Agenda item

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. Supporting their local economies by tens of thousands of pounds and creating thousands of pounds of extra revenue through their local authorities creating less burden on the council tax by collecting rates, etc. So Chairman, I won't apologise and we stick in terms of what our position is around commercial investments. Thank you.”

Councillor Fleetwood, with permission of the Chairman, made further supplementary comments during which it was noted that he thought all of the investments, wherever they were taken, were checked for validity and proven to be the best investments available to the council at the time. He commented they were proven opportunities to keep the rates of council tax to a low, and to maintain the balances of the council correct. He stated that, to his knowledge, none of the investments had failed.

The Chairman thanked both Councillors for their comments, noting the usual process was not to debate following a question. With that in mine, he invited Councillor E. Bailey, Local Ward Member for Lea, to pose her question to the Leader of the Council, which was as follows:

“Can the Leader of the council outline the efforts he and officers have made to lobby the Government for further funding for the Internal Drainage Boards to finance essential repairs and to undertake infrastructure changes to build up resilience measures to help mitigate further flooding.  The current arrangements place unreasonable strains on the finances of District Councils and Council Payers. Can the Leader also undertake that he and the Chief Executive will continue to lobby DEFRA and The Treasury to ensure equitable funding for the IDBs.

Thank you”

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

“Thank you, Chairman. Councillor Bailey, thank you for your question. Really important question. The Council is a member of the LGA special interest group on the Internal Drainage Boards whose objective is to seek a revised approach to the government to the funding mechanism for the Internal Drainage Boards that removes the need for a direct Council subsidisation. The group is made up of a majority of authorities which are affected by drainage board levies. Regular meetings have taken place with officers who have attended, and also an event took place at the House of Commons to raise awareness. Our local MP is very supportive and has been lobbying where possible. The group has been successful in securing £3million in 2023-24 and £3million in 2024-25, and £5million has been promised for 2025-26, which is shared amongst the affected councils depending on the level of levy raised year to year. The group recognises that the important role of drainage boards undertake and the work they do, but it is seeking a longer term solution to funding, and the council is also responding to funding consultations for the government, highlighting the impact on the budget of the drainage board levies.

Whilst your question, Councillor Bailey, specifically relates to internal drainage boards, it is clear that in West Lindsey there are many instances and concerns around the maintenance of watercourses by the Environment Agency, and in relation to this I can tell you that the Deputy Leader has a planned meeting next week with the MP to explore ways that we can better challenge the Environment Agency to ensure higher standards of maintenance on the watercourses and the reduce of flood risk in our communities. Thank you.”

The Chairman thanked the Leader for his response, and on confirming with Councillor Bailey that she had no supplementary questions, invited her to pose her next question to Councillor L. Rollings, Chairman of the Prosperous Communities Committee, which was as follows:

“Can the Chairman of the Prosperous Communities Committee explain how WLDC are ensuring that the NSIP developers in our area are fulfilling their obligations and recommendations to work with the communities to ensure that their proposed projects do not create further problems (Such as road damage etc), and how they are planning to provide benefits to our local area, such as discount on electricity or funding community projects.  Can she also explain that procedures are in place to ensure that any jobs created will be for local people and whom will be responsible for enforcing these agreements?

Is she able to assure us that all the NSIP developments currently being given consent by The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero have undertaken to provide community and social gain.  What timescales have been agreed and what are the arrangements for ensuring that the promises are delivered?

Thank you”

The Chairman thanked Councillor Bailey for her question and invited Councillor Rollings, to respond, with the response being as follows:

“Yes, thank you, Councillor Bailey. A really important question with an awful lot to it, and I think it demonstrates the level of concern there is amongst a whole range of community groups and people in our communities that are very concerned with the way that these NSIPs are moving forward. There are three development consent orders for nationally significant solar development in West Lindsey in place with others in progress. The development consent order is a grant, basically grants planning permission by the government, bypasses the local authority.

All three consents have a requirement to set up a community liaison group of which the terms of reference must be submitted to West Lindsey District Council for approval. The community liaison group is required to be in place for the entirety of the development and at this early stage, post -consent, no details have been submitted for consideration. In terms of wider matters, such as community projects and job creation, this is not something that is controlled through the planning process. However, officers have been researching options for the development of a community benefits policy, which will be the subject of reports at Prosperous Communities Committee later this year. So thank you once again, Councillor Bailey, for this.

We know that this is something you've taken a very keen interest in on the Council, and we know that these huge solar developments are a cause of great concern. I was only talking to a farmer today who was saying, ‘what happens when the farmers have gone, when these solar farms come into being? Who will look after our countryside?’ It is a big concern. There is an awful lot to do still and I hope my answer has given you some reassurance, and with your position as Vice Chair on the Committee as well, I hope this is something that you will be able to take a keen lead on for the authority going forward. Thank you.”

With permission of the Chairman, Councillor Bailey posed a supplementary question, enquiring whether there was any information regarding the time frames involved for council approval of the community liaison groups, or when the information was required to be submitted ahead of development starting. By way of response, Councillor Rollings explained there had not yet been any government-led direction as to how or when that process would work, with the Chief Executive invited to add further detail. He advised Members that it was still considered to be the early stages of the NSIPs, however on receipt of any updated information, Members would be advised accordingly.

With further comments being indicated from the floor, the Chairman reiterated the usual practice of question and response, and brought the discussion to a close, thanking all for their input, and moving on to the next item of business.