Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Claire Arnold, Richard Cunnington, Mark Dannatt, Carl Drury, Dick Edginton, Adam Grist, Neil Jones, Tom Kemp, Steve Kirk, James Knowles, Steve McMillan and Fiona Martin.

N.B.  Councillor Darren Hobson joined the Meeting at 2.03pm.

At this point in the Meeting, Members were invited to declare any relevant interests.

·       Councillors Tom Ashton, Wendy Bowkett, Colin Davie, William Gray, Alex Hall, Daniel McNally and Carl Macey asked it be noted that in respect of Item No. 21 ‘Alford Windmill Project Variation’, as Lincolnshire County Councillors they would leave the Meeting for that item.

·       Councillors Richard Fry and Jill Makinson-Sanders asked it be noted that in respect of Item 20 ‘Public Sector Partnership Services (PSPS) – Governance Report’ as Board Directors of PSPS they would leave the Meeting for that item.

·       Councillors Terry Aldridge, Tom Ashton, Wendy Bowkett, Stephen Eyre, Darren Hobson, Daniel McNally, Edward Mossop and Daniel Simpson asked it be noted that in respect of Item 11 ‘Coastal Strategy’ they were appointed Members to Lindsey Marsh Drainage Board, however would remain in the Meeting for that item and discussion and voting thereon.

To confirm the Open and Exempt Minutes of the Meeting held on 9 October 2024.

The Open and Exempt Minutes of the Meeting held on 9 October 2024 were confirmed and signed as a correct record.

To confirm Actions following the Meeting held on 9 October 2024.

The Actions were noted as complete or in hand.

The Chairman was pleased to advise that since the last Full Council Meeting he had attended the following Civic engagement:

·       In conjunction with the Royal British Legion, the Mayor of Mablethorpe and Sutton on Sea’s Evening of Remembrance.

·       Congratulations were passed to Councillor Terry Aldridge who had taken park in the Louth Charity Santa Run and had raised a sum of money for Cancer Research.

·       Thanks were passed to all Councillors for their support over the year and for the work they undertook in their communities.  He further conveyed his thanks to the officers for their hard work in what had been a very busy year across all sectors and wished everyone a very Happy Christmas and Prosperous New Year.

RESOLVED:

That Council Procedure Rules be suspended for the following item to allow the Public Questioners in response thereto, to speak for no longer than 15 minutes on one occasion. 

To receive Motions on Notice under Council Procedure Rule 12.

Motion: Understanding the Impact of a GDF

This council acknowledges the significance of the October 2024 report by Guardians of The East Coast (GOTEC), titled 'The Nuclear Option – Radioactive Waste Disposal on the Lincolnshire Coast,' as an important piece of evidence regarding the potential effects of a Geological Disposal Facility on the visitor economy.  (Document attached).

Proposed by: Travis Hesketh

Seconded by: Robert Watson

The following Motion was received in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12:

Understanding the Impact of a GDF

This council acknowledges the significance of the October 2024 report by Guardians of The East Coast (GOTEC), titled 'The Nuclear Option – Radioactive Waste Disposal on the Lincolnshire Coast,' as an important piece of evidence regarding the potential effects of a Geological Disposal Facility on the visitor economy.

Proposed Cllr Travis Hesketh

Seconded Cllr Robert Watson

In his introduction, Councillor Hesketh stated that it was really important that the right level of evidence was available to understand what the impact of a geological disposal facility would be on the area in terms of the economy, the tourist industry and visitor economy.

There had been a number of times Nuclear Waste Services (NWS) and the NWS Community Partnership had been asked to undertake an impact study.  As this had not been forthcoming, Councillor Hesketh referred to the report created and produced by GOTEC, a grassroots organisation whose interest was committed to preserving the natural beauty and quality of life on the Lincolnshire coastline.  GOTEC had undertaken this study on a voluntary basis and it was carried out by researchers who were pro and against a nuclear dump and who had no vested interests.  Councillor Hesketh advised Members that the report looked at the radioactive waste disposal and the impact on the Lincolnshire coast and provided Members with pertinent facts and figures contained within the report.

