Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Steve Kirk and Graham Marsh.

No declarations of interest were received.

To confirm the Open and Exempt Minutes of the Meeting held on 20^th February 2025.

The Open and Exempt Minutes of the Meeting held on 20^th February 2025 were confirmed as a correct record.

To confirm Actions following the Meeting held on 20^th February 2025.

The action following the Meeting held on 20^th February 2025 was confirmed as complete.

To consider approval to formalise the decision of withdrawal from the Community Partnership.

That withdrawal from the Community Partnership be agreed.

A report was presented to consider formalising the decision of withdrawal from the Community Partnership.

During his introduction of the report, the Leader of the Council highlighted that on 12th February 2025 he announced his intention to withdraw from the Community Partnership. The report presented sought approval from the Executive Board to formally withdraw the Council’s involvement from the Community Partnership with immediate effect.

He added that Lincolnshire County Council had recently made a similar decision to be formalised, potentially following the elections in May 2025.

The full background and details were included at Sections 1 and 2 of the report, pages 20 to 21 of the Agenda refer.

The Portfolio Holder for Market Towns and Rural Economy highlighted that the proposed Geological Disposal Facility had been a hugely contentious issue and the subject of much discussion in local communities over the last few years.  He continued that it was right to enter the discussions and conversations, however believed now was the right time to withdraw and hoped that the uncertainty and distress around the communities would now end.

The Portfolio Holder for Planning highlighted that the new location put forward would also impinge on the Wolds setting and fell into the same bracket as the Pylons project and other major planning infrastructure that would blight the Lincolnshire landscape.  He added that he fully supported taking the decision to withdraw from the Community Partnership.

The Portfolio Holder for Communities and Better Ageing stated that he fully supported the points made and the decision to withdraw from the Community Partnership.  He added that he was concerned with not only the surface areas focus, but also the access way area of focus that spread from the site all the way to the sea which was completely unacceptable which would disrupt and change the area and so many communities forever.

In response, the Leader of the Council highlighted that following his announcement in relation to the intention to withdraw, it was clear at the Full Council Meeting held on 5 March 2025 that it would give its support to the withdrawal from the Community Partnership.

RESOLVED:

That withdrawal from the Community Partnership be agreed.

Reasons

The alternative location proposed for GDF is considered to have detrimental impact on the countryside, environment and visitor economy.

The involvement with the Community Partnership so far has antagonised and distressed local communities and residents.

We also need to consider the progress that the Community Partnership has made in being the liaison between NWS and wider community.  The engagement process has been clumsy, interrupted and not generally seen as helpful. The 4-year timescale to this point is disappointing and frustrating in equal measure and this is especially the case for the community of Theddlethorpe. 

Other Options

Continuing the Council’s involvement in the Community Partnership is not an option due to the reasons cited in this report.

To consider approval of an updated report on the making of a Local Development Order (LDO) for mixed-use development on a site known as ‘Skegness Gateway’.

1. That it be approved to make and formally adopt the Skegness Gateway Local Development Order (LDO), subject to the satisfactory completion of all associated legal agreements; and

2. That the Assistant Director: Planning & Strategic Infrastructure (or alternative Officer as may be authorised by the Chief Executive) in consultation with the relevant Portfolio Holders, be delegated authority to make amendments to the LDO (including its conditions) and associated documents, including associated legal agreements, as may be required prior to its formal adoption, subject to those amendments not significantly altering the material scope or effect of the LDO.

A report was presented to consider approval of the making of a Local Development Order (LDO) for mixed-use development on a site known as ‘Skegness Gateway’.

During his introduction of the report, the Portfolio Holder for Planning highlighted that Members would recall resolving to make and formally adopt proposals for the Skegness Gateway Local Development Order (the ‘LDO’) at Executive Board held on 20 March 2024, Minute No. 75 refers.

Furthermore, Members would similarly recall that at that time, formal objections to the proposals had been received from the Environment Agency on, inter alia, flood risk grounds.  The proposals were also subject to a later, and quite separate letter before claim which was a pre-cursor to potential legal challenge on the basis that the Council’s decision to approve the making and formal adoption of the LDO was irrational amongst other grounds.  Further proposed grounds of claim stemmed from the impacts of the then proposed LDO would have on the veracity of the Council’s existing and emergent, Local Plans.

As a consequence, officers had continued to engage positively with the main landowners, Croftmarsh Limited with a view to progressing revised proposals for an LDO to a successful conclusion.  Positive discussions had also been held with the Environment Agency, amongst others.

The Portfolio for Planning asked that his thanks be passed to all officers and partners involved for getting the LDO to its current position.

The full background and details were included at Sections 1 to 8 of the report, pages 27 to 46 of the Agenda refer.

