Minutes:
Question to: Councillor Casson
Question from: Councillor Barnes
Subject: Fly-tipping
Councillor Barnes referred to data from the reporting website ‘FixMyStreet’, noting that 366 reports of fly?tipping had been recorded in the previous year and that 14 reports had been made in the past week. He commented that, when projected across a full year, this would equate to approximately 728 incidents. He queried the provision that would be made to Kingdom (the council’s enviro-crime contractor), or any other enforcement contractor, to increase capacity in response to the projected rise. He also requested a breakdown of the locations of fly?tipping reports across the district to determine whether the correct areas were being targeted. In response, Councillor Casson acknowledged the concerns regarding rising fly?tipping levels, noting both the national trend and recent severe cases featured in the media. He stated that many incidents were not reported and encouraged residents to do so, as Kingdom could only investigate cases that had been formally logged. He explained that, where no evidence could be found such as within loads of bricks or rubble, enforcement action was often not possible. He confirmed that Kingdom investigated all reports received and had recently secured successful prosecutions.
As a related supplementary question, Councillor Barnes reiterated that reports were being made, as evidenced by the recorded figures, and sought clarification on where those incidents were occurring and how many were being properly investigated. He acknowledged that some types of fly?tipping, such as sofas or rubble, might not yield evidence, but emphasised the need to understand how many cases were nonetheless subject to investigation. He further noted that, with the maximum fine for fly?tipping now increased to £1,000, it was in Kingdom’s interest to investigate more incidents, which could have implications for future enforcement capacity. In response, Councillor Casson advised that fly?tipping reports were received by Waste Services, who then liaised with the Enforcement Team. Councillor Astill, as the Portfolio Holder for Environmental Services was invited to respond, and added that existing statistics indicated a decrease in fly?tipping, confirming that figures by ward area would be circulated. He explained that although reports submitted via FixMyStreet were actioned by Waste Services, the system interacted differently with internal SHDC processes and was not updated in the same way as Lincolnshire County Council’s highway?related reporting system. He advised that the most effective and preferred method for residents to report incidents was via the Council’s own website and forms.
Question to: Councillor Worth
Question from: Councillor Chapman
Subject: Withdrawal of funding from the Food Enterprise Zone
Councillor Chapman referred to Lincolnshire County Council’s withdrawal of funding from the Food Enterprise Zone at Holbeach and asked the Leader for his assessment of the likely impact on the site and wider business confidence. In response, Councillor Worth stated that the withdrawal of funding would have a significant impact. He reported that the Executive Member for Economic Development at the County Council had suggested that the Food Enterprise Zone was underused; however, he considered such underuse to be inevitable in the absence of investment in essential infrastructure, including lighting, energy, electricity supply and roads. Without this investment, businesses would not locate on the site, and he therefore regarded the County Council’s decision as failing to support local businesses in South Holland. He added that businesses would come forward if the necessary infrastructure was provided. He referred to comments made in the Mayor’s recent budget announcement, in which it had been stated that “infrastructure comes before expansion”, and the importance of supporting the farming industry to access innovation and new technologies. Councillor Worth expressed strong agreement with both points and confirmed that he would be writing to the Mayor to seek support in this matter, given that Lincolnshire County Council had opted not to do so.
Question to: Councillor Casson
Question from: Councillor Avery
Subject: Fly-tipping at South Drove
Councillor Avery requested an update on the clearance of the significant fly?tipping activity at South Drove, a matter raised at the previous Council meeting. In response, Councillor Casson reported that delays in clearing the fly?tip had occurred due to the Welland and Deepings Internal Drainage Board requirement to prioritise the manning of pumps following heavy rainfall. Since the last meeting, a bund had been installed to prevent further fly?tipping, which had already produced a noticeable improvement, although some existing waste remained. Following a site visit that morning, Councillor Casson advised that the bund had been temporarily opened to allow the Drainage Board access to clear the remaining waste. He assured members that the area would be cleared shortly and apologised for the delay. He noted that the road had been closed for a period, necessitating the removal of machinery for safety reasons, but confirmed that work had now resumed.
Question to: Councillor Astill
Question from: Councillor Booth
Subject: Wheelie Bin Exemption Process
Councillor Booth asked when residents would be able to contact the Council regarding exemptions from the new wheelie bin collection service, particularly for those unable to manage wheelie bins. He also sought clarification on the appropriate point of contact for such enquiries. In response, Councillor Astill advised that the information was not yet available. He explained that the Council was currently in a mobilisation phase and was working with the Communications Team and the Waste Services Team to determine the criteria for the provision of wheelie bins to households. He hoped to arrange a Member Briefing in April 2026 or early May 2026 to provide an update. He confirmed that the relevant information would be published as soon as possible and added that assessments for wheelie bin eligibility would be undertaken. The service was already aware of properties on restricted collection rounds, and these would form part of the assessment process. Councillor Astill further noted that a set of ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ had been published on the Council’s website, and that an insert was expected to be issued with Council Tax bills directing residents to this information.