Councillor Hesketh commended the report to Council and asked that Members supported the Motion for Council to acknowledge the significance of this report as an important piece of evidence regarding the potential effects of a Geological Disposal Facility on the visitor economy.

Councillor Robert Watson seconded the Motion.

Speaking to the Motion, the Leader of the Council advised Members that Councillor Hesketh was a member of GOTEC and had previously made his views clear on the GDF at Council.  The Leader stated that he would not support the Motion to recognise the report as a significant piece of evidence as the report had not been created by an independent group as GOTEC was an advocacy group whose social media posts were clearly against the GDF or its potential.

The Leader of the Council continued that ELDC fully understood the value of tourism to the district and had undertaken much work to grow that industry.  He highlighted that the report did not consider the impacts of COVID and the increase in business for the Council in 2022 and 2023 and there was no reference in the report to various documents in relation to tourism, consultation, funding and investment to the coast and was concerned over some glaring inaccuracies in terms of some of the wording and misleading descriptors.

The Deputy Leader of the Council added that he had spoken to people who were both for and against the proposal of a GDF.  He highlighted those people that were in support of the proposal, was for the benefits that this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62.

Report of the Chairman of Executive Board.

The Leader of the Council presented Members with his report, pages 67 to 70 of the Agenda refer.

Further to his report, the Leader provided an update in relation to the recent Peer Review and passed his thanks to all Councillors for their work with their communities and for their diligence and commitment to the Council.  He added that as part of the administration or opposition, the forward looking and ambitious work in the Chambers enabled so much to happen across the district and beyond for the benefit of residents and businesses and whilst there had been many challenges to deal with, this had been recognised by the recent Corporate Peer Challenge.  The Leader stated that the report was one that the Council could be very proud of and reflected the hard work and commitment from both Members and officers and asked the Chief Executive to pass on the Council’s thanks and appreciation to all who worked for ELDC.

The Leader of the Council also provided an update on Nuclear Waste Services (NWS).  Members were advised that NWS had recently made a statement indicating that competing interests at the Theddlethorpe Gas Terminal site had meant that they potentially needed to consider other options for the Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) surface site.  It was highlighted that it was important to reiterate that NWS’s interest was only within the already established search area and that as yet, no other potential surface sites had been identified and NWS were looking to publish an update early in 2025 on its potential options.  The Leader acknowledged that this would be a concern to residents within the wider search area, however until NWS had made known those findings it was the view of the Executive Board that the Council should remain engaged in the process.  He added that there had been much unhelpful speculation on social media with regards to this and urged those advocating against the GDF that they had a responsibility to concerned residents as well.  The key fact being that NWS was not looking beyond the already established search area and Members were reminded that through debate at Council there was a backstop position in respect of the Council’s involvement and also with Lincolnshire County Council.

Following which, questions and comments were put forward as follows:

MHCLG Pilot Fund

A Member queried whether the three-day energy training session for volunteers was part of the pilot fund. 

In response, the Leader of the Council advised that he would provide a response after the meeting.

East Lindsey Community Ambassador Awards

A Member commended the efforts of Summer Willits from Skegness and stated that the award was well deserved.

Social Isolation Grant

A Member queried whether a list of grant aid that was available for people to apply for was still communicated in the Councillor weekly bulletin.

In response, the Leader of the Council advised that he would follow this up to ensure it was included.

Household Support Fund (HSF)

A Member highlighted that the Council  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63.

To consider approval of a proposal to establish a District Joint Committee for the purposes of devolution and participation of non-constituent local authorities at the Greater Lincolnshire Combined County Authority.

The Leader of the Council presented a report that considered a proposal to establish a District Joint Committee for the purpose of devolution and participation on non-constituent local authorities at the Greater Lincolnshire Mayoral Combined County Authority (GLMCCA).  Participation in the District Joint Committee would ensure that the identities and interests of local communities in the East Lindsey District were fully represented.

