Apologies were received from Councillors Danny Brookes, Dick Edginton, Alex Hall and James Knowles.

At this point in the Meeting, Members were invited to declare any relevant interests.  None were received.

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on Tuesday 11 June 2024.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on Tuesday 11 June 2024 were agreed as a correct record with the following amendment to Minute No. 13 (a) – Scrutiny Panel Report – To review the running of Invest East Lindsey Limited, with a particular focus on Kingfisher Caravan Park:

RESOLVED:

That the draft report of the ‘To review the running of Invest East Lindsey Limited, with a particular focus on Kingfisher Caravan Park’, be delegated to the Chair / Vice Chair to consider whether it has met the scope and to circulate to Overview Committee Members for consideration and agreement prior to being recommended to be presented to Council.

Actions from the previous Overview Committee Meeting.

Members noted that the following Actions were now complete.

Actions from the Meeting held on 11 June 2024

Action No. 8, 16 and 18 – completed.

Comments were received as follows:

Action No. 8 – ‘Towns Funds Projects Update’ from the Meeting held on 11 June 2024, page 41 of the Agenda refers.

A Member expressed disappointment that self-cleaning glass had not been utilised on the Sutton on Sea Colonnade development which would have saved the Council a significant amount of money in consideration of a design that was predominately glass.

A Member provided an example of glass cleaning at the North Sea Observatory which was a similar development and commented that window cleaning was undertaken as infrequently as once a month.

Action No. 16(a) – ‘Performance and Governance Framework – Quarter 4 Monitoring Report’ in relation to Key Performance Indicators from the Meeting held on 11 June 2024, page 41 of the Agenda refers.

The Assistant Director – Corporate advised Members that the figures included in the update for Action No. 16 for ‘number of working days lost to sickness absence YTD’ should be presented as number of days and not as percentages.

A Member commented that the percentages in the Monitoring Report did not provide enough information and queried the level of detail and the format of information provided to ELDC in comparison to information provided to PS2.

In response, the Assistant Director – Corporate explained to Members that the information received by the PSPS Board of Directors as a company differed to the information received by the Council.  The Assistant Director – Corporate assured Members that the Directors of the Council received a significant level of detail which was reviewed quarterly and acted upon, and this included workforce profiles which examined levels of sickness absence.    

The Assistant Director – Corporate further advised Members that consideration of the level of information provided on work force issues could be approached through Councillor Kirk as Portfolio Holder and the Head of HR.

A Member commented that it was the responsibility of all Council Members to look after the welfare of staff.  In response, the Assistant Director – Corporate advised Members that welfare of the workforce was a matter for the Chief Executive of the Council as Head of Paid Service.

Further to a discussion, it was agreed that options to include a higher level of detail in the report would be explored.

Action No. 16(b) – ‘Performance and Governance Framework – Quarter 4 Monitoring Report’ in relation to Sand Risk from the Meeting held on 11 June 2024, page 41 of the Agenda refers.

In reference to flooding of the promenade in Mablethorpe with regards to beach nourishment, a Member highlighted the increased challenges brought about by protecting flood defences where efforts had proved counterproductive and requested that more consideration was given to protecting businesses from flooding.

Action No. 18 – ‘Executive/Council Forward Plan’ in relation to working in Partnership with the Voluntary  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

To receive a verbal update from John Turner, the Chief Executive of NHS Lincolnshire Integrated Care Board (ICB).

The Chairman welcomed John Turner, Chief Executive, NHS Lincolnshire Integrated Care Board (ICB) to the Meeting who had been invited to update the Committee on topics put forward by Members.  Following an introduction and a general overview of NHS matters and the strategic role of the NHS Lincolnshire ICB, the responses to the topics and questions and comments raised by Members were noted as follows:

How are we supporting the middle years where we know the foundations are laid for a healthier, longer life? And given the 40,000 caravans on the east coast and the associated healthcare challenges, what strategies are in place led by the Integrated Care Board?

Members were assured that the ICB worked with a wide range of partners to support all demographics and recognised that increased elderly population and child and adult obesity were significant challenges in East Lindsey particularly along the coast. 

The Chief Executive of the ICB advised Members that prevention strategies which encouraged healthy living and to improve the health and wellbeing of the population remained a primary focus.  Members were further advised that East Lindsey district had secured £15 million in funding for a new Community Diagnostics Centre in Skegness which was the largest investment the NHS has made in Skegness to date, and that the ICB continued to undertake innovative pieces of work and provide support for various initiatives including the Campus for Future Living in Mablethorpe to help deliver significant benefits for the local community.

