Agenda and draft minutes

To confirm and sign as a correct record the Minutes of the Meeting of Full Council held on 27 January 2025.

Having been proposed and seconded, on being put to the vote it was:

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Meeting of Full Council held on 27 January 2025 be confirmed, approved and signed as a correct record.

Members may make any declarations of interest at this point and may also make them at any point during the meeting.

There were no declarations of interest made at this point in the meeting.

Setting out the current position of previously agreed actions as at 21 February 2025.

The Chairman introduced the report, advising Members that it would be taken “as read” unless Members had any questions that they wished to raise.

With no comments or questions and with no requirement to vote, the matters arising were DULY NOTED.

i)               Chairman of Council

ii)              Leader of the Council

iii)            Head of Paid Service

Chairman

The Chairman addressed Council, summarised as follows:

The pendant for the full civic regalia was collected from Birmingham, and for the first time, the Chairman realised there was an inscription on the back which read: ‘This medallion was presented to the Council by Councillor Gordon F Fox in the year of his chairmanship 1974 to 1975’. An interesting note on times past.

Since the previous meeting, the Chairman had undertaken several engagements, including speaking at a U3A meeting in Market Rasen about his role as a Councillor and the responsibilities across Town, District and County Council. He commented on the benefits of talks, highlighting that many residents were unaware of the tiers of local government and where responsibilities differed.

The Chairman highlighted the fifth anniversary of the crematorium, praising the celebrations whilst regretting his unavailability to attend, however he had visited the Operational Services Depot at Caenby Corner for the arrival of the first liveried food waste collection vehicle. He reminded Councillors that the team at the Depot were available to attend local events to raise awareness and answer questions regarding the anticipated roll out of food waste collections.

The Chairman had also attended the Illuminate Festival, including exhibitions at the Old Hall, praising the success of the event and the involvement of the local community. Another engagement took place in Nettleham, celebrating the awarding of the Freedom of the Parish to Pearl Wheatley, who was also celebrating her birthday at the same time.

Special mention was given to West Lindsey based businesses, the Bridleway Bed and Breakfast, and Ashleigh Farm Caravan and Glamping, winners at the Destination Lincolnshire Tourism Excellence Awards, which the Chairman had attended alongside the Leader, Deputy Leader and Council Officers. He praised all those businesses who had been finalists, recognising the value they brought to their local communities and the wider district, whether that be by providing employment, services, or welcoming visitors into the area thereby helping grow the local economy.

In concluding his announcements, the Chairman reiterated the diversity of engagements, and invited the Leader to speak.

Leader

The Leader made the following address to Council:

“Thank you, Chairman. Welcome Members and Officers to this evening's meeting. I've just got two announcements this evening. Firstly RAF Scampton. Last week myself and the Deputy Leader met with Minister Angela Eagle regarding RAF Scampton. As Members will be aware, for the last two years the authorities have been fighting the government to protect that site and deliver our £300million development. I must say the meeting was very productive. We're very optimistic that the Labour government will make an announcement very shortly regarding the decision to transfer the site to us. It was an extremely positive meeting, and we were really optimistic in terms of finally trying to get that one over the line.

Local Government Reorganisation: there's been several meetings since the last Full Council meeting on LGR, work is ongoing and we will be arranging an Extraordinary Full Council meeting in the next couple  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.

Questions, if received, under this Scheme will be published by way of supplement following closure of the deadline.

The Chairman advised the meeting that no public questions had been received.

Questions, if received, under this Scheme will be published by way of supplement following closure of the deadline.

Questions now attached

The Chairman advised the meeting that three questions had been received pursuant to Procedure Rule No.9. The questions had been circulated to all Members, separately to the agenda, and published on the website.

He invited Councillor I. Fleetwood, Local Ward Member for Bardney, to put his question to the Leader, as follows:

“At the last Full Council Meeting the Leader responded to my motion regarding keeping balances owned by the District Council within the realms of those tax payers who had been resident in the District – This was voted down which is a major disservice to the many residents who have contributed to make West Lindsey what it currently stands for!

Even worse than this, the Leader maintained that the previous Administration had invested outside of the District and his Deputy Leader maintained that there had been no social contribution or benefit to the rate payers of the District.  I maintain the Leader has misled everybody because if the investment portfolio is checked anybody can see that approximately a third of the total investment (about £6.5 million pounds) has been invested within the District Council boundary creating opportunities that they both failed to recognise!

Would the Leader and Deputy Leader please apologise to the Council and residents of the District?”

The Chairman thanked Councillor Fleetwood for his question and invited Councillor Trevor Young, as Leader of the Council, to respond, with the response being as follows:

“Councillor Fleetwood, thank you for your question. The simple answer to your question is no, I will not apologise. The issue of whether a council should be allowed to invest out of their area is a contentious issue, and the rules have now changed not allowing councils to invest out of area, following numerous poor financial decisions being made by councils, which has led to many facing bankruptcy.