During his introduction, the Leader of the Council advised Members that the purpose of the ‘Joint Committee’ was to establish a collaborative platform for coordination among the non-constituent authorities and be a mechanism through which their interests were represented on the GLMCCA.  The District Joint Committee would seek to enhance efficiency, effectiveness and accountability in the delivery of services and policies within the GLMCCA and promote the shared interests of the district authorities for the benefit of Greater Lincolnshire.  It was proposed that the District Joint Committee should nominate four non-constituent members to participate in the GLMCCA and its committees.

The full background to the report was set out at Paragraph 1, page 72 of the Agenda refers.

Following which the recommendations were duly Proposed and Seconded.

Members were invited to put their comments and questions forward.

·       A Member supported district councils having a seat around the table however did not consider that 4 places would be sufficient and was concerned that money would not be distributed equitably.

·       A Member added that his full support went to the Leader of the Council to get a fair share of the money made available to support coastal communities.

·       A Member agreed with the way forward and highlighted the need for district councils to have a voice.

·       A Member queried the value of the new working group and whether this would safeguard the Council and all the other constituent organisations against the threat that the new mayoral combined authority presented to residents.  He hoped it would succeed in preventing local councils becoming anything more than cash strapped agencies of central government.  He was further concerned that the Council’s local knowledge and expertise in balancing demands of food, nature, homes and infrastructure would be swept aside and that local planning officers and committees would be disempowered.

In response, the Leader of the Council thanked Members for the overall support and highlighted that this was new territory for the Council to approach with caution.  He added that the Council had always made the argument about its place and would continue to do so.  He considered that the willingness of other councils to be part of the District Joint Network and how the Council worked with four places on the mayoral combined authority would be important.

The Leader of the Council added that the Council had been engaged in this process since 2016 in terms of devolution discussions.  With regards to centralisation, the government White Paper had not yet been published and there were rumours of a potential local government reorganisation.  Whatever happened, it was crucial to get the scale right.  The ability  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.

To consider the receipt of funding to prepare the Coastal Strategy by working with Partners.

The Leader of the Council presented a report to consider receiving funding to prepare the Coastal Strategy and provided an update on the Lincs 2100+ proposals and highlighted the implications and opportunities afforded by this strategic collaborative work on the current and future works to be undertaken for the East Lindsey Local Plan.

Members were advised that the proposed works for Coastal Strategy offered major outcomes and opportunities for not only East Lindsey and the coast, but also wider Lincolnshire.  The benefits of this programme of works could include the following:

• The document and evidence base produced by this work would form the basis for business cases and discussions by the partner organisations with the Government for funding to deliver the proposed vision, strategy and delivery plan.

• This work would enable the Council’s wider ambition of maintaining coastal defence and providing future security for our businesses and communities.

• It would support and accelerate the continuing collaboration with partners in enabling development, bring forward economic change and enhance community resilience.

• The work proposed here would have long term implications on ensuring food security/productivity, energy resilience (current and future) and the visitor economy at local, regional and national level.

• This work would help to bring forward a Local Plan predicated on managed growth and help unlock development potential for coastal communities.

The background to the report was highlighted to Members, as set out at Sections 1 and 2 of the report, pages 90 to 93 of the report refer.

Following which, the recommendations were duly Proposed and Seconded.

Members were invited to put their comments and questions forward.

As a Point of Order, a Member asked for clarification on how accepting the money from Nuclear Waste Services (NWS) via the Environment Agency (EA) to undertake the works for coastal strategy ensured the Council’s independence with NWS.

A Member strongly disagreed with the Council accepting money from NWS via the EA and proposed an amendment to Recommendation No. 2 as follows:

‘That this Council rejects the NWS and EA funding stream, and requests that our Executive Board work with the Environment Agency and that the EA takes responsibility for funding and delivery of the coastal strategy, thus keeping East Lindsey District Council out of the pocket of NWS via the Environment Agency’.