Question to: Councillor Astill
Question from: Councillor Woolf
Subject: Waste Policies and Fly-tipping Concern
Following recent scrutiny of Waste Policies by the Policy Development Panel and their subsequent approval by Cabinet, Councillor Woolf reiterated concerns regarding the potential for increased fly?tipping once the new service was implemented, although he stated that he hoped this would not materialise. He requested that additional measures be explored to ensure fly?tipping did not increase following implementation. In response, Councillor Astill reported that partner councils, particularly East Lindsey, had not experienced a rise in fly?tipping when wheelie bins were introduced several years earlier, and that evidence from other authorities indicated similar outcomes. He reiterated, as noted earlier in the meeting, that fly?tipping levels in 2024/25 had decreased compared to the previous year, and hoped that this downward trend would continue. Councillor Astill advised that the Council’s Engagement Team would be active within communities to educate residents on recycling and correct use of the various containers. The ongoing communications campaign, delivered through the Council’s website and local newspapers, would continue to emphasise the appropriate disposal of waste and the importance of only using licensed waste carriers. He further noted that the approved policies clearly set out the enforcement measures to be applied where necessary.
Question to: Councillor Astill
Question from: Councillor Brewis
Subject: New Waste Collection Communication Programme
Councillor Brewis expressed his strong objection to the decision to introduce wheelie bins, highlighting a large number of terraced properties in Sutton Bridge and many elderly residents who would struggle to move the bins. He asked how the Council intended to manage the complexity of the new collection system, noting that some residents already presented the wrong waste for collection under the current weekly service. He queried whether a full education and communication programme would be provided and, specifically, whether every household would receive a timetable showing the days on which each type of waste would be collected. In response, Councillor Astill stated that he had received two letters on this matter from residents in the member’s ward, which he would reply to. He reiterated that the Council was planning a district?wide programme of engagement, to begin shortly, and confirmed that the intention was to provide a hard-copy timetable. The most effective method of distribution was currently being determined.
Question to: Councillor Redgate
Question from: Councillor Beal
Subject: Efficiency Savings update
Councillor Beal referred to the recent publication of the Audited Financial Statements for the year ending 31 March 2025 and requested that the Finance Portfolio Holder provide further detail regarding the 2025/26 budget. He noted that the budget required efficiency savings of £1.2m, rising to £1.8m by 2028/29, and asked for an update on progress to date and the controls in place to monitor delivery. In response, Councillor Redgate advised that the 2025/26 budget contained an efficiency requirement of approximately £1.2m. Over the past year, officers had identified efficiencies and, by the end of Quarter 2 2025/26, more than half of the requirement had been delivered. It was anticipated that, through ongoing financial monitoring, the Quarter 3 2025/26 position would confirm delivery of the full requirement. For the forthcoming financial year, he reported that sufficient savings and income opportunities had been identified through the budget process to enable a balanced budget without the need for in?year efficiencies. Looking further ahead, he stated that the negative impact of the local government finance settlement, combined with the timing of benefits expected from the Waste Service transformation programme and the revised Leisure Contract, would result in a projected budget gap of approximately £1.6m for 2027/28. This gap was projected to reduce over the following two years before returning to a balanced position. Councillor Redgate added that the absence of in?year efficiency requirements would enable focus on addressing the 2027/28 gap, which would be managed through existing mechanisms. These included the Transformation Board, which monitored, scrutinised and supported delivery of agreed efficiency proposals; regular financial monitoring for officers and Cabinet, through which any necessary corrective action would be identified; and a review by Internal Audit of savings identification and monitoring processes to support further improvements. Ultimately, External Audit would review the position and report through its annual Value for Money statement. In conclusion, Councillor Redgate stated that the measures outlined demonstrated a healthy financial position and a robust framework being in place.