During the years of Conservative governments’ underfunding of local authorities, councils were forced into having to look into investments to raise revenue, or simply withdraw or reduce services. With the uncertainty of returns on investments, should councils be allowed to play Russian roulette with hard-earned council tax money being invested out of their areas? Councils have lost millions up and down the country and the potential risk involved was clearly recognised by the government when the rules have now been changed. Out of area investments based on financial returns are extremely risky and the fact is that the asset value of some of the investments made by this previous administration will be far lower than the original purchase price.

The Liberal Democrat Group do not oppose commercial investments, but they have to deliver social return, support local growth, economic development and local employment. South Yorkshire must be delighted by the way that West Lindsey has purchased a hotel in Keighley, a knicker factory in Sheffield, a gym in Sheffield and a car sales room in Doncaster, protecting many of their local jobs whilst the numbers of jobless in West Lindsey is at an all-time high.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69.

Motion 1 -  Back West Lindsey – Stop a Mega-Council

“This Council Notes:

1.     The Government’s English Devolution announcement in December 2024, which included reference to supporting local government reorganisation.

2.     The proposals being considered by some counties to merge existing district councils into large, county-wide unitary authorities, as seen recently in North Yorkshire.

3.     The significant concerns of residents, businesses and the third sector across Lincolnshire regarding the negative impact a mega-council would have on local democracy, accountability, and the effective delivery of public services.

4.     The financial situation of mega-councils created in recent years such as Somerset and North Northamptonshire have not improved post-unitarisation. The financial crisis in local government has not been solved by unitarisation.

This Council Believes:

1.             Decisions affecting West Lindsey should be taken in West Lindsey.

2.             In its 50 year’s of existence West Lindsey has been a successful council responding to the needs of its community.  This level of localised action would be lost in mega-council, one county unitary.

3.             Whilst the current two-tier system presents some challenges, the solution does not lie in the creation of vast and remote mega-councils that would diminish local voices and accountability.

4.             If unitarisation is to be implemented in Lincolnshire, it should be based on smaller, more localised areas that are aligned with existing communities and their identities, rather than a single, county-wide mega-council.

5.             That any restructuring of local government in Lincolnshire must be driven by the genuine needs and preferences of local communities, and should not be a top-down imposition that disregards local concerns.

This Council Resolves:

1.       To reject the creation of a large, county-wide mega-council for Lincolnshire.

2.       To call upon the Leader of the Council to write to all Council Leaders in Greater Lincolnshire and the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to inform them of West Lindsey’s wish to remain West Lindsey, and request that they abandon any plans for a county-wide mega-council.

3.       We instruct officers to ensure that the continuing identity of West Lindsey District as a major contributor to Central Lincolnshire is at the forefront of any thinking and planning that they undertake from now on

I so move

Councillor Matthew Boles”

The Chairman advised the meeting that one Motion had been submitted pursuant to Council Procedure Rule No. 10 and this was set out in the agenda.

As the mover of the first motion, Councillor Boles  was invited to read aloud his motion to the meeting, as follows:

Motion 1 – Back West Lindsey – Stop a Mega-Council

“This Council Notes:

1.               The Government’s English Devolution announcement in December 2024, which included reference to supporting local government reorganisation.

2.               The proposals being considered by some counties to merge existing district councils into large, county-wide unitary authorities, as seen recently in North Yorkshire.

3.               The significant concerns of residents, businesses and the third sector across Lincolnshire regarding the negative impact a mega-council would have on local democracy, accountability, and the effective delivery of public services.

4.               The financial situation of mega-councils created in recent years such as Somerset and North Northamptonshire have not improved post-unitarisation. The financial crisis in local government has not been solved by unitarisation.

This Council Believes:

1.               Decisions affecting West Lindsey should be taken in West Lindsey.

2.               In its 50 years of existence West Lindsey has been a successful council responding to the needs of its community.  This level of localised action would be lost in mega-council, one county unitary.

3.               Whilst the current two-tier system presents some challenges, the solution does not lie in the creation of vast and remote mega-councils that would diminish local voices and accountability.

4.               If unitarisation is to be implemented in Lincolnshire, it should be based on smaller, more localised areas that are aligned with existing communities and their identities, rather than a single, county-wide mega-council.

5.               That any restructuring of local government in Lincolnshire must be driven by the genuine needs and preferences of local communities, and should not be a top-down imposition that disregards local concerns.

This Council Resolves:

1.            To reject the creation of a large, county-wide mega-council for Lincolnshire.

2.            To call upon the Leader of the Council to write to all Council Leaders in Greater Lincolnshire and the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to inform them of West Lindsey’s wish to remain West Lindsey, and request that they abandon any plans for a county-wide mega-council.