In response, the Chief Executive explained that the proposed amendment negated the recommendation put in front of Members.  Therefore, if the Member wished to go ahead with what had been proposed it would be a case of voting against the recommendation.

A Member strongly opposed Recommendation No. 2 and was disappointed that the Council was accepting the money from NWS via the EA.  He was further concerned that there remained a clear risk that if the funding proposed by NWS should cease for any reason, for example work discontinuing on a GDF as a consequence of a change in strategic direction or a negative vote of public confidence that the money would have to be found from alternative sources.

A Member  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

To receive and review the Treasury Annual Report 2022-2023.

The Leader of the Council presented a report to consider approval of the Annual Treasury Report 2022/23 in accordance with the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy’s Code of Practice on Treasury Management to ensure best practice was maintained.

During his introduction, the Leader referred Members to the Treasury Annual report attached at Appendix 1 to the Agenda, pages 103 to 122 refer which detailed the Council’s activities and actual prudential and treasury indicators for the following areas:

•   An economic update for the 2022/23 financial year;

•   A review of the Council’s investment portfolio for 2022/23;

•   A review of the Council’s borrowing strategy for 2022/23;

•   Debt position;

•   Compliance with Treasury and Prudential Indicators.

The report also referred to a key element of the Council’s Governance Framework and represented an important contribution to the evidence trail in support of the Annual Governance Statement 2022/23.

Following which the recommendation was duly Proposed and Seconded.

Members were invited to put their comments and questions forward.

The Chairman of the Audit and Governance Committee advised Members that the Annual Treasury Report 2022/23 was reviewed by Audit and Governance Committee on 30 October 2024, Minute No. 43 refers and was pleased to see the subsequent treasury reports coming through.

Members were advised that the value of Property Fund investments had decreased by £4.5m in value during the financial year, page 108 of the Agenda refers.  Following which, this had highlighted the need for a review and an active decision to be taken to revise the portfolio.  However, it was confirmed that the Council had made money on its investments in Property Funds over a period of time.

The Vice-Chairman of the Audit and Governance Committee asked that her thanks be noted to the Section 151 Officer and the Interim Treasury Manager (PSPS) for the excellent and well-timed work undertaken with the Property Funds.

RESOLVED:

That the Treasury Annual Report 2022/23 at Appendix 1 to the report, as required by the Local Government Act 2003 following scrutiny by the Audit and Governance Committee at its meeting on 30 October 2024 be approved.

To receive and review the Treasury Annual Report 2023-2024.

The Leader of the Council presented a report to consider approval of the Annual Treasury Report 2023/24 in accordance with the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy’s Code of Practice on Treasury Management to ensure best practice was maintained.

Members were referred to the Treasury Annual report attached at Appendix 1 to the Agenda, pages 129 to 148 refer which detailed the Council’s activities and actual prudential and treasury indicators for the following areas:

•   An economic update for the 2023/24 financial year;

•   A review of the Council’s investment portfolio for 2023/24;

•   A review of the Council’s borrowing strategy for 2023/24;

•   Debt position;

•   Compliance with Treasury and Prudential Indicators.

The report also referred to a key element of the Council’s Governance Framework and represented an important contribution to the evidence trail in support of the Annual Governance Statement 2023/24.

The Leader of the Council highlighted a key event whereby on 9 October 2023 the Council repaid its £20m borrowing with the Public Works Loan Board (PWLB).  Based on market rates at that time, the Council received a discount of £8.334m resulting in an actual payment of £11.656m.

Following which the recommendation was duly Proposed and Seconded.

No comments or questions were received.

RESOLVED:

That the Treasury Annual Report 2023/24 at Appendix 1 to the report, as required by the Local Government Act 2003 following scrutiny by the Audit and Governance Committee at its meeting on 27 November 2024 be approved.

To receive and review the Mid-Term Treasury Report 2024-2025.

