Agenda and minutes

The public open forum will commence at 2.00 p.m. and the following formal business of the Council will commence at 2.30 p.m. or whenever the public open forum ends, if earlier.

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

Apologies for absence were received from:

Councillor Pam Byrd

Councillor Phil Dilks

Councillor Barry Dobson

Councillor Phil Gadd

Councillor Jane Kingman

Councillor Nick Robins

Councillor Penny Robins

Councillor Rob Shorrock

Councillor Rosemary Trollope-Bellew

Councillor Sarah Trotter

Councillor Mark Whittington

Councillor Jane Wood

Councillor Paul Wood

Councillor Pam Bosworth declared an interest in item 8 – Community Governance Review for Little Ponton and Stroxton, as her daughter was assisting the clerk to the Parish Council.

She would leave the Council Chamber for the entirety of this item.

The minutes of the meeting held on 23 May 2024 on were proposed, seconded and agreed as a correct record.

The Council noted the Chairman’s printed engagements.

The Chairman informed Council that the first experiences of being the Chairman had been really positive for himself and his consort. He had attended a number of events connected to the Council’s military history, as well as joining two local schools as they finished term for the summer break.

This report provides a summary of the work undertaken by all Overview and Scrutiny Committees during 2023/2024.

Members considered the Annual Overview and Scrutiny report for 2023/2024.

During the year there had been an increase of Scrutiny Committees to five, adding the Housing Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

All Scrutiny Committees had nine members but welcomed other members of the Council to attend too.

Members had shown their support for public concerns by voicing these at Overview and Scrutiny Committees. They had also supported and attended Joint Scrutiny Committees when required to do so to discuss items on an ad hoc basis.  

Overview and Scrutiny Committee meetings were led by Chairmen and Vice Chairmen from across the Council Chamber. Each Committee meeting had an extensive agenda, and they all welcomed members’ suggestions and usually worked with political impartiality whilst supporting improvement for residents.  

Members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committees acted as a critical friend to Cabinet Members as well as other agencies and external authorities. They could challenge in a constructive, robust and purposeful way and work with the Cabinet to demonstrate public accountability.  

There had been some large projects supported via the Overview and Scrutiny Committees, including the Grantham Christmas Lights, as well as Grantham Markets which had seen a vast improvement.  Further to this there had been some difficult challenges for Overview and Scrutiny members to discuss such as Purple Bins/Waste Management, Leisure SK, A1 Litter issues, Earlesfield Estate, Waste Depot, St. Martin’s Park Stamford, all of which were ongoing.

There had been different Strategies developed including the Climate Action Strategy, Tree/Woodland Strategy, Tourism/Visitor Economy Strategy, Contaminated Land Strategy to name just a few. 

In concluding her introduction, the Chairman of the Finance and Economic Overview and Scrutiny Committee thanked members and officers for their commitment and support.

During debate, the following points were highlighted:

• One member had voted against the increase in the number of Overview and Scrutiny Committees previously due to concerns over the increased number of chairmanships that could be utilised by the administration. However, officer time was not just spent supporting the administration and investigations on behalf of opposition Councillors were carried out.
• Training courses looking at the Plain English Campaign were being investigated aimed at making reports and agenda packs less verbose and more grammatically correct.
• The Housing Overview and Scrutiny Committee was new for 2023/2024 and scrutinised many policies and areas of work for the Housing Team. Outstanding repairs had decreased from 6000 to 4500. The Council had also exited special measures.158 void properties remained, and the average time that properties remained on this list was 69 days, down from 153 days previously.
• When Council properties were not economically viable to repair, they could be sold on the open market following notification, and a reply from the Secretary of State.

Full Council NOTED the Overview and Scrutiny Annual Report for 2023/2024.

Members considered proposed amendments to the adopted Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document in relation to administration and monitoring fees for Section 106 (S106) planning obligations.

Planning obligations were an important part of the planning process, legally binding the process between the owner and the developer. The Council had recruited a new Infrastructure Delivery Officer who would in part be responsible for monitoring planning obligations.

South Kesteven District Council (SKDC) consulted with partners, such as Lincolnshire County Council who would inform SKDC what they needed in terms of Section 106 agreements; this was the same with Highways for road improvements. Every contribution needed to be relevant and necessary, and each local authority would be different.

Having previously been moved and seconded, and following a vote, it was AGREED:

DECISION

That Full Council:

1. Approves the proposed amendments to the adopted Planning Obligations supplementary Planning Document in relation to Administration and Monitoring Fees for Section 106 (S106) planning obligations as set out in Table 1 of the report.