The Leader of the Council echoed the comments made during the introduction of the report and thanked all involved for their patience, perseverance and determination in getting to this stage.

RESOLVED:

1. That it be approved to make and formally adopt the Skegness Gateway Local Development Order (LDO), subject to the satisfactory completion of all associated legal agreements; and

2. That the Assistant Director: Planning & Strategic Infrastructure (or alternative Officer as may be authorised by the Chief Executive) in consultation with the relevant Portfolio Holders, be delegated authority to make amendments to the LDO (including its conditions) and associated documents, including associated legal agreements, as may be required prior to its formal adoption, subject to those amendments not significantly altering the material scope or effect of the LDO.

Reasons

The reasons for the recommendations set out above stem directly from the objectives of the LDO itself, which are to:

• Transform the economic fortunes of Skegness and the quality of life and opportunities that are available to its residents, with a focus on economic development and the provision of the new college campus.

• Generate a positive economic impact from land use change to the benefit of both the local area and wider region.

• Support the delivery of local affordable housing to meet the existing evidenced needs of Skegness.

• Directly provide 400 affordable homes, which will meet a significant element of the existing demand in Skegness and the coastal area of East Lindsey in accordance with the adopted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83.

To consider the issues related to unauthorised occupation of holiday caravans for enforcement and caravan licencing and allocate resource to reduce the negative impact on the communities.

That the use of the £300,000 allocated to the holiday caravans in the East Lindsey Investment Fund for implementation of proposals outlined in para 2.23 of this report be approved.

A report was presented to note the issues related to unauthorised occupation of holiday caravans for enforcement and caravan licencing and to approve allocating resource to reduce the negative impact on the communities.

During his introduction of the report, the Portfolio Holder for Planning highlighted that East Lindsey was very unique in that it had an estimated 39,000 holiday caravans (over 260 sites) in the district which was a higher concentration than the whole of Western Europe. The Council was aware of some of the holiday caravans becoming occupied as permanent addresses which was a breach of both planning conditions and the site licence conditions. The report highlighted the impact of this unauthorised occupancy and sought approval for resources to undertake monitoring and enforcement actions where breaches were identified.

The full background and details were included at Sections 1 to 3 of the report, pages 130 to 135 of the Agenda refer.

The Portfolio Holder for Planning paid particular tribute to the Group Manager – Enforcement and the Director for Economic Growth for the work they had undertaken over an extended period of time and believed that the paper genuinely set out progress to regularise the volume of holiday caravans, some of which where there were potential breaches of planning conditions and site licenses and also potential unauthorised occupancy.

He added that the Council was committed to taking a careful and a sequential approach to this issue, recognising the care required when dealing with potential vulnerable residents who may be living in accommodation which was unsuitable for permanent occupancy.

The Portfolio Holder for Planning commented that he was very pleased that £300k had been allocated out of the East Lindsey Investment Fund to tackle the issues with holiday caravans and hoped that financial support would continue moving forward.

The Portfolio Holder for Market Towns and Rural Economy highlighted that the issue with holiday caravans had been discussed many times and was pleased to see that serious resource had been allocated to this.  He added that East Lindsey was a unique district given the sheer number of sites and caravans and acknowledged that dealing with the issues may prove difficult to tackle, however was very happy to support the paper.

In response, the Leader of the Council agreed with the comments made and highlighted that it was very important to consider taking a careful and sequential approach to deal with the issues on holiday sites and caravans.

RESOLVED

·       That the report be noted.

·       That the use of the £300,000 allocated to the holiday caravans in the East Lindsey Investment Fund for implementation of proposals outlined in para 2.23 of this report be approved.

Reasons

This proposal will ensure that the Council is fulfilling its statutory duty to act where required to ensure that all sites are compliant with the planning conditions and site licence requirements. This will protect the health, safety and wellbeing of the caravan occupiers and significantly reduce the risk to human life in the event of an emergency  ...  view the full minutes text for item 84.

To report on the Council’s Finances as at the 31st December 2024.

1)       That the general fund forecast for the full year forecast outturn position for 2024/25 being an underspend of £851k as detailed in Table 1 of Appendix A of the report be noted.

2)       That the £239k realignment of reserve provision in respect of the Wellbeing Contract to the Wellbeing Reserve be approved.

A report was presented to provide a summary of the current financial position for the Council at the end of the third quarter forecasting to the year end (as at 31^st December 2024) as detailed at Appendix A.

During his introduction of the report, the Portfolio Holder for Finance referred to the following key areas:

·       The General Fund Revenue Budget,

·       The General Fund Reserves Position,

·       The Capital Programme for 2024/25, and

·       The Treasury Management Performance for the year.

