Agenda and minutes

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

The following announcements were made at the start of the meeting:

• The meeting stood for a minute’s silence as a mark of respect for former Councillor Jacky Smith, who had passed away at the weekend. The Leader of the Council paid tribute to her.
• The Cabinet Member for Housing announced that South Kesteven District Council (SKDC) had been awarded the East Midlands Best New Small Social Housing Scheme by the Local Authority Building Control (LABC) for the development at Elizabeth Road in Stamford. The scheme would be a contender for the national final in January 2026.
• The Leader of the Council made reference to the forthcoming ‘Thatcherfest’. He expressed gratitude to all community groups involved. There was a range of merchandise to accompany the event, as well as a special exhibition at the Union Street Gallery in Grantham.

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

There were no apologies for absence.

There were no declarations of interests.

Minutes of the meeting held on 9 September 2025.

The minutes of the meeting held on 9 September 2025 were agreed as a correct record.

To present the Customer Experience Strategy to Cabinet for approval.

Purpose of report

To commit to supporting the delivery of the customer charter, priorities, and approach to customer experience across all Council services.

Decision

Cabinet approve the Customer Experience Strategy 2025-2029 to complement the Council’s priority ‘’Effective Council’’.

Alternative options considered and rejected

The Council had the option of not refreshing the existing Customer Experience Strategy and continuing to operate without a strategic focus on the needs of customers. However, as one of the organisation’s priorities was to be an effective Council, this was not pursued.

Reasons for the decision

The Strategy was an overarching document for 2025-2029, developed by the Customer Service Management team, with the support of the Customer Experience Steering Group and engagement with customers and local stakeholders. It provided a framework, objectives and standards to further develop a consistent approach across Council services and aligned with the objectives within the Council’s Corporate Plan.

The Strategy demonstrated a clear commitment to shared objectives across teams to improving the service and engagement with the Council’s customers.

A steering group was established with representatives from across all Council departments to allow for a collaborative approach. The launch of the Strategy would coincide with National Customer Service Week.

Customer service was the responsibility of all staff. The Strategy itself would be scrutinised by the Rural & Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee (OSC) every six months. A consultation on the Strategy had taken place.

Face to face engagement with members of the public had greatly improved, in part due to the new Customer Service Centre in Grantham. A personal service to customers would continue, in parallel with digital alternatives.

Purpose of report

The report sought approval to purchase vehicles including road sweepers, caged tippers, pickup vehicles, a hook lift, and panel vans. The procurement of these vehicles had been completed through a compliant process and as the vehicles would be purchased outright there was no contract length to consider. The procurement was for 54 vehicles at a combined cost of £2.6m.

Decision

Cabinet approved the award of the following 14 contracts for the direct purchase of vehicles at a combined cost of £2.6m:

• Volvo – 1 x 26t Hook Lift

• Harris Maxus –3 x 3.5t Caged Tippers, 6 x 3.5t Caged Tippers with Tail Lifts and 1 x 3.5t Arb Tipper

• Motus (Isuzu) – 2 x 3.5t Caged Tippers

• Motus (Fiat) – 16 x Medium Panel Vans

• Toyota – 7 x Small Panel Vans and 7 x Large Panel Vans

• Lookers Ford – 2 x 4x4 Pickups

• Thompson – 2 x 7.5t Tippers with Tail Lift and Removable Mesh Infilled Side Panels and 3 x 7.5t Caged Tippers

• Aebi Schmidt – 1 x 6t Compact Road Sweeper

• Karcher – 1 x 6t electric Compact Road Sweeper

• Bucher – 2 x 12t Truck Mounted Road Sweepers 4

Alternative options considered and rejected

Other options considered were:

·       Do not procure new vehicles – this would have resulted in an increased risk of service failure, reputational damage and a breach of statutory duties.

·       Run current vehicles beyond the recommended usage period – this risked service failure due to maintenance requirements, alongside increased repair costs.

Reasons for the decision

The Council required vehicles for the delivery of statutory services. The recommended vehicle purchases would support service delivery and ensure reliability and efficiency.