2. Agrees that the Administration and Monitoring Fees for Section 106 planning obligations are reviewed and agreed annually through the Council’s budget setting process

To update the Council on the outcome of the consultation undertaken as part of the Community Governance Review for Little Ponton and Stroxton, and consider the recommendations of the Community Governance Review Working Group.

Note:  Councillor Pam Bosworth left the Council Chamber for the entirety of this item.

Members received an update on the outcome of the consultation undertaken as part of the Community Governance Review for Little Ponton and Stroxton.

Section 93 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 required Councils to ensure that community governance within the area under review would be reflective of the identities and interests of the community in the area and be effective and convenient.

On 29 February 2024 Full Council resolved to undertake a Community Governance Review (CGR), further to the motion considered at that meeting that had been submitted by Councillor Ben Green. The CGR Working Group met twice. The Council was required by the Act to consult with residents and third parties. This consultation closed on 19 April 2024. The aim of the first consultation stage was to gauge public opinion on the status of the community governance arrangements for the parish of Little Ponton and Stroxton and whether there were more appropriate arrangements that could be put in place. Options included the merger of Little Ponton and Stroxton with Great Ponton, the formal grouping of the two Parish Councils or changing the status of Little Ponton Parish Council to a Parish Meeting.

260 residential properties received a letter, and a total of 334 individuals could take part in the survey. In carrying out the CGR, the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 required the District Council to have regard to the identities and interest of the community. This meant that community governance arrangements should reflect and be sufficiently representative of people living across the whole community. In addition, the Council was required to have regard to the results of the consultation.

Before making any recommendations or publishing draft proposals, the Council was required to take account of the views of local people and stakeholders and ensure that the proposals reflected the identities and interests of the community in the area and were effective and convenient.

The survey indicated support for maintaining the existing arrangements – 65.9% of respondents wished for this. The Working Group suggested that the Parish Council had not held meetings since the commencement of the CGR; similarly the Parish Council had not submitted accounts for a number of years. Community governance arrangements for the area were different to the way in which the Parish Council operated. The Working Group concluded that the issues did not relate to community governance arrangements but were more operational to the Parish Council.

The Working Group asked the Monitoring Officer to write to the Parish Clerk to highlight the following:

-       The Community Governance Working Group was concerned that there was no evidence of Little Ponton and Stroxton Parish Council having held a public meeting since the commencement of the Community Governance Review

-       The Community Governance Working Group was concerned that the Parish Council had not submitted its accounts for a number of years, despite continuing to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

A 45-minute period in which members may ask questions of the Leader, Cabinet Members, the Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of the Overview and Scrutiny Committees and opposition group leaders excluding the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Planning Committee, Licensing and Alcohol, Entertainment and Late Night Refreshment Licensing Committees and Governance and Audit Committee.

Note:  Councillor Pam Bosworth returned to the Council Chamber.

Question 1 – Councillor Richard Dixon-Warren to Councillor Rhea Rayside, Cabinet Member for People and Communities

Councillor Dixon-Warren asked the Cabinet Member about the message that SKDC was sending out to its c8000 veterans when the Finance and Economic Overview and Scrutiny Committee decided not to undertake further work on a local proposal to provide targeted council tax support to alleviate poverty for selected veterans.

Councillor Rayside believed the Council had done its due diligence by thoroughly discussing the issue at the Finance and Economic Overview and Scrutiny Committee, who had recommended not to pursue this area of focus any longer, in part due to guidance from community members.

Question 2 – Councillor Ian Selby to Councillor Ashley Baxter, Leader of the Council

Councillor Selby asked the Leader of the Council to join him in wishing Councillor Elvis Stooke well ahead of his skydive to raise money for Bhive Community, a local Grantham hub aimed at helping mental wellbeing.

The Leader of the Council was happy to support this and encouraged others to sponsor Councillor Stooke in order to raise over £1000.

Question 3 – Councillor Matt Bailey to Councillor Ian Selby, Chairman of the Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee

Councillor Bailey asked the Chairman of the Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee whether he would welcome an item on the Committee’s agenda related to the tagging of communal bins across the district?

Councillor Selby agreed to this request, and reminded all members that if they were considering requesting an item on the Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee agenda, they were always welcome to ask.

Question 4 – Councillor Peter Stephens to Councillor Rhys Baker, Cabinet Member for Environment and Waste

Councillor Stephens asked the Cabinet Member whether he supported both battery collection in the district and the re-opening of the Deepings Leisure Centre?

