Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Rhys Baker and Richard Cleaver.

Dual-hatted district and county Councillors had a general dispensation granted by a previous Monitoring Officer that allowed them to take part in and vote on issues related to Local Government Reorganisation (LGR).

This applied to Councillors Ashley Baxter and Phil Dilks. Councillor Richard Cleaver was not present.

The Cabinet welcomes engagement from members of the public. To speak at this meeting please register no later than one working day prior to the date of the meeting via democracy@southkesteven.gov.uk

There were no questions or statements from members of the public.

Decision

That Cabinet:

1.    Approve the proposed responses to the MHCLG invitation for representations on the contents of the Structural Changes Order, as set out at Appendix B of this report, and instruct the Chief Executive to submit the responses on behalf of the Council prior to the deadline of 16 June 2026.

2. Delegate authority to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, to make minor inconsequential amendments to the content of the response between now and 16 June 2026.

Reasons for the decision

The Government had invited the Council to make representations on the detailed contents of the Structural Change Order (SCO). These representations would inform the considerations of the Secretary of State and thus represented an opportunity for the Council to attempt to ensure that the SCO was properly tailored to the particular circumstances of Greater Lincolnshire.

Other options considered

The Council was under no explicit legal obligation to submit a response. However, the Council understood that representations would inform the Secretary of State’s considerations on the detailed contents of the Structural Change Order. Therefore, if the Council does not submit a response, it would lose an opportunity to potentially influence the government on key elements of the future transitional and electoral arrangements.

Decision

That Cabinet:

1.    Approve the proposed responses to the MHCLG invitation for representations on the contents of the Structural Changes Order, as set out at Appendix B of this report, and instruct the Chief Executive to submit the responses on behalf of the Council prior to the deadline of 16 June 2026.

2. Delegate authority to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, to make minor inconsequential amendments to the content of the response between now and 16 June 2026.

Other options considered

The Council was under no explicit legal obligation to submit a response. However, the Council understood that representations would inform the Secretary of State’s considerations on the detailed contents of the Structural Change Order. Therefore, if the Council does not submit a response, it would lose an opportunity to potentially influence the government on key elements of the future transitional and electoral arrangements.

Reasons for the decision

The Leader of the Council introduced the report.

The Government had invited the Council to make representations on the detailed contents of the Structural Change Order (SCO). These representations would inform the considerations of the Secretary of State and thus represented an opportunity for the Council to attempt to ensure that the SCO was properly tailored to the particular circumstances of Greater Lincolnshire.

On 19 May 2026, MHCLG wrote to all councils in Greater Lincolnshire to seek views on matters that would be necessary for the Secretary of State to consider in any Structural Changes Order (SCO) (Appendix A). A SCO was a statutory instrument (secondary legislation) that would establish a new unitary authority, make provision to abolish predecessor councils, and set out transitional and electoral arrangements.

The matters/questions on which the Council had been invited to make representations were:

1. Whether you prefer a preparing council and implementation executive model (where geographies align) or a new council model with a joint committee?
2. How many members from each relevant council would you prefer to sit on each Joint Committee or on the Implementation Executive, including the balance of members from different councils?
3. Would you prefer for any individuals to be specified for the Chair/Deputy Chair roles, and if so, who?
4. What are your views on any requirement for political balance in the joint committee(s)/ implementation executive?
5. Who should be the returning officer for the first election to each of the new unitary councils, that proposals would see established.
6. What are your preferences for the membership of the Implementation Team and whether roles should be specified?
7. Would you prefer for any parish council elections to be aligned with elections to the new councils?
8. What are the current legal names of the councils and what are your preferred names for new councils?
9. If different to proposals, has there been any further modelling of your preferred councillors for each new councils that you would like the Secretary of State to consider, alongside any information on the rationale for the numbers?
10. What are your suggested wards, that reflect the proposal and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

The meeting closed at 2:39 pm.