All 14 contracts had been through a compliant procurement process with a fair and robust tender. All vehicles would be purchased outright.

54 vehicles would be purchased over 3 years, with 27 purchased through the Housing Revenue Account and used for Housing services.  £812414 of the total amount was funded from the HRA, with the remaining funds coming from the General Fund (GF).

These purchases increased electric vehicle usage whilst maintaining existing services. The variety of vehicles demonstrated the diversity of the service offering.

The following points were highlighted during debate:

·       Old vehicles would be responsibly disposed of, most likely through auction. There were strict rules about age of vehicles. Old vehicles were not routinely retained for parts as there wasn’t adequate space to store them. Contingency had been built into the procurement for spare vehicles, for maintenance and emergency use. Spares were sourced through contracted suppliers. All vehicles would be supplied with warranties.

·       The design of the new fleet would be uniform. However, there was the potential for having special livery on vehicles as and when desired.

·       The procurement process had aimed to ensure the fleet was future proofed as far as possible.

To approve the updated ICT Strategy and the new Cyber Security Strategy.

Purpose of report

To consider the updated ICT Strategy and the new Cyber Security Strategy.

Decision

Cabinet approve the:

1.    Updated ICT Strategy 2025 – 2028.

2.    New Cyber Security Strategy 2025 - 2028.

Authority was delegated to the Chief Executive in consultation with the relevant Cabinet Member to correct any typographical and grammatical errors.

Alternative options considered and rejected

The Council could have chosen not to have an ICT or Cyber Security Strategy, but this would not provide a robust framework within which to manage and develop ICT platforms.

Reasons for the decision

The refreshed ICT Strategy ensured the Council continued to provide modern services to residents and employees of the authority.

The ICT Strategy enabled the Council to review emerging technologies and adapt systems to ensure they were fit for purpose and future proofed.

The Cyber Security Strategy was a crucial part of the Council's duty to ensure that all systems were secure and that sensitive data held was safe. Councils must adopt proactive measures to ensure the integrity of their systems, for example:

·       Two-factor authentication (2FA).

·       Antivirus and endpoint protection.

·       Staff training on cyber hygiene (Cyber hygiene refers to the regular practices, habits, and precautions individuals and organisations take to protect their digital systems, devices, and data from cyber threats like malware, phishing and theft).

·       Regular security audits aligned with the National Cyber Security Centre’s Cyber Assessment Framework (CAF)

As Councils increasingly delivered services online, they must ensure digital platforms were secure, accessible, and inclusive. A strong Cyber Security Strategy reassured residents and businesses that their data was protected, fostering trust in digital services.

The Cyber Security Policy responded to the increasing threat of cyber attacks, and robust protection of systems and data. It documented proactive investment in cyber security measures, and alignment with the cyber assessment framework, whilst building risk aware infrastructure.

The following points were highlighted during debate:

·       Services requiring servers were increasingly moving to cloud-based solutions as opposed to on site server infrastructure. SKDC had robust off-site backup, with less reliance on physical servers. Most systems were now remote.

·       Cyber-attacks were the Council’s single biggest risk. SKDC had signed up to the Cyber Prevention Network and systems were frequently tested for resilience. Backups occured every 15 minutes and offsite backup plans were in place.

·       Service recovery times depended on the incident, but recovery times were routinely tested.

·       The depot was used as a backup location to give resilience to the authority. Each service area had a Business Continuity Plan.

This report provides details of a complaint raised about the Council which was upheld and fault and injustice was found.

Purpose of report

To consider the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGO) Findings Report which provided details of a complaint raised about the Council which was upheld and fault and injustice found.

Decision

That Cabinet had confidence that officers always dealt with homelessness issues with compassion, care and justice. It had seen no evidence that officers had acted inappropriately in this case or that their judgment was flawed.

Having considered the report presented by the Ombudsman and the evidence presented by officers, Cabinet resolved that no further action be taken and they endorsed the considerations with regard to the complaint.