Councillor Rhys Baker highlighted the discussion that had taken place at the Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee and referenced that battery collection was due to commence in September 2024. If there were any issues with this date members would be informed. The depot development was also continuing apace.

Question 5 – Councillor Susan Sandall to Councillor Richard Cleaver, Cabinet Member for Property and Public Engagement

Councillor Sandall referenced an investigation into the development of St. Martin’s Park, Stamford. The Cabinet Member had previously supported this when Leader of the Council – why had the investigation not commenced?

Councillor Cleaver assured members that no-one was delaying an investigation. It was not the role of Cabinet Members to determine the business of Overview and Scrutiny Committees.

Question 6 – Councillor Ben Green to Councillor Richard Cleaver, Cabinet Member for Property and Public Engagement

Councillor Green requested further information on the re-opening of the Deepings Leisure Centre.

Councillor Cleaver responded by saying that the Deepings Leisure Centre was not within the remit of his portfolio as it was not an SKDC property.

Question 7 – Councillor Gloria Johnson to Councillor Bridget  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

The UK's current voting system (known as First Past the Post, FPTP) originated when land-owning aristocrats dominated parliament and voting was restricted to property-owning men.

Currently in Europe, only the UK and authoritarian Belarus still use archaic single-round FPTP for general elections. Internationally, Proportional Representation (PR) is used to elect the parliaments of more than 80 countries. These countries tend to be more equal, freer and greener.

PR ensures all votes count, have equal value, and that seats won match votes cast. Under PR, MPs and Parliaments better reflect the age, gender and protected characteristics of both local communities and of the nation.

MPs better reflecting the communities they represent in turn leads to improved decision-making, wider participation and increased levels of ownership of decisions taken.

PR would also end minority rule. In 2019, 43.6% of the vote produced a government with   56.2% of the seats and 100% of the power. Fair, proportional votes also prevent ‘wrong winner’ elections such as occurred in 1951 and February 1974.

The current FPTP system leads to some of the electorate questioning the point of voting since they do not feel their views are represented. This contributes to apathy and subsequent low turnout in elections. Engaging with the electorate is vital for a functioning democracy.

PR is the national policy of the Labour Party, Liberal Democrats, Green Party, SNP, Plaid Cymru, Reform UK and Women’s Equality Party along with a host of Trade Unions and pro-democracy organisations. 31 District, Borough, City and County Councils have already passed motions asking for Proportional Representation to be used in General Elections.

PR is already used to elect the parliaments and assemblies of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. So why not Westminster?

South Kesteven District Council therefore resolves to write to H.M. Government calling for a change in our outdated electoral laws and to enable Proportional Representation to be used for UK general elections.

Councillor Vanessa Smith proposed the following motion:

The UK's current voting system (known as First Past the Post, FPTP) originated when land-owning aristocrats dominated parliament and voting was restricted to property-owning men.

Currently in Europe, only the UK and authoritarian Belarus still use archaic single-round FPTP for general elections. Internationally, Proportional Representation (PR) is used to elect the parliaments of more than 80 countries. These countries tend to be more equal, freer and greener.

PR ensures all votes count, have equal value, and that seats won match votes cast. Under PR, MPs and Parliaments better reflect the age, gender and protected characteristics of both local communities and of the nation.

MPs better reflecting the communities they represent in turn leads to improved decision-making, wider participation and increased levels of ownership of decisions taken.

PR would also end minority rule. In 2019, 43.6% of the vote produced a government with   56.2% of the seats and 100% of the power. Fair, proportional votes also prevent ‘wrong winner’ elections such as occurred in 1951 and February 1974.

The current FPTP system leads to some of the electorate questioning the point of voting since they do not feel their views are represented. This contributes to apathy and subsequent low turnout in elections. Engaging with the electorate is vital for a functioning democracy.

PR is the national policy of the Labour Party, Liberal Democrats, Green Party, SNP, Plaid Cymru, Reform UK and Women’s Equality Party along with a host of Trade Unions and pro-democracy organisations. 31 District, Borough, City and County Councils have already passed motions asking for Proportional Representation to be used in General Elections.

PR is already used to elect the parliaments and assemblies of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. So why not Westminster?

South Kesteven District Council therefore resolves to write to H.M. Government calling for a change in our outdated electoral laws and to enable Proportional Representation to be used for UK general elections.

The motion was seconded.