• In reference to the Community Diagnostics Centre (CDC) in Skegness, a Member queried the effect that had been forecasted on Skegness Hospital.  In response, the Chief Executive of the ICB confirmed that Skegness Hospital remained separate to the CDC and was an important asset to the community which would be maintained for the long term.  The Chief Executive of the ICB confirmed that the CDC would serve Skegness and the east coast and support the hospital with a wide range of services.  Members were informed that a similar centre created in Grantham had proven very successful.

• In reference to the 1.7billion national funding formula, a Member queried who was responsible for making a decision on the amount and whether it was the correct amount when taking into account special circumstances in Lincolnshire.  In response, the Chief Executive of the ICB informed Members that the funding formula took into account all characteristics and assured Members that the ICB took every opportunity to secure additional NHS England funding.

Availability of GP appointments and ease of access to and communication with GP practices. Specifically, how easy it is for residents to get in touch with their surgery.

Members were informed that 16 GP practices operated in East Lindsey in comparison to 81 practices across Lincolnshire, and that 14 were rated as good and 2 required improvement by the Care Quality Commission (CQC).  The Chief Executive of the ICB informed Members that the ICB recognised that East Lindsey had significant deprivation on the coast and that the issues continued  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

To receive a report.

N.B. This item was brought forward at the Chairman’s discretion.

The Chairman welcomed Corey Gooch, Business Intelligence and Change Manager and Councillor Graham Marsh as Portfolio Holder for Community Safety, Leisure and Culture, and Carbon Reduction to the Meeting.

The Business Intelligence and Change Manager, presented Members with the Artificial Intelligence Policy, pages 73 to 86 of the Agenda refer.

Members were advised that Artificial Intelligence (AI) was the development of ICT systems that could perform tasks that typically required human intelligence and that as a Council, it was important to have a policy in place to set out the governance surrounding the use of AI.

The Partnership policy attached at Appendix A provided a framework for how the Council would use AI and would establish clear accountability mechanisms for managing associated risk, pages 77 to 86 of the Agenda refer.

The Portfolio Holder for Community Safety, Leisure and Culture, and Carbon Reduction commented on his disappointment on the attendance by Members at the virtual AI briefing held on the 22^nd July 2024 and encouraged that all Members attend further sessions as AI was the future and that it was essential for Members to develop a good understanding.

The Chairman queried whether the invitation for the September briefing could be reissued to Members.  In response, the Portfolio Holder for Community Safety, Leisure and Culture, and Carbon Reduction confirmed to Members that invitations would be resent and that further reminders would be issued as the briefing date approached.

Members were invited to put their comments and questions forward.

• A Member expressed dissatisfaction with communications regarding the invitations to the AI briefing hosted by Boston Borough Council and commented that more detailed understanding was required by Members before the AI policy was agreed.

• A Member supported the need for greater understanding on the utilisation of AI within the Council and highlighted that AI was considered the next industrial revolution for saving.

• A Member requested clarification on the abbreviations of SIRO and API, pages 81 and 84 of the Agenda refer.  In response, the Assistant Director – Corporate confirmed that SIRO referred to Senior Information Risk Owner which was the responsibility of Adrian Sibley.  The Business Intelligence and Change Manager further explained that API was an IT term and that full clarification of the definition would be provided in a future update to Committee Members.

• In reference to the statement in Paragraph 3.8.1 in relation to all information generated by AI must be reviewed and edited for accuracy prior to use, a Member queried whether the statement was written correctly in the event that lost time negated any possible savings.  In response, the Business Intelligence and Change Manager confirmed that information needed to be reviewed and considered and that the information generated by AI could be counterproductive.  The Business Intelligence and Change Manager further advised Members that work would be undertaken with the Chief Delivery Officer to update the wording to rectify any potentialities.  The Chairman further commented that it was important  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

That under Section 100(a)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items on the grounds that, if they were present, there could be disclosed to them exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act (as amended).

N.B. This item was brought forward at the Chairman’s discretion.

Members noted that the meeting would not enter private session unless attendees wished to discuss the restricted information contained at Appendix A1 to the Scrutiny Panel Report: To review the running of Invest East Lindsey Limited, with a particular focus on Kingfisher Caravan Park.

To review the final report of the Panel.

N.B.  The report and associated appendices are Open with the exclusion of Appendix A1 which is Exempt.

The Chairman introduced the final draft report from the Scrutiny Panel ‘To review the running of Invest East Lindsey Limited, with a particular focus on Kingfisher Caravan Park’, pages 87 to 206 of the Agenda refer.

Members were reminded that the report and associated appendices were Open with the exclusion of Appendix A1 which was Exempt.

