Motion 1 - Protecting British Family Farms and Preserving Rural Communities.
“West Lindsey District Council notes with concern the proposed changes to inheritance tax announced by the Labour Government in the recent Autumn budget of 2024. These changes would scrap Agricultural Property Relief (APR), which has been instrumental in allowing British family farms to remain intact across generations, supporting food security, sustaining rural communities, and aiding environmental stewardship.
This tax is estimated to impact over 70,000 family farms, leaving the average farming family with a tax bill of at least £240,000. It forces many to sell portions of their land or close entirely, paving the way for corporate ownership and lifestyle buyers over family ownership.
This Council believes this inheritance tax will have severe impacts on:
1) Food Security: Selling off land or closing farms will risk our national food independence when global stability is already fragile. British family farms are critical to ensuring a steady supply of homegrown food.
2) Rural Community Stability: Family farms are the foundation of West Lindsey District Council, and rural Britain, contributing to local jobs, schools, and essential services. Labour's proposed tax risks destabilising communities, eroding the rural way of life, and causing a negative ripple effect across the countryside.
3) Environmental Stewardship: Farms cover 70% of the UK's land, with family farms playing a leading role in nature recovery, biodiversity enhancement, water quality improvement, and sustainable land management. The sale and fragmentation of these lands would hinder conservation efforts and undermine efforts to combat climate change.
As such I request the Chief Executive and Leader of Council, on behalf of this Council write to the Chancellor, setting out the District Council’s view on this matter and the very negative impacts it will bring to our communities.
I so move
Cllr John Barrett”
Motion 2 -Banking Hub
“Council I note the continuing trend of closing banks across the country. I further note that whilst many people are comfortable and able to bank online, some (often the older generation) still rely on banking in person.
The worrying trend of closing bank branches means people having to travel substantial distances when many are in poor health, unable to drive and therefore having to rely on disjointed public transport links or friends and relatives.
The Market Rasen area recently opened a banking hub in a centrally located building, thanks in part to the support of the Chairman of the Council Stephen Bunney. This banking hub is already proving to be an essential part of the community.
With this in mind, I ask the Chief Executive on behalf of the Council, to consider as part of the wider market place regeneration, a review of the banking facilities available in the Gainsborough and surrounding area and provide a report to CP&R by November 2025 on whether or not a banking hub, similar to that in Market Rasen is necessary and deliverable.
I so move the motion
Cllr Mandy Snee”
Motion 3
West Lindsey District Council transferred the Council Housing stock to West Links Housing which became the Acis Group around 25 years ago, and I’m pleased to say that I was elected and involved in this major change. This created a large capital receipt for the Council changing its outlook from being a debt-ridden authority to a Council which was able to operate ‘in the black’ and provide quality services that our Council tax payers deserved.
The District Council (over many years predominantly run by the Conservative Group) has maintained a lower than UK average Council tax payment made by residents whilst managing these balances by a process of good decision-making and strategic investment, and this has clearly been illustrated from the papers available to the recent Corporate Policy and Review Committee.
Last month the Government announced a white paper regarding Local Government Review which may mean the dissolution of District Councils and the Conservative Group are concerned that if West Lindsey District Council was to be dissolved then the balances of the authority should be utilised within the current boundaries of West Lindsey to the tax payers who have paid into this authority.
Therefore, would the Leader and Administration Group agree with the Conservative Group, that Officers should be charged with handing over the assets in excellent condition to a new unitary council (by way of example a new Leisure Centre In Gainsborough, an indoor swimming pool in Market Rasen, new infra-structure in Caistor and Lincoln fringe areas) with some mechanism for any residual balances to be made available to Parish/Town Councils as a way to ensure that as many areas as possible are covered of the ‘old Council’.
I propose we ask Officers to review the options for the Council in light of the Government’s white paper and bring forward a paper to CP&R by the end of the calendar year.
I so move
Cllr Ian Fleetwood
Conservative Group Leader
Opposition Group Leader”
Minutes:
The Chairman advised the meeting that three Motions had been submitted pursuant to Council Procedure Rule No. 10 and these were set out in the agenda.
As the mover of the first motion, Councillor Barrett was invited to read aloud his motion to the meeting, as follows: -
Motion 1 - Protecting British Family Farms and Preserving Rural Communities.
“West Lindsey District Council notes with concern the proposed changes to inheritance tax announced by the Labour Government in the recent Autumn budget of 2024. These changes would scrap Agricultural Property Relief (APR), which has been instrumental in allowing British family farms to remain intact across generations, supporting food security, sustaining rural communities, and aiding environmental stewardship.
This tax is estimated to impact over 70,000 family farms, leaving the average farming family with a tax bill of at least £240,000. It forces many to sell portions of their land or close entirely, paving the way for corporate ownership and lifestyle buyers over family ownership.
