Agenda item

To consult with PDP and provide feedback on the progress of public consultation (report of the Director – Economic Development enclosed)

Consideration was given to the report of the Director – Economic Development which asked the Panel to provide feedback on the progress of the public consultation.

The Heritage Manager and the Director – Economic Development attended for this item.

The Heritage Manager presented the report and provided the Panel with a detailed update on the progress of the public consultation relating to a suite of heritage documents as set out in the report including:

• Spalding Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan (including the Spalding Shopfront Design Guide)
• Spalding Heritage Strategy
• Holbeach Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan
• S&ELCP Traditional Building Design Guide

It was noted that:

The documents sat across two portfolio areas — Heritage & Conservation and Planning.

• The consultation had commenced in November 2025 and had included social media campaigns, press and site notices, letters to properties proposed for inclusion or removal, and public events held in both Spalding and Holbeach. Hard copies had been made available on request, which included Members and the Civic Society. Documents were also accessible on the Council’s consultation webpage and via the planning portal:
• Although the formal six?week consultation period had elapsed, the documents remained online to allow further comment. The Heritage Manager noted a lack of responses from Spalding town centre businesses, prompting further engagement coordinated with the Spalding BID. Additional engagement was planned with the Spalding Town Board on 9 February 2026. All comments were requested by 13 February 2026 to allow a consolidated submission to consultants; and
• The Heritage Strategy and the Traditional Building Design Guide served as guidance only documents and had no formal adoption.

Members considered the report and made the following comments:

·         Members queried the lack of responses from Spalding town centre businesses during the consultation.

o   The Heritage Manager explained that while initial engagement was low, an additional event had been held with Spalding BID and further outreach undertaken. It was suggested that businesses may have felt unaffected due to no proposed changes to conservation area boundaries, or because many were not owner?occupiers. The consultation remained open until 13 February 2026 and further responses might still be received.

• Members asked had the follow?up engagement yielded improved responses from businesses, and what proportion as a percentage had responded overall.
  • The Heritage Manager reported that a handful of attendees had attended the BID event along with two email comments, but the total number of businesses as a percentage figure was not available to report at the meeting.

• Members commended the clarity of the documents and asked about formal sign?off.
  • The Heritage Manager confirmed the documents were in a draft format and that formal sign?off arrangements would be addressed once amendments had been made to where possible incorporate consultation responses at the final stage.

·         Members referred to the Spalding Conservation Area Appraisal and noted that public comments suggested that resources should focus on improvements to the existing conservation area rather than an extension of it. Could specific detail of the feedback be provided.

o   The Heritage Manager reported that residents commonly raised issues related to the condition of windows, doors and materials on residential properties and explained that such matters currently fell under permitted development rights, limiting the Council’s control, but that the management plan identified possible mechanisms for increasing restrictions. Feedback had included the use of residential Grant Schemes to assist with costs.

·         Members asked how licensing regulations relating to visibility into shopfronts might interact with planning control in conservation areas.

o   The Heritage Manager confirmed that licensing and planning were separate legal regimes and that licensing considerations had not been assessed as part of the appraisal.

·         Members raised concerns about the map quality within the Spalding and Holbeach appraisals and asked whether higher?resolution mapping could be provided.

o   The Heritage Manager acknowledged the comment and confirmed that higher?definition mapping would be explored for future versions to aid readability.

• Members asked how many conservation area appraisals were being consulted across the partnership, and what were the cost implications of completing the remainder.
  • The Heritage Manager stated that seven appraisals were out to consultation across the S&ELCP. They were exploring ways to deliver the remaining appraisals, which typically cost £5,000–£15,000 each, depending on size of the area.

• Members referred to the Holbeach Conservation Area Appraisal and queried whether residents affected by the proposed extensions been contacted directly, and if so were response levels known.
  • The Heritage Manager confirmed that direct letter?drops to properties within the proposed additions/removals area had been delivered along with multiple site notices. Around five responses had been received for Holbeach, which was broadly consistent with response levels seen in other areas.

Relating to the Spalding Shopfront Design Guide, members raised the following questions;

• Members queried whether the Spalding Shopfront Design Guide be district?wide rather than Spalding?specific.
  • The Director – Economic Development, advised that the Spalding Shopfront Design Guide had been funded via the Spalding Town Board and appended to the Spalding appraisal, hence its limited geographic scope. A partnership?wide treatment was being progressed in the separate S&ELCP Traditional Building Design Guide, which provided generic guidance across the area.

• Members asked whether feedback from businesses included both independents and multinationals traders and what input was received.
  • The Director – Economic Development, explained that the Business Improvement District covered all businesses in scope, with several local businesses engaging at the provided sessions. Feedback focused less on specific design points and more on historic enforcement concerns and wider management issues.

• Members referred to the Shopfront Guide and queried whether its application as ‘material consideration’ would deter multinationals or disadvantage local independents if their corporate branding conflicted with the guide.
  • The Director – Economic Development and the Heritage Manager explained that economic development and planning colleagues had typically worked with corporate applicants and design teams to secure acceptable, brand?compliant solutions. In conservation areas, proposals must preserve or enhance; the guide would provide solutions rather than impose a blanket prohibition. Proposals that preserved character should be supported; enhancements were sought where preservation was not achieved. Decisions would be made on planning merits rather than business type.

• Members asked what resources and capacity would be available to enforce the Spalding Shopfront Design Guide.
  • The Director – Economic Development responded that the document was a guide and not enforceable.

o   The Heritage Manager noted a step?change in conservation staffing since March: a full?time Principal Conservation Officer now worked wholly on conservation (previously split role), and a second full?time Conservation Officer post had been shared across the partnership, along with the appointment of an Assistant Conservation Officer. It was noted that while formal planning enforcement sat with the Enforcement Team, the Conservation Team could now draft robust conservation responses to support notices and would look to handle simpler cases more proactively as capacity allowed.

• Members asked if officers were actively striving for enhancement rather than mere preservation in day?to?day casework.
  • The Heritage Manager confirmed that, for every application within a conservation area, they would assess whether proposals preserved or enhanced. Where applications did not preserve in the first instance then officers would seek enhancements. For sites not currently proposing works, it was recognised that there was a need for proactive engagement (including potential grants and proactive enforcement) to encourage improvement.

• Members asked whether officers could pursue the enhancement of prominent buildings such as the former Johnson Hospital.
  • The Heritage Manager confirmed that the aspiration to improve key sites was reflected in the Heritage Strategy and wider regeneration plans, and proactive measures would be explored.

• Members referred to the placeholder images in the S&ELCP design guide and asked if these could be replaced with local photographs.
  • The Heritage Manager advised that the placeholders would be replaced with local photographs to illustrate examples from within the partnership area.

AGREED:

a)    That the comments of the Panel be noted; and

b)    That the proposed course of actioned, which involved further consultation, subsequent amendments to the documents and placing before Cabinet for approval, be supported.