The Chairman thanked the Scrutiny Panel for their hard work and referred Members to the ‘Quality Check Criteria’ to consider whether the scope of the scrutiny had been met by the report, page 109 to 112 of the Agenda refer.

Councillor Daniel Simpson as Chairman of the Scrutiny Panel provided Members with a brief introduction and provided justification for the inclusion of the Exempt appendix.

Members were invited to put their comments and questions forward.

• Referring to the Paragraph which stated that ‘A point of concern to Scrutiny was the churn of members of these Boards’, the Chairman requested clarification on the context, page 101 of the Agenda refers.  In response, the Scrutiny Panel Chairman advised Members that the churn was the number of people in the early years of Invest East Lindsey that were appointed to and subsequently left the Board.  The Scrutiny Panel Chairman further advised Members that the time served on the Board was limited to a set period which could be renewed and that in that in the early days of the company, the churn of Board members was greater than the agreed timeframe. 

• In reference to the statement ‘To date Invest East Lindsey has borrowed around £6 million from ELDC and has outstanding debt of £4 million’, the Chairman noted that the same paragraph was repeated twice, pages 96 and 102 of the Agenda refer.  In response, the Chairman of the Scrutiny Panel confirmed that the duplication was intentional to emphasise a point.

• A Member commented that it was essential when setting up a company to have good governance and an active risk management plan and that the report evidenced this was lacking for Invest East Lindsey.  In response, the Chairman commented that the same principles applied across a range of Council activities.

• A Member queried whether Invest East Lindsey had plans to overcome challenges identified in the key lines of enquiry.  In response, the Scrutiny Panel Chairman confirmed to Members that steps had been taken to overcome some of the challenges where future plans could have been compromised and that the report had highlighted and made reference to the measures they had taken.

• The Scrutiny Panel Chairman highlighted the complexity of the financial information that was examined and noted that the Audit and Governance Committee had received the internal audit report.  The Scrutiny Panel Chairman further commented that a forensic accountant may have been more effective at drawing out specific pieces of information to determine whether the business was financially viable and concluded that Scrutiny Panels were facilitators rather than trying to examine information as professionals.

• The Chairman commented that there was a clear divide between the roles  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

To note the Audit, Scrutiny & Risk report from the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny (CfGS).

The Chairman introduced the Audit, Scrutiny and Risk report from the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny (CfGS), pages 51 to 72 of the Agenda refer.

The Chairman spoke of the past benefits of attending the Annual CfGS conference and queried the absence of a report following the conference in December 2021.  In response, the Assistant Director – Corporate confirmed to Members that a report had not materialised.

Members were invited to put their comments and questions forward.

A Member commented on the value of risk training for all councillors and spoke of the importance of the report being dually presented to the Audit and Governance Committee. 

Further to a discussion on the overlap between Overview and Audit and Governance, it was agreed that the report be forwarded for the consideration of Audit and Governance Committee and that the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of both Committees consider attending future CfGS conferences.

No further comments or questions were received.

Following which, it was

RESOLVED:

That the Audit, Scrutiny & Risk Report for March 2024 from the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny (CfGS) be noted.

To receive a verbal update from the Outside Body Appointee.

The Outside Body Appointee advised Members that her report from the HSC Meeting held on 17 July 2024 had been circulated to Members by email prior to the Meeting (a copy is attached at Appendix A to the Minutes).

Members were invited to put their comments and questions forward.

·         In reference to Section 106 Planning Agreements, the Outside Body Appointee queried the justification for East Lindsey being allocated the lowest multiplier as part of the NHS formula and receiving the lowest payment in Lincolnshire per dwelling compared to other districts.

• A Member commented that GP practices in Stickney had not received any S106 funds as originally intended and queried how the process worked in relation to trigger points for financial payments.

Further to a discussion, Members agreed that clarification would be requested from the Section 106 Officer on East Lindsey being allocated the lowest multiplier and payments as part of the NHS formula and for an update to be provided on the process for local surgeries receiving S106 payments.

• A Member queried obtaining access to examples of implemented S106 agreements on the Lincolnshire County Council Website.  In response, the Outside Body Appointee confirmed that a link could be provided by e-mail.

• A Member expressed concern for the reconfiguration of hospital services and queried the benefits gained.  In response, the Outside Body Appointee advised Members of the differences in Hospital services and provisions in Hull and North Lincolnshire and that services moving from Scunthorpe to Grimsby intended to be advantageous had not been adequately considered.

• A Member further commented that there needed to be clear guidance and a decision on the future of hospitals on the south of the Humber and that the future of Scunthorpe Hospital needed greater consideration because of the important stroke units provided.

