rules around Inheritance Tax paid by farmers’ and their businesses. In his view, successive governments had failed to show a lack of understanding of the countryside and the current Government’s actions would do great harm to many farmers. Would the Leader of the Council speak with his partner Leaders to put forward a letter demanding the reversal of inheritance tax changes on farming and businesses and furthermore, to adjust policies that disproportionally affected rural residents? The Leader advised that he was more than happy to speak to the other two Leaders withing the Partnership and send a letter. The march had been very successful and he was aware that the area was dominated by farming and related industries. The proposed changes would have a huge effect on the area and a letter would be sent in the near future.
Question to: Councillor Taylor
Question from: Councillor M LeSage
Subject: Consultation with users of current leisure facilities regarding the new Wellbeing Hub
Councillor M Le Sage thanked Councillor Taylor and his team for their work to date on the Wellbeing Hub in Spalding. He asked if Councillor Taylor could arrange a meeting between the officer team and users of the pool to allay any fears around the recently announced changes? Councillor Taylor responded that the planning application for the Wellbeing Hub would be presented to the Planning Committee in January 2025. Prior to this, the project team would work with users of the facility to understand their concerns. He advised that there would be no gap in pool availability for users, with the old pool closing one day and the new one opening the next. In addition, an agreement had been reached with Boston College and Parkwood for indoor exercise classes and gym facilities to continue at the Boston College site at Red Lion Street in Spalding. Again, there would be no gap in provision for users. It was important to listen to users of the facilities and he requested that Councillor M Le Sage liaise with him to arrange dates for users views to be heard, and to allay any concerns.
Question to: Councillor Worth
Question from: Councillor J Le Sage
Subject: Development of markets
Councillor J Le Sage advised that he had recently attended a meeting of councillors in Grantham. The number of market stalls there had increased from 11 to 44 in the last year and a half. What was this authority doing to encourage new traders and could we learn from colleagues at Grantham? Councillor Worth responded that he spoke often to colleagues at South Kesteven and would be happy to speak to them on this point and hear any new ideas and best practice. Markets were challenging with many traders having worked on the markets for a long time and working unsocial hours. It was difficult to encourage younger people to do this work, particularly where there was not a high footfall, and it was therefore important to also consider how to increase footfall. The Leader was asking for more money to be added to the budget so that going forward, more events could be hosted to run in conjunction with markets on market days. It was important to bring more footfall into the town, but he would also speak with South Kesteven colleagues.
Question to: Councillor Worth
Question from: Councillor Beal
Subject: Impact on SELCP from Combined Lincolnshire Authority and Local Government Reorganisation
Councillor Beal commented that, following the announcement of the Combined Lincolnshire Authority and Mayoral elections in May, what impact would this have on the Local Government Review and what would be the likely impact on SHDC and the S&ELC Partnership? The Leader advised that he had received a letter from the Government Minister advising that with regard to the Greater Lincolnshire Mayoral Combined Authority, the instrument had now been laid before Parliament, and this was the final statutory procedure. Mayoral elections would take place in May. With regard to the Local Government Review, there were many rumours and much speculation circulating however it was clear that the Government was keen to push forward with the Local Government Review and Unitary Councils as a priority. The Bill relating to Devolution was due to go through Parliament next week and more information should be forthcoming following this. The Leader was of the opinion that District Councils would not exist for much longer. The benefits of the S&ELCP had recently been promoted to senior civil servants with a view to this being a potential model going forward however, more facts were required.
Question to: Councillor Worth
Question from: Councillor Geaney
Subject: Allocation of business rates from Triton Knoll/Viking Link
Councillor Geaney commented that the nationally significant energy products from Triton Knoll and Viking Link came ashore underground in East Lindsey however South Holland and Boston had to suffer the massive infrastructure to distribute this energy across the country. How much would the district receive via business rates from this infrastructure? The Leader responded that neither South Holland District Council nor Boston Council would receive anything in business rates. The current national regulations were very old, and it forced the nationally significant infrastructure projects to be treated at one rateable value and for that to be attributed to the authority that was assessed with the greatest rateable value, in this case, East Lindsey District Council. They would receive 100% of the business rates from both projects. With regard to Triton Knoll, this equated to approximately £4.4 million per year and Viking Link was projected to be around £6 million per year. If this was shared between the three authorities within the Partnership and North Kesteven, who were also impacted, this would make a huge difference. The Leader had written some time ago to the local MP and also the Minister and he had been advised that this old regulation would be looked at – in the Leader’s opinion, it was simply unfair, and for the District to receive only a small part would make a huge difference.
Question to: Councillor E Sneath
Question from: Councillor Hutchinson
Subject: Value of listing buildings in poor state of repair
Councillor Hutchinson commented that there were several key buildings in the area that were important to its heritage that were in a poor state of repair, that were not listed. Could a list of locally listed buildings be produced, which would at least offer them some protection to their setting and then themselves, as they would then be classed as non-designated heritage assets. Councillor E Sneath was interested in this area. Some sites may already be on national lists but producing our own list would be a good way forward. It was important that these sites were noted properly.