This Council believes this inheritance tax will have severe impacts on:
1) Food Security: Selling off land or closing farms will risk our national food independence when global stability is already fragile. British family farms are critical to ensuring a steady supply of homegrown food.
2) Rural Community Stability: Family farms are the foundation of West Lindsey District Council, and rural Britain, contributing to local jobs, schools, and essential services. Labour's proposed tax risks destabilising communities, eroding the rural way of life, and causing a negative ripple effect across the countryside.
3) Environmental Stewardship: Farms cover 70% of the UK's land, with family farms playing a leading role in nature recovery, biodiversity enhancement, water quality improvement, and sustainable land management. The sale and fragmentation of these lands would hinder conservation efforts and undermine efforts to combat climate change.
As such I request the Chief Executive and Leader of Council, on behalf of this Council, write to the Chancellor, setting out the District Council’s view on this matter and the very negative impacts it will bring to our communities.
I so move
Cllr John Barrett”
With the motion duly seconded, debate ensued with Members from all political parties united on the subject.
There were strong views expressed regarding the current Government’s lack of support or understanding of rural communities, with it suggested that if something did not change Lincolnshire as it was known would be decimated. Family farms of generations would be lost, employment would be lost. Food security, which was already a concern, would worsen. Lincolnshire’s way of life would be lost.
Members spoke of the significant contributions farmers made to local communities, clearing roads and rescuing vehicles in times of snow and flooding and considered the tax a blatant attack on rural communities, and an attempt to redistribute wealth rather than rewarding those who had worked hard to earn it.
Several Members spoke of farmers in the local community, who had farmed for generations and of the impact this tax would have on them and their businesses going forward, with difficult decisions having to be made. Many farmers were asset rich but cash poor, for a number of years prices paid by supermarkets were low, worsening weather often saw a year’s crop destroyed, with it suggested this was a policy to force farmers to sell land. Farmers were finding themselves with no option and with generous offers being made to them to sell their land to support NSIPs, it was no surprise many were selling. Such projects again were controlled by the Government with the community having no say on their appropriateness.
Members spoke of the lack of support both this, and the previous Government had shown rural communities and farming particularly, with subsidies having been cut and products such as milk being imported. There was political exchange as to which political party was to blame, noting a number of promises had been made post Brexit but not delivered. The country was now free to make its own agricultural policy but had failed to do so.
With the motion whole-heartedly supported by all, and the need to safeguard the rural way of life paramount, on being put to the vote it was:-
RESOLVED unanimously that the Chief Executive and Leader of Council, on behalf of the Council, write to the Chancellor, setting out the District Council’s views on the matter and the very negative impacts it would bring to our communities.
Councillor Mandy Snee, mover of the second motion was invited, by the Chairman, to put her motion to the meeting as follows: -
Motion 2 - Banking Hub
“Council I note the continuing trend of closing banks across the country. I further note that whilst many people are comfortable and able to bank online, some (often the older generation) still rely on banking in person.
The worrying trend of closing bank branches means people having to travel substantial distances when many are in poor health, unable to drive and therefore having to rely on disjointed public transport links or friends and relatives.
The Market Rasen area recently opened a banking hub in a centrally located building, thanks in part to the support of the Chairman of the Council Stephen Bunney. This banking hub is already proving to be an essential part of the community.
With this in mind, I ask the Chief Executive on behalf of the Council, to consider as part of the wider market place regeneration, a review of the banking facilities available in the Gainsborough and surrounding area and provide a report to CP&R by November 2025 on whether or not a banking hub, similar to that in Market Rasen is necessary and deliverable.
I so move
Cllr Mandy Snee”
With the motion duly seconded debate ensued with many members speaking in support of the motion and sharing their experiences of banking.
The role and services offered by the Post Office were raised, with some caution expressed that any new services should not undermine those currently available or put them at risk. It was noted that banking hubs were organised
and run by another branch of the post office, but provided a little bit more privacy and service that you might get from a general store. All acknowledged that post offices had become essential part of the banking structure as high street banks continued to close.
It was suggested that a review of banking facilities available in Gainsborough. was to be welcomed, but any review should be wider than simply the number of banks but also the services they offered. Local businesses had reported difficulties operating as banks did not offer the facilities and services needed for business banking, resulting in them having to travel out of town. As such it was requested that the banking needs of businesses be considered in any review.
Noting the timeframe indicated in the motion, for the findings of any review to be reported back to Committee, whilst acknowledging Officers were busy, it was suggested an earlier completion date, if possible, would be more welcome.
On being put to the vote it was: -
RESOLVED unanimously that a review of the banking facilities available in the Gainsborough and surrounding area be considered as part of the wider market place regeneration, and a report be submitted to the Corporate Policy and Resources Committee by November 2025 detailing whether or not a banking hub, similar to that in Market Rasen is necessary and deliverable.