Alternative options considered and rejected

There were no other options available as Cabinet was required to discuss the findings and recommendations of the LGO

Reasons for the decision

Through this homelessness complaint the Ombudsman found fault and injustice on the part of the Council. SKDC did not agree with all findings/ recommendations, which were:

1. Apologise to Mr B for the lack of accommodation and the distress this caused him in early 2024;
2. Pay Mr B £875 to recognise the lack of that accommodation;
3. Pay Mr B a further £300 to recognise the added distress caused by him being avoidably street homeless during that time.
4. Remind its homelessness staff of the correct test and threshold for the interim accommodation duty, in particular that the threshold for this is a low one;
5. Review its standard homelessness letters to ensure these comply with the requirements of the Housing Act 1996, in particular about explanations of review and appeal rights; and
6. Remind its homelessness staff of the requirements for homelessness decisions including when these should be made and what such decisions must contain.

The Council had actioned recommendations 5 and 6. However, it had not taken action on recommendations 1- 4 because it believed the correct test had in fact been applied. The team understood the threshold for interim duty accommodation was low, but a review of the information provided as part of the homelessness application determined the criteria for the provision of temporary accommodation was not met.

As the Council had not accepted all LGO recommendations, the LGO had now issued a report under section 30 of the Local Government Act 1974 which required the Council to:

1. Share the draft report with the Council’s Chief Executive or equivalent, and relevant members or officers;
2. Place two public announcements in local newspapers and/or newspaper websites;
3. Make the report available free of charge at one or more of its offices;
4. Discuss the findings and recommendations at a high decision-making level, such as Full Council or Cabinet, after the publication of the report; and
5. Formally report back to the LGO the Council’s intended course of action.

The Council had satisfied points 1 – 3. Presenting this report satisfied point 4 as Cabinet were asked to discuss the findings and recommendations of the Ombudsman and to direct officers regarding any actions to be taken.

The financial implications of accepting the findings of the LGO were very small;  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.

Purpose of report

To review and consider adopting the Corporate Asset Management Strategy 2025-2030, whilst ensuring the strategy was in accordance with SKDC current priorities and objectives.

Decision

Cabinet approve the adoption of the updated Corporate Asset Management Strategy 2025-2030.

Alternative options considered and rejected

Consideration had been given to not updating the existing strategy and relying on the existing outdated Asset Management Strategy 2022-2027. This option was considered inappropriate, as the existing Strategy outlined need for a mid-term review and there had been significant change since the Strategy’s initial implementation. This may also have resulted in a missed opportunity to support the delivery of the Council’s Corporate Plan.

Manage the portfolio on a purely responsive basis – this was not pursued as this tended to be more costly than a strategic approach to management of the portfolio and could have impacted on the delivery of services.

Reasons for the decision

This was a medium-term strategy to manage corporate property within the GF set within the context of the Corporate Plan.

There were 11 key actions within the Strategy:

1.    Service Planning and Asset Appraisal

2.    Asset Information

3.    Compliance

4.    Maintenance and Investment

5.    Current Major Projects

6.    Regeneration

7.    Equalities

8.    Investment Portfolio

9.    Working with Partners

10.Energy Efficiency

11.Value for Money

The Strategy had been submitted to Finance and Economic Overview and Scrutiny Committee who had recommended no edits to the Strategy.

Much importance was attached to properly maintaining assets. The Council invested in a new Asset Management System approximately two years ago. The Strategy was clear that the Council was trying to plan rather than reactively spend. This was difficult due to many years of backlog, but it was slowly being turned around.

Condition surveys drove investment plans. Officers were focussing on desirable and long-term repairs [JW1] Officers looked at reactive repairs in terms of planned maintenance. If repairs were failing at a car park then investigations would take place to find out whether there was any planned maintenance. If the repair was urgent it would be dealt with there and then; the central database was updated alongside this.

A ratio of 70:30 in favour of planned maintenance was aimed for; currently it was the other way around.

There was an asset disposal strategy. Criteria were followed before investing in assets. There was a delegation in place for senior officers in consultation with the Cabinet Members for Property and Public Engagement and Finance to dispose of GF assets up to a value of £2 million.

This report highlights matters on the Cabinet’s Forward Plan.

The Forward Plan was noted.

There were no questions from Councillors.

The meeting closed at 5:20pm.