The full background and details were included at Sections 1 and 2 of the report, page 140 of the Agenda refers.

The Leader of the Council thanked the Portfolio Holder for Finance for his detailed report and highlighted that the information presented showed how carefully the finances were managed, and that approach allowed the Council to make a difference to its communities.

RESOLVED

1)       That the general fund forecast for the full year forecast outturn position for 2024/25 being an underspend of £851k as detailed in Table 1 of Appendix A of the report be noted.

2)       That the £239k realignment of reserve provision in respect of the Wellbeing Contract to the Wellbeing Reserve be approved.

Reasons

To ensure the Council’s forecast financial position for 2024/25 is considered and related decisions approved. It is important that the Executive are aware of the financial position of the General Fund to ensure that they can make informed decisions that are affordable and financially sustainable for the Council.

Other Options

To not approve the financial movements outlined.

To consider approval for the disposal of surplus Council owned assets to Coningsby Town Council.

1. That the land at Hudson Drive and Curtis Drive, Coningsby, edged red on the plans at Appendix 2 of the report be declared surplus to the Council’s requirement;

2. That the Deputy Chief Executive, Programme Delivery and Assistant Director - General Fund Assets be delegated authority to follow the advertising process set out by Section 123 (2A) of the Local Government Act, 1972, in respect the land set out in Recommendation 1.

3. That the lawful exemptions set out within The Local Government Act 1972: General Disposal Consent (England) 2003 to agree the disposal of the freehold title of the two plots of land set out in Recommendation 1, to Coningsby Town Council at their restricted market value of £1 each, representing a notional undervalue of £8,998 be relied upon in the event that no representations are received by the Council in respect of recommendation 2.

4. That the Deputy Chief Executive, Programme Delivery and Assistant Director - General Fund Assets be delegated authority to protect the Council’s future position by specifying appropriate Restrictive Covenants within any resulting conveyance, including an 80% overage clause on both assets.

In the event that any representations are made to the Council in respect of recommendation 2, recommendations 3 and 4 cannot take effect and the Executive will need to formally consider any representations made before making a final decision.

A report was presented to consider the disposal of surplus Council owned assets to Coningsby Town Council.

During his introduction of the report, the Leader of the Council highlighted that a number of transfers involving the disposal of Council assets to town and parish councils had completed over recent years.  These had been undertaken as part of the asset transformation programme included in the Asset Management Framework 2016-2026.  More recently, the adoption of the SELCP Asset Management Strategy 2023-26 continued the theme for the disposal of assets that ‘supported collaboration with public sector partners, charitable and voluntary organisations and other stakeholders,’ for those assets that offered no strategic value in terms of service provision or viability.

Following interest expressed by Coningsby Town Council in the transfer of Council assets, confirmation had been received of a wish to transfer two assets. These were located at Hudson Drive and Curtis Drive in Coningsby. Consideration had been given to the request and was detailed in the report.

The full background and details were included at Sections 1 and 2 of the report, pages 163 to 166 of the Agenda refer.

The Portfolio Holder for Planning stated that he was pleased to see a further paper on asset transfers and considered that the pieces of land concerned rightfully belonged with the community and was pleased that the Council took an open approach to public land.  He added that a town or parish council could provide better value for money for maintenance and delivery locally for the people that lived in the community.

The Portfolio Holder for Operational Services added that as a former member of Coningsby Town Council, greenfield areas in Coningsby and neighbouring Tattershall had been well utilised and well developed and considered that the transfers of greenfield sites would be well used in the future for the community.

RESOLVED

1. That the land at Hudson Drive and Curtis Drive, Coningsby, edged red on the plans at Appendix 2 of the report be declared surplus to the Council’s requirement;

2. That the Deputy Chief Executive, Programme Delivery and Assistant Director - General Fund Assets be delegated authority to follow the advertising process set out by Section 123 (2A) of the Local Government Act, 1972, in respect the land set out in Recommendation 1.

3. That the lawful exemptions set out within The Local Government Act 1972: General Disposal Consent (England) 2003 to agree the disposal of the freehold title of the two plots of land set out in Recommendation 1, to Coningsby Town Council at their restricted market value of £1 each, representing a notional undervalue of £8,998 be relied upon in the event that no representations are received by the Council in respect of recommendation 2

4. That the Deputy Chief Executive, Programme Delivery and Assistant Director - General Fund Assets be delegated authority to protect the Council’s future position by specifying appropriate Restrictive Covenants within any resulting conveyance, including an 80% overage clause on both assets.

In the event that any representations are  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86.

The programmed date for the next Meeting of this Board will be Wednesday 7^th May 2025.

The next meeting of Executive Board was noted as Wednesday 7^th May 2025.