Question to: Councillor Worth
Question from: Councillor Sheard
Subject: Remembrance Parade
Councillor Sheard sought reassurance that the Remembrance Parade for 2026 would be delivered properly, professionally and in accordance with the expected standards. She reported that several military organisations had expressed concerns that their views were not being sufficiently considered in the organisation of the event, and she sought assurance that the Council’s role and responsibilities were distinct from those of the Royal British Legion (RBL). She also asked for confirmation that every effort would be made to ensure that the parade was carried out correctly. In response, the Councillor Worth confirmed that the Council’s role in relation to the Remembrance Parade was limited to arranging the necessary road closures and ensuring that appropriate safety measures were in place. He advised that the RBL was responsible for the organisation and running of the parade, and therefore he could not comment on its behalf. However, he confirmed that the Council would continue to work closely with the RBL and other relevant organisations to support the effective delivery of the event and noted the concerns raised.
Question to: Councillor Astill
Question from: Councillor Avery
Subject: Waste Vehicles
Councillor Avery referred to a recent local newspaper headline and queried whether the new waste and recycling vehicles would be electric, seeking clarification on the associated logistics and practicalities. In response, Councillor Astill advised that the headline had overstated the issue, and that the full article had clarified that the Council was not moving to fully electric refuse or food?waste vehicles. He confirmed that the electric element related solely to the mechanism at the rear of the waste vehicles, which would be electrically powered rather than hydraulic. This represented the most efficient option currently available, as the technology required for fully electric refuse vehicles was not yet sufficiently advanced.
Question to: Councillor Astill
Question from: Councillor T Sneath
Subject: Food Waste Collection
Councillor Sneath noted the level of public interest in forthcoming waste collection changes and asked whether the authority remained on track to be operational for food waste collections by October 2026, as reported by Lincolnshire County Council. In response, Councillor Astill advised that October 2026 was an indicative timeframe rather than a confirmed start date, and that the earliest point at which the Council would implement the new collection arrangements would be from October 2026 onwards. He stated that further details would be announced in due course.
Question to: Councillor Bingham
Question from: Councillor Eldridge
Subject: Solar Developments on Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land
Councillor Eldridge referred to the recent decision of the Planning Inspector to enable the progression of an appeal for a solar development at Cordwell Farms, located entirely on Grade 1 agricultural land, where permission had now been granted. She also referred to a further appeal relating to the Fendike Solar proposal in her ward, for which a decision was awaited, as well as a rescheduled appeal for another application in the same ward. She noted that each appeal carried a financial cost to the Council, and therefore ultimately to residents, which should not be overlooked. Given that previous appeal decisions had to be taken into account when assessing planning applications, and in light of the increasing number of large?scale solar developments proposed across the district, Councillor Eldridge asked that the Council consider the broader, strategic question of whether it could continue to demonstrate the necessary tenacity to properly value and protect the district’s Best and Most Versatile (BMV) agricultural land. In response, Councillor Bingham expressed concern regarding recent appeal outcomes in which Planning Inspectors had placed limited weight on the impact of large?scale solar development on BMV land and local landscape character. He observed that, although individual applications represented a relatively small proportion of BMV land, the cumulative impact of multiple schemes coming forward across Lincolnshire and South Holland was a significant issue. He commented that national policy direction was influencing these decisions and that further applications were likely. He stated that the Council was not opposed to renewable?energy development in principle and had supported schemes where they were appropriately located, however proposals needed to be situated in suitable locations, with lower?grade land and rooftop or commercial?site opportunities prioritised. He noted that large?scale proposals and forthcoming Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects could, over time, alter the landscape character of the district, and confirmed that the Council would continue to put forward its evidence and local considerations through both the Planning and appeal processes.
Question to: Councillor Carter
Question from: Councillor Hasan
Subject: Houses in Multiple Occupation and Infrastructure
Councillor Hasan raised concerns regarding the increasing number of Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO) in his area, particularly on St Thomas’ Road, Priory Road and Spring Gardens. He noted that some properties accommodated between 10 and 12 occupants but did not appear to have adequate parking provision, resulting in parking congestion, blocked access and unsafe conditions for residents and other road users. He queried the local infrastructure considerations, including parking capacity and road safety, when determining applications for such developments, and the steps that could be taken where issues had already arisen. In response, Councillor Carter confirmed that a revised HMO policy had recently been considered through the scrutiny process, including detailed discussion of fees and property standards. She noted that national minimum standards, such as minimum room sizes, were set by Government, but that the Council had examined whether higher local standards were appropriate. She advised that planning considerations, including matters relating to parking and amenity, were assessed as part of the application process. She acknowledged that some HMOs had created parking pressures in certain areas and advised that issues could be considered at the point of licence renewal, although refusals could only be made on statutory grounds. She reiterated that significant work had been undertaken in reviewing regulations and standards within the new policy and confirmed that officers remained mindful of the impact of HMOs on local neighbourhoods.