No further comments or questions were received.

The Chairman thanked the Outside Body Appointee for her valuable contribution on reporting back from the HSC.

To receive a written update.

James Gilbert, Assistant Director - Corporate referred Members to the briefing paper, pages 207 to 208 of the Agenda refer.

The briefing paper informed Members that the panel had met four times to date, with further meetings planned on Wednesdays.  The meeting planner had been updated to reflect key issues needing further investigation and review.

During June 2024, officers from North Kesteven, South Kesteven and West Lindsey District Councils answered questions on their Carbon Reduction Plans and associated activities and provided insight into their priorities for the next twelve months.  The most recent meeting had enabled the Panel to compare approaches and look for commonality and areas of best practice and future meetings would explore how different service areas within ELDC were considering Carbon Reduction within various process such as projects and procurement.

To receive a verbal update.   

James Gilbert, Assistant Director – Corporate advised the Committee that one Member had come forward to sit on the Project Management Analysis Scrutiny Panel and that a request for additional Panel Members would be advertised within the next few days.

To review a written update.

James Gilbert, Assistant Director - Corporate referred Members to the briefing paper, pages 209 to 210 of the Agenda refer.

Members were advised on the pre-scrutiny taking place during July 2024 and it was highlighted that the lines of enquiry were agreed to ensure that Members across the Partnership were fully informed about the upcoming process.  The final step was to take the report to each Council’s sovereign scrutiny committees during September 2024.

Members were invited to put their comments and questions forward.

No comments or questions were received.

To note the Overview and Scrutiny Recommendation Tracker.

Members were referred to the Overview and Scrutiny Recommendation Tracker, pages 211 to 232 of the Agenda refer. Members were invited to review the tracker and put their comments and questions forward.

To explore the issues surrounding caravan licensing and enforcement

Recommendation No 1 ‘To recognise the need to make Caravan Enforcement a priority for the new Council with the first priorities dealing with the issue of unauthorised occupancy and to review and strengthen licence conditions’, page 215 of the Agenda refers.

A Member expressed dissatisfaction with the delay for the report being presented to the Executive Board and highlighted that the issues in relation to funding for caravan enforcement had been ongoing for forty years.  In response, the Chairman informed Members that further updates were expected by September and October 2024 and that the Executive Board would be made aware of the Committee’s comments.

A Member expressed further concern for the capacity of the enforcement service.

Recommendation No 9 ‘Obtain specialist legal opinions on how a charging regime could be introduced for holiday sites, and a further opinion on strengthening licencing conditions, including the internal quality of accommodation’, page 221 of the Agenda refers.

A Member commented on the update for July 2024 that the recommendation was awaiting further clarification.  The Chairman confirmed to Members that further updates would be expected as an item on the next Agenda.

Members expressed disappointment that the Recommendation Tracker remained Amber throughout. 

Recommendation No 16 ‘Consider reviewing the Planning Policy in relation to caravan sites and any restrictions as part of the local plan review’, page 223 of the Agenda refers.

A Member commented that caravan sites on the east coast were not only related to tourism and that tourism should not remain the Council’s only focus when many caravan sites were residential.

Recommendation No 17 ‘As part of their remit, the portfolio holder for the coast to arrange regular meetings with coastal operators’, page 224 of the Agenda refers.

In reference to the ceasing of meetings during the pandemic, a Member suggested that the wording should use the term ‘reinstated.’

Recommendation No 18 ‘Seek to work in partnership with Lincolnshire Trading Standard to investigate ‘rogue’ operators’, page 224 of the Agenda refers.

A Member commented that non-compliant operators may not wish to be referred to as ‘rogue’ operators.

How can ELDC help improve the design, quality, and choice of new and existing housing in the district?

Recommendation No 5 ‘Builders and architects will be supported and encouraged to ensure home interiors and landscaping are designed for accessibility for all, in all homes – providing homes’, page 226 of the Agenda refers.

A Member expressed concern that architectural design could be undertaken by someone with no formal design qualifications and queried whether the Interim Planning Policy Service Manager was taking on architectural design responsibilities.

The Chairman thanked everyone for their comments.

No comments or questions were received.

Following which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

To receive a copy of the Executive/Council Forward Plan.

Members were presented with the Executive/Council Forward Plan 2024- 25, pages 233 to 240 of the Agenda refer and were invited for their comments.

No further comments or questions were received.

Following which it was,

RESOLVED:

That the Executive/Council Forward Plan 2024-25 be noted.

The programmed date for the next Meeting of this Committee was noted as 3rd September 2024.