Question to: Councillor Worth/Councillor Tyrrell
Question from: Councillor T Sneath
Subject: Gifts to employees
Councillor T Sneath commented that at this time of year, gifts could be offered by residents as a sign of gratitude to colleagues, employees and friends. Could clarity be provided as to what could be gifted and accepted, to what value, and if they could not be accepted, why not? Councillor Worth commented that this issue was not within his or Councillor Tyrrell’s remit and was unaware what the policy relating to this was. The Monitoring Officer advised that details would be provided to the councillor to provide clarity on this matter
Question to: Councillor Casson
Question from: Councillor Barnes
Subject: Fixed Penalty Notices and visits by Kingdom to areas of the District beyond Spalding
Councillor Barnes referred to a report from Kingdom providing data up to September 2024 – it stated that 1538 FPNs had been issue, 1434 of them in the Spalding Castle Ward and of these, 1239 were for dropping cigarettes. It seemed that the situation was not being grasped, and that there was more of a need to educate people. The report also showed details of visits – there had been only one visit to the Sutton Bridge roundabout, and the rest were in Spalding. This did not bear out the Portfolio Holder’s comment that officers were covering the whole district. Was the information within the report correct, and could future reports be circulated to all councillors? Councillor Casson was sure that the report was correct. Attendance in Spalding was highest as this was where the main footfall was however, officers did visit other places within the district, although not as frequently as Spalding. Fly tipping took more investigation. He could not add to the report.
Question to: Councillor Worth
Question from: Councillor Alcock
Subject: Allocation of business rates from Triton Knoll/Viking Link
Councillor Alcock’s question led on from that asked earlier by Councillor Geaney, regarding potential allocation of monies from business rates to be received from Triton Knoll and Viking Link. Had a direct approach been made to the Leader at East Lindsey District Council? Whilst taking part in a Task Group, Councillor Alcock had asked the question of ELDC’s Leader and he had appeared sympathetic however, at that point no approach had been made to discuss the way forward to share these monies more fairly. Councillor Worth advised that he had spoken with ELDC’s Leader informally on several occasions on this matter and whilst he was sympathetic any option to ‘share’ would have to be agreed by their Full Council if appropriate.
Councillor Alcock responded to ask whether SHDC should pursue this more robustly – if legislation did not change the situation may not be resolved quickly. The Leader responded that ministers were being lobbied hard and had received a sympathetic response. It was felt that the Local Government Review may overtake the issue.
The Chief Executive clarified that even if ELDC wished to share the money, there was no legal provision for them to make this decision as it involved cross subsidisation across different sets of tax codes. Ultimately it was a Government decision to lay down regulations to allow the District Valuer to split the asset across 2/3 different Council areas.
Question to: Councillor Taylor
Question from: Councillor Sheard
Subject: Delay to Wellness Hub - employees
Councillor Sheard asked whether, with the delay to the start of work on the Wellness Hub, had consideration been given to the people who had prematurely given up their jobs or moved their businesses away from the current facility? Some individuals had approached her to highlight the detrimental effect of having to move earlier than they could have done. Councillor Taylor commented that he had not been advised of this issue. There had not been a major delay, only a few weeks. He asked that Councillor Sheard advise them to contact himself with any questions and concerns. It was important that local businesses support the project.
Question to: Councillor Worth
Question from: Councillor M Le Sage
Subject: Former Johnson Hospital - update
Councillor M Le Sage commented that he believed that 15 years ago, the former Johnson Hospital had been listed as derelict by the Valuation Office. He had, over the last 18 months submitted 3 Freedom of Information requests to view this report but each time had been turned down. He was also led to believe that business rates were not paid by the owners on the building, due to its derelict status. What was the current situation? Councillor Worth clarified that the building was not owned by SHDC, and that he agreed that business rates should be paid. The building was significant to the town and he had mentioned this at the Spalding Town Board. When the Board looked at its actions going forward, after it received monies in 2026, he hoped that this would be one of their priorities. However, until this was agreed, there was nothing further that could be done with the site. A Compulsory Purchase Order could be undertaken however this was a lengthy and costly process. It was on the Spalding Town Board’s radar, and he also commented that ideas for the building’s usage would be welcome.
Question to: Councillor Astill
Question from: Councillor Beal
Subject: Robustness of IT
Councillor Beal commented that, following the recent cyber incidents at St Helens Council and Tewkesbury Borough Council, could the Portfolio Holder confirm that each of the Partnership council’s IT plans were robust, and that suitable back-up plans were in place, should a similar situation occur? Councillor Astill confirmed that robust business continuity and cyber security plans were in place. With regard to St Helens Council, PSPS had provided the three relevant Portfolio Holders within the Partnership with an analysis of the recommendations from their report, and he confirmed that the Partnership was in a good place in this regard. SHDC, as part of the Partnership had been invited to be earlier adopters of the Government’s Cyber Assessment Framework
Question to: Councillor Casson
Question from: Councillor J Le Sage
Subject: Collection of stickered refuse bags
Councillor J Le Sage commented that Councillor Casson had visited his ward in St Johns to view issues there around the collection of refuse bags. Since that meeting, had any robust action been taken with regard to the stickering of refuse bags and how various parties were informed to collect this rubbish? It appeared that the bags were stickered but that there was no follow up process. Councillor Casson was not aware of any fines that had been given out, and he stated that the team under Councillor Tyrrell’s Portfolio were responsible for the stickering of waste. Councillor Tyrrell advised that the waste in question had included commercial waste which was the reason for their non-collection however, these had now been removed.