The following views were raised during the introduction to, and debate on the motion:

• The turnout in the recent July 2024 election was low, and a Prime Minister was returned on a low vote share. This did not reflect the views of the electorate.
• The number of people voting for smaller parties had increased. It was no secret that the Green Party had been fighting for PR for a number of years, as under this system they would have been entitled to a higher number of seats at the July 2024 election. The Reform Party, who returned five MPs would have been entitled to a significantly higher number of members of Parliament.
• PR would bring an end to tactical voting.
• It was not just the most recent election that was disproportionate; in 1974 the party with the smallest vote share won the largest proportion of seats.
• PR ensured that seats in the House of Commons were allocated according to the share of the popular vote. There were different systems within PR; the Additional  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29a

Motion to Divest Pension Funds from Fossil Fuels

SKDC notes that:
- that across the UK, local authority pension schemes invest over £16 billion into fossil fuel companies¹- driving the climate crisis and risking workers' retirement pots in the process. 

- Lincolnshire County Council who manage SKDC pensions via the West Yorkshire Pension Fund invest £94.7m out of a total fund of £3.1bn in fossil fuel production, expansion and exploration.  This places them just in the upper quartile as regards amount invested in fossil fuels.

- SKDC has declared a climate emergency and that investing pension funds in fossils fuels is inconsistent with the council’s climate ambition

- the United Nations Paris Agreement commits our governments to keep the global temperature increase to under 2 degrees and aim for 1.5 degrees. Carbon budgets produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, United Nations and the International Energy Agency show that preventing two degrees of warming relies on not burning the vast majority of all proven fossil fuels reserves.

- former bank of England governor, Mark Carney, has warned that fossil fuel investments risk becoming “enormous, stranded assets”, i.e. worthless, unsellable shareholdings². Pension funds have a fiduciary duty to consider the material risks of continued investment in fossil fuels. Fiduciary duty is defined by the Law Commission as “ensuring the pensions can be paid, ensuring that this is undertaken at the best possible value”.  The long-term sustainability of the SKDC  should not be put at risk by investing in companies which are in terminal decline resulting in ‘stranded assets’. Nor should the Pension Fund fail to take responsibility for the credibility and financial support it currently provides to fossil fuel companies by continuing to invest in them even as they open up new fossil fuel reserves which the world can no longer afford to burn.  

- the UN International Energy Agency (IEA) has called on financial bodies to stop investing in fossil fuel production³ and predicts that global oil demand will significantly fall by 2030. Expected action by governments to limit carbon emissions will ultimately leave fossil fuel reserves unsellable.

- pension funds have a legal duty to treat members “fairly as between them”. That means taking seriously the longer-term interests of younger members who will be most affected by the climate crisis.

- the current generation owes it to future generations to ensure we do not exceed the internationally agreed temperature increase threshold of 1.5 degrees C above pre-industrial global heating levels, by removing support for the continued production of new fossil fuels. Climate change is the greatest challenge humanity has encountered. Warming in excess of 2°C will have catastrophic consequences. In order to have a chance of staying below this maximum upper limit of warming 80% of known fossil fuel reserves must not be burnt. 

- public divestment from fossil fuel producers supports the introduction of effective climate legislation that would ensure the world achieves the level of  ...  view the full agenda text for item 29b

Note:  Councillors Zoe Lane, Anna Kelly and Ian Stokes left the Council Chamber and did not return.

Councillor Vanessa Smith proposed the following motion:

Motion to Divest Pension Funds from Fossil Fuels

SKDC notes that:
- that across the UK, local authority pension schemes invest over £16 billion into fossil fuel companies¹- driving the climate crisis and risking workers' retirement pots in the process. 

- Lincolnshire County Council who manage SKDC pensions via the West Yorkshire Pension Fund invest £94.7m out of a total fund of £3.1bn in fossil fuel production, expansion and exploration.  This places them just in the upper quartile as regards amount invested in fossil fuels.

- SKDC has declared a climate emergency and that investing pension funds in fossils fuels is inconsistent with the council’s climate ambition

- the United Nations Paris Agreement commits our governments to keep the global temperature increase to under 2 degrees and aim for 1.5 degrees. Carbon budgets produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, United Nations and the International Energy Agency show that preventing two degrees of warming relies on not burning the vast majority of all proven fossil fuels reserves.

- former bank of England governor, Mark Carney, has warned that fossil fuel investments risk becoming “enormous, stranded assets”, i.e. worthless, unsellable shareholdings². Pension funds have a fiduciary duty to consider the material risks of continued investment in fossil fuels. Fiduciary duty is defined by the Law Commission as “ensuring the pensions can be paid, ensuring that this is undertaken at the best possible value”.  The long-term sustainability of the SKDC should not be put at risk by investing in companies which are in terminal decline resulting in ‘stranded assets’. Nor should the Pension Fund fail to take responsibility for the credibility and financial support it currently provides to fossil fuel companies by continuing to invest in them even as they open up new fossil fuel reserves which the world can no longer afford to burn.  