3.            We instruct officers to ensure that the continuing identity of West Lindsey District as a major contributor to Central Lincolnshire is at the forefront of any thinking and planning that they undertake from now on

I so move

Councillor Matthew Boles”

With the motion duly seconded, debate ensued, with Members voicing their support for, or opposition to, unitary councils.

As a point of information, a Member highlighted that the proposals in Lincolnshire under Local Government Reorganisation was not for one sole ‘mega-council’, rather for there to be authorities with around 500,000 residents, which meant dividing the approximately 1.1 million residents in Greater Lincolnshire. Concern was raised that, even if the Council did not support the proposals, it was important for the district to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

Members gave consideration to a report which presented the Medium-Term Financial Plan (MTFP) for 2025/26 onwards, alongside the 2025/26 Budget and the Capital Programme from 2025/26 to 2029/30.

The Leader made the following budget speech to Council in presenting the report:

“This report sets out the medium-term financial plan for 2025-26 onwards. The purpose of the medium-term financial plan is to set out robust overall framework for the Council's financial strategy and spending plans over the next five years in support of delivering the corporate plan. The report sets out the revised financial plans with the financial analysis for changes in government funding, the economic environment, local engagement and the priorities of the council. The plan reflects the revisions to previous estimates and covers the period of 2025-26 to 2029-30. The medium-term financial analysis includes the budget for 2025-26 for approval. A balanced budget for 2025-26 is proposed without the requirement to support it with funds from the general fund balance.

The final local government finance settlement was delivered in February, which announced a further five years new homes bonus in 2025-26, which will be put into the growth reserve. The reset of the business rates and the wider review of the local government funding were not announced, and they are now expected during 2025. It is likely that these will result in a reduced funding for the council.

The referendum limit for council tax has been set for district councils at up to 3% or £5 whichever is the higher. For 2025-26, the West Lindsey part of council tax is increased by 2.98%. This equates to a rise of £7.21 for a Band D property. The 2025-26 budget totals £21.155 million and is fully funded and represents a balanced budget.

The capital programme totals £13.79 million over a medium-term financial plan and is fully funded. During 2025-26, plans will be developed and expanded in the capital programme to deliver the priorities on leisure and wellbeing and improve access to health services whilst addressing inequalities. As and when these plans are developed, these will be shared with Members at the earliest opportunities.

Also included in the medium-term financial plan are the risk register, at appendix 2, and the Pay Policy Statement and Human Resources Statement in appendices 13 and 14 respectively.

Our engagement with the peer challenge review process in January highlighted that it would be beneficial for us to have a greater level of direction and clarity on our priorities in the Executive Business Plan in order that these progress and can be quickly achieved in terms of delivering our priorities. It would not have made sense to present one plan only to present a refreshed version in a few weeks' time. So common sense has prevailed, and this will be presented to Members in June and it will include:

1.    an extension of the work around health and wellbeing through high level work with partners to facilitate improved GP provision across Gainsborough and the district.

2.    to improve  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.

The Chairman, in his capacity as Chairman of the Governance and Audit Committee, introduced the report regarding the outcome of the legal health check of the Constitution and the arising recommendations. He noted that the recommendations were divided up into three sections and detailed at section 2.1 of the report. The required amendments which stood recommended to Full Council were detailed at Appendix 1. He highlighted that these amendments were acquired by law and were categorised as class ‘A’, that being, they should be made as soon as possible as they related to legal requirements.

The Chairman noted that the report also set out the next steps, however those matters would be the subject of further reports in the future. He confirmed the report had been considered by the relevant committees and therefore moved the recommendations from the Chair. The motion was duly seconded and the Chairman invited comments from the floor.

Councillor D. Dobbie, as Vice Chairman of the Governance and Audit Committee, expressed his support for the recommendations, stating the Constitution was a living document and as such required updating and amending. He voiced his support for a review of the retention period for council recordings of public meetings, noting that members of the public could hold their own recordings indefinitely. He reiterated his support for the recommended amendments, with others echoing his comments.

With no further comments, the Chairman took the vote and it was unanimously

RESOLVED that the recommendation from the Governance and Audit Committee be accepted, and in doing so:

a)    the position in relation to the ongoing work relating to Constitutional amendments be received and NOTED; and

b)    the position in relation to the external health check work which had been carried out be received and NOTED; and

c)    the Constitution amendments as outlined in Appendix 1 and shown in Appendices 1 a-e, as recommend by Governance and Audit Committee at its meeting on 21 January 2025, be APPROVED.

The Chairman introduced the final item of the evening, explaining that the Combined Authority Mayoral elections, taking place on 1 May 2025, required the appointment of a local Returning Officer.

With full details provided within the report, the Chairman moved the recommendation and, having been seconded and with no indications to speak, took the vote. It was unanimously

RESOLVED that the arrangement to appoint Mr Ian Knowles, Chief Executive as the Local Returning Officer for the Greater Lincolnshire Mayoral election on 1 May 2025 be confirmed.