The Leader of the Council presented the Mid Term Treasury Management update 2024/25 as at 30 September 2024 (attached at Appendix A) to provide Members with an update on Treasury Management performance and activity to ensure best practice was maintained.

During his introduction of the report, the Leader of the Council outlined the background to the report and key figures relating to investment income detailed at Sections 1 and 2, pages 150 to 152 of the Agenda refers.

The recommendation was duly Proposed and Seconded

Members were invited to put their comments and questions forward.

The Chairman of the Audit and Governance Committee referred to Section 9 ‘Annual Investment Strategy’, p166 strategy of the Agenda refers.  Whilst this included security of capital, liquidity and yield, it was highlighted that there was still no official environmental, social and governance (ESG) criteria and considered that the Council should be working towards this.

The Leader of the Council asked that his recognition be noted for the work undertaken by the Audit and Governance Committee which covered items in a very complex area.

A Member referred to the work undertaken in relation to Invest East Lindsey.  He considered that this was an area that needed seriously addressing, stating that the company was borrowing money to service its loans and referred to the losses for 2023 and 2024 as published on Companies House.

Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED

That the contents of the report attached at Appendix A be noted.

To consider approval of the updated Gambling Policy Statement of Principles as an urgent item by agreement of the Chairman of the Council.

Taken as an urgent item under Section 100B (4(B) of the Local Government Act 1972.  By reason of special circumstances, the Chairman of the meeting was of the opinion that the item should be considered at the meeting as a matter of urgency. 

The Leader of the Council presented Members with the Gambling Act 2005 – Review of Gambling Policy Statement of Principles report.

Members were asked to consider and approve the updated Gambling Policy Statement of Principles (attached at Appendix 1).  This was a statutory policy which the Council was required to revise and adopt at least every three years, following consultation.  The updated policy would come into effect on 9^th January 2025.

Following which the recommendation was duly Proposed and Seconded.

Members were invited to put their comments and questions forward.

The Chairman of the General Licensing Committee thanked the Chairman for allowing the item and advised Members that this paper was fully considered by the Committee and was happy to endorse for approval.

A Member highlighted recent statistics had found that 1 in 40 people had a gambling problem which equated to 40k people in East Lindsey suffering from this type of harm.  It was further highlighted that a large number of licensed betting shops were on the coastal strip in an area of high deprivation.  Whilst welcoming the updated policy, it was questioned whether the Council could do more, particularly by enforcement of protections within the policy.

A Member referred to the public consultation, Section 2.7 on page 3 of the Supplementary Agenda refers and queried whether the one response referred to was for the whole consultation process.

A Member queried how the policy was enforced locally and whether the Council employed sufficient staff to carry out enforcement effectively.

The Chairman of the General Licensing Committee responded that it was one response in total and considered the Council employed a very good Licensing Team.

The Group Manager – Public Protection endorsed the comments made and stated that the Council had a reasonable sized licensing team and had recently recruited a new officer whose role included carrying out inspections and investigating complaints.

RESOLVED

That the updated Gambling Policy Statement of Principles which would take effect from 9^th January 2025 be approved and adopted.

To consider a Scrutiny Report.

Councillor Paul Rickett, Chair of the Scrutiny Panel ‘Review of the Carbon Reduction Plan and associated carbon reduction activity at ELDC’ presented a report together with the recommendations of the panel (attached at Appendix to the report), page 196 of the report refers.

Councillor Rickett commended the report to Council and stated that he was happy to take questions arising from the report.

N.B.  Councillor Terry Knowles left the Meeting at 4.50pm.

A Member referred to adding a Photovoltaic (PV) on car port solution in car parks, page 193 of the Agenda refers and highlighted to Members that the Hub Solar Project was to pilot on this scheme.  However, it was reported that this was now not considered the right solution at this stage due to cost and needed considering against other emerging potential solutions.  It was highlighted how quickly plans changed and that the report emphasised that this did not happen automatically with local government often having to make the initial investments.