Councillor Ian Fleetwood, mover of the final motion was invited, by the Chairman, to put his motion to the meeting as follows: -
Motion 3
“West Lindsey District Council transferred the Council Housing stock to West Links Housing which became the Acis Group around 25 years ago, and I’m pleased to say that I was elected and involved in this major change. This created a large capital receipt for the Council changing its outlook from being a debt-ridden authority to a Council which was able to operate ‘in the black’ and provide quality services that our Council tax payers deserved.
The District Council (over many years predominantly run by the Conservative Group) has maintained a lower than UK average Council tax payment made by residents whilst managing these balances by a process of good decision-making and strategic investment, and this has clearly been illustrated from the papers available to the recent Corporate Policy and Review Committee.
Last month the Government announced a white paper regarding Local Government Review which may mean the dissolution of District Councils and the Conservative Group are concerned that if West Lindsey District Council was to be dissolved then the balances of the authority should be utilised within the current boundaries of West Lindsey to the tax payers who have paid into this authority.
Therefore, would the Leader and Administration Group agree with the Conservative Group, that Officers should be charged with handing over the assets in excellent condition to a new unitary council (by way of example a new Leisure Centre In Gainsborough, an indoor swimming pool in Market Rasen, new infra-structure in Caistor and Lincoln fringe areas) with some mechanism for any residual balances to be made available to Parish/Town Councils as a way to ensure that as many areas as possible are covered of the ‘old Council’.
I propose we ask Officers to review the options for the Council in light of the Government’s white paper and bring forward a paper to CP&R by the end of the calendar year.
I so move
Cllr Ian Fleetwood
Conservative Group Leader
Opposition Group Leader”
Having been duly seconded, the seconder addressed the Chamber, referencing the ways in which West Lindsey had always tried to support taxpayers and communities, highlighting schemes such as the Councillor Initiative Fund, Community Grants schemes and Business support Grants. This had been possible due to prudence, sound decisions and the good work of Officers and Councillors alike. Balancing budgets had become increasingly difficult over recent years and yet West Lindsey had remained “in the black”. He suggested that should this Council disappear, it was not right that others may benefit from the Council’s successes, and measures should be taken to ensure that it was residents and tax payers of this District that prospered.
Debate ensued with the Leader of Council being the first to address the chamber, whilst appreciating the content of the motion he indicated his Group would not be supporting the content. Following the previous week’s Peer Challenge Review the Administration would be swiftly reviewing the Corporate Plan and the Executive Business Plan and this would refresh future priorities and delivery on annual basis.
The Leader referenced the millions of pounds invested outside of the district under the Conservative controlled administration at West Lindsey, questioning how these would be returned back to the people of the district without considerable cost to the Authority?
A hotel in Keighley, money he considered could have easily been used to build a swimming pool in Market Rasen, a knicker factory in Sheffield, supporting and enabling employment for the people of Yorkshire, money which could have been used to support the infrastructure of Caistor and the Lincoln and fringe village areas. A car sales room in Doncaster, money which could have been used to refurbish our leisure centres and possibly build a new indoor bowls facility in Gainsborough.
It was suggested the motion was merely electioneering, and the previous administration, when it had had chance to invest locally on things that mattered to local people, had chosen not to.
Political exchange ensued with Opposition Members acknowledging that investments had been made outside the county and that people outside the county had not been happy to see the profits coming into West Lindsey. The investments had been healthy ones, appropriate for the market conditions at that time and the profits continued to come into West Lindsey, supporting the balanced budget position the Council had been able to maintain.
The Leader in response suggested that external audit had a raised a risk in terms of the valuations for the investments out of area, any attempt to return those investments in a short timescale would result in significant losses. The Leader acknowledged that there had been some income return on those investments but returning that capital investment back to the district would be extremely difficult.
The Deputy Leader spoke of the lack of social return on out of District investments. They did not bring employment, nor that opportunistic spending footfall generated. Whilst the Investments generated an income, they also had the potential to fail.
In summing up the motion submitter advised that every resident of West Lindsey had benefited from the investments, both those inside and outside of the district. Each project had been evaluated on its rate of return meaning that District Council had borrowed less money, become more tax efficient and therefore reduced council tax to every resident in the district. Those investments continued to produce profit in effect subsidising tax for everybody in the West Lindsey.
A request for a recorded vote had been made earlier in the debate, with a second member supporting that request, the motion was put to a recorded vote, with votes being cast as follows: -
For: Councillors Barrett, Bierley, Bridgwood, Brockway, Brown, Duguid, Fleetwood, Lawrence, Lee, Morris, Palmer, Patterson, Pilgrim, Rodgers and Smith. (15)
Against: Councillors Bailey, Bennett, Boles, Bunney, Carless, Clews, Darcel, Dobbie, Flear, Hague, Mullally, Rollings, Snee J, Snee M, Swift, Velan, Westley and Young. (18)
Abstentions: (0)
With a total of 15 votes cast for the motion and 18 votes against, the motion was declared LOST.