A Member commented that a lot of contract works were undertaken through a framework process and queried whether contractors’ carbon reduction credentials were advertised as part of the process and were considered when offering the contract.  An anecdotal example was provided in relation to the Warm Homes Grant with regards to quality and costings of two local solar panel installations.

The Chairman of the Scrutiny Panel responded that the Panel had looked into this as part of the scrutiny process and had spoken to the Procurement Team.  Assurance had been given that this was well policed, with a harsh penalty if the criteria was not met, including losing the contract.  He added that he would seek out the related information and was happy to share this detail with the Member concerned.

The Portfolio Holder for Community Safety, Leisure and Culture, and Carbon Reduction advised Members that the Council had a Warm Homes Grant Team and further explained the process for the grants, including the process undertaken by the contractors.  He confirmed that there was a stringent checking system, and that Members of the team would undertake checks upon completion of the work.  He added that there was currently only one contractor and that only positive comments had been received from people whose homes had undergone improvements.

A Member queried in relation to social value whether the Council always bought local and whether this was a number one priority.  The Portfolio Holder for Community Safety, Leisure and Culture, and Carbon Reduction responded that he understood contracts were issued from a framework and that the contractor sourced the materials.  Anything in addition to this would be procured through the Carbon Reduction Team who would look at the best quality, carbon reduction and price, however, would ask for clarification from the Group Manager, Climate Change and Carbon Reduction.

The Chairman thanked the Chairman of the Scrutiny Panel for his comprehensive report.

RESOLVED

• That the attached report be noted.

• That the recommendations by the relevant Portfolio Holder be fully considered, with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70a

The programmed date for the next Meeting of the Council will be Wednesday 5 March 2025.

The programmed date for the next Meeting of the Council was noted as Wednesday 5 March 2025 commencing at 2.00pm.

To note the Open and Exempt Minutes of Audit and Governance Committee held on 30 October 2024.

Members received the draft Open and Exempt Minutes of the Audit and Governance Committee held on 30 October 2024 for noting. 

Councillor Ros Jackson, Chairman of the Audit and Governance Committee highlighted key elements from the Minutes as follows:

·       A typographical error was highlighted at the Chairman’s Update, Minute No. 38, page 204 of the Agenda refers.  The Audit Fee should have been recorded as in the region of £154k, not £54k.  The increase was linked to the delays in local authority audits.

·       An Extraordinary Meeting of the Audit and Governance Committee had been convened on 27 November 2024 with a further Extraordinary Meeting to be held on 13 December 2024 to consider reports that had been delayed due to the accounts and external audit reports not being finalised.  A further deadline in February for the 2023/24 External Audit report would also likely require a further extraordinary meeting to be convened.  The Chairman of the Audit and Governance Committee stated that she was very grateful to the Accounts Team for the significant work undertaken to ensure everything was as up to date as possible.

·       The Chairman was delighted to welcome Chris Pilkington and Ian Silcox-Crowe as the newly appointed Independent Co-Opted Members to the Audit and Governance Committee.

No comments or questions were received.

RESOLVED

That the draft Open and Exempt Minutes of the Audit and Governance Committee held on 30 October 2024 be noted.

To consider approval to facilitate a number of required updates to PSPS governance arrangements.

PLEASE NOTE:  Appendix A is Exempt.

The Deputy Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Community Safety, Leisure and Culture, and Carbon Reduction presented a report to consider approval to facilitate a number of required updates to PSPS governance arrangements.

During his introduction, Portfolio Holder for Community Safety, Leisure and Culture, and Carbon Reduction advised Members that in 2024 the Local Government Association undertook a scheduled Corporate Peer Challenge at Boston Borough Council.  In that Peer Challenge the following recommendation was made:

‘Take external advice on the PSPS Board governance to seek assurance to ensure that structures reflect good practice’. 

PSPS had taken legal advice (attached at Exempt Appendix A) on behalf of the Councils and that advice made a series of recommendations that were for the founding Shareholders of PSPS, East Lindsey District Council and South Holland District Council, to consider acting upon.  The advice also referred to Guidance, produced by Local Partnerships, on behalf of Government, that related to good practice for Local Authority Trading Companies (LATCo).

This report brought forward a series of the actions that were required to address the matters identified.

Following which, the recommendations were duly Proposed and Seconded.

At this point in the Meeting, it was Proposed and Seconded that Council move into Exempt Session to enable discussion on Exempt Appendix A.

RESOLVED

·       That under Section 100(a)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the Meeting for the following item on the grounds that, if they were present, there could be disclosed to them exempt information as defined in paragraphs 3 and 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act (as amended).

·       That Recommendations as set out in the Exempt Minute be agreed.

N.B.  Councillors Jill Makinson-Sanders and Richard Fry left the Meeting at 5.33pm.

N.B.  Councillors Colin Davie, Carl Macey, Wendy Bowkett, Richard Fry, Richard Avison, Tom Ashton, William Gray and Daniel McNally left the Meeting at 5.39pm.

N.B.  Councillor Jill Makinson-Sanders re-joined the Meeting at 5.40pm.

Following which, it was Proposed and Seconded that the Meeting move back into Open session to discuss the following item.

RESOLVED

That the Public and Press be invited to rejoin the Meeting.

To consider approval to progress a local project adjustment request for the sub project of Alford Windmill, which is part of the Lincolnshire Wolds: Culture & Heritage programme (Levelling Up Fund).

PLEASE NOTE:  Appendices 1 to 8 are Exempt.

The Deputy Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Community Safety, Leisure and Culture, and Carbon Reduction presented a report to consider approval to progress a local project adjustment request for the sub project of Alford Windmill, which was part of the Lincolnshire Wolds: Culture & Heritage programme (Levelling Up Fund).

During his introduction, the Portfolio Holder for Community Safety, Leisure and Culture, and Carbon Reduction advised Members that the Lincolnshire Wolds Culture and Heritage programme (Levelling Up Fund) was within the Council’s capital programme and consisted of 3 main elements – Alford Windmill, Alford Manor House and Spilsby Sessions House.  The report set out the rationale, context, requirement for and benefits of progressing a local Project Adjustment Request (PAR), along with next steps (including decision making), funding implications and future use.  The PAR proposed the reallocation of remaining funds from Alford Windmill to Alford Manor House, both sub projects of the Lincolnshire Wolds Culture and Heritage programme.  Utilising the PAR mechanism would enable the LUF programme to continue at pace and deliver revised outputs and outcomes to those defined in the Levelling Up Fund bid and as set out by Government in the Memorandum of Understanding and as contained within the Council’s capital programme.  Securing a local PAR through this decision-making process was necessary to ensure the sub projects were completed within the Government’s prescribed longstop date of 31^st March 2026, together with the delivery of the outputs and outcomes.

The proposal to reallocate funding had followed a formal decision by Alford Town Council not to receive the freehold of the site on completion of the works and extensive discussions with Lincolnshire County Council (LCC), as the current owner of the site and provider of the match funding of the Windmill structure.

A local PAR was beyond existing officer limits and in the scheme of delegation and the requirements under Grant Conditions was a Section 151 function.  This report was intended to be the mechanism that informed that decision.

Following which, the recommendations were duly Proposed and Seconded.

Members were invited to put their comments and questions forward.

A Member queried when the Levelling Up Funding had been received by the Council.  The Portfolio Holder for Community Safety, Leisure and Culture, and Carbon Reduction advised that the funding was received in March 2023.

A Member asked for clarification with regards to Section 2.21 of the report in relation to the 30%/33.3% freedoms and flexibilities and what this referred to, page 238 of the Agenda refers.

A Member referred to Section 1.2 of the report where it stated that once work was completed, the asset would be transferred to Alford Town Council who would establish a new charity.  It was highlighted that based on that, the freehold of the property would remain with Alford Town Council.  A concern was raised that should Alford Town Council be hit financially, or in the event of a government restructure it would be better to transfer the asset to a newly formed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75.