- the UN International Energy Agency (IEA) has called on financial bodies to stop investing in fossil fuel production³ and predicts that global oil demand will significantly fall by 2030. Expected action by governments to limit carbon emissions will ultimately leave fossil fuel reserves unsellable.

- pension funds have a legal duty to treat members “fairly as between them”. That means taking seriously the longer-term interests of younger members who will be most affected by the climate crisis.

- the current generation owes it to future generations to ensure we do not exceed the internationally agreed temperature increase threshold of 1.5 degrees C above pre-industrial global heating levels, by removing support for the continued production of new fossil fuels. Climate change is the greatest challenge humanity has encountered. Warming in excess of 2°C will have catastrophic consequences. In order to have a chance of staying below this maximum upper limit of warming 80% of known fossil fuel reserves must not be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29b

This Council restates and reaffirms its profound concerns regarding the unsustainable proliferation of solar farm developments in South Kesteven.

South Kesteven District Council hereby resolves to:

1. Acknowledge the adverse impact of clustering solar farm developments around substations, leading to catastrophic consequences for the landscape, biodiversity and local amenities. Solar farms classed as Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs), numbering 15 in the Greater Lincolnshire area alone, will contribute to the industrialisation and transformation of open countryside, negatively affecting current and potential residents alike.

2. Affirm that land classified as Best and Most Versatile (BMV) should not repurposed for the development of solar farms. Considering the limited efficiency of solar energy (10-12%), due to the UK’s limited sunlight, the Council regards it as a poor investment compromising food security and escalating food imports and costs, resulting in questionable net carbon savings.

3. Promote superior alternatives to solar development on farmland, endorsing the principles set out by the Solar Campaign Alliance. The Council supports the smarter deployment of solar on domestic and industrial buildings and recommend this be added to the local plan.

4. Express concern about international labour practices, union rights and use of forced labour, as well as the adverse environmental impact in the supply chain of solar panels, particularly in NSIP developments.

This motion underscores our steadfast commitment to safeguarding food supply, preserving the landscape, our heritage and environment, while advocating for responsible and sustainable development within South Kesteven, aligning with our shared goal of achieving net zero carbon reduction targets.

In support of Lincolnshire County Council and North Kesteven District Council, this council resolves to send a copy of this motion to the Minister of Energy Security and Net Zero. 

Councillor Sue Woolley proposed the following motion:

This Council restates and reaffirms its profound concerns regarding the unsustainable proliferation of solar farm developments in South Kesteven.

South Kesteven District Council hereby resolves to:

1. Acknowledge the adverse impact of clustering solar farm developments around substations, leading to catastrophic consequences for the landscape, biodiversity and local amenities. Solar farms classed as Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs), numbering 15 in the Greater Lincolnshire area alone, will contribute to the industrialisation and transformation of open countryside, negatively affecting current and potential residents alike.

2. Affirm that land classified as Best and Most Versatile (BMV) should not repurposed for the development of solar farms. Considering the limited efficiency of solar energy (10-12%), due to the UK’s limited sunlight, the Council regards it as a poor investment compromising food security and escalating food imports and costs, resulting in questionable net carbon savings.

3. Promote superior alternatives to solar development on farmland, endorsing the principles set out by the Solar Campaign Alliance. The Council supports the smarter deployment of solar on domestic and industrial buildings and recommend this be added to the local plan.

4. Express concern about international labour practices, union rights and use of forced labour, as well as the adverse environmental impact in the supply chain of solar panels, particularly in NSIP developments.

This motion underscores our steadfast commitment to safeguarding food supply, preserving the landscape, our heritage and environment, while advocating for responsible and sustainable development within South Kesteven, aligning with our shared goal of achieving net zero carbon reduction targets.

In support of Lincolnshire County Council and North Kesteven District Council, this council resolves to send a copy of this motion to the Minister of Energy Security and Net Zero.

The motion was seconded.

The Monitoring Officer advised those Councillors present who were also members of the Planning Committee of the following:

“Any Councillor that sits on the Planning Committee who make decisions on planning applications must be able to demonstrate an open mind and that they have not pre-determined an application. This means that where Councillors have particular views on certain matters they may not be able to demonstrate this open mind to the merits of a particular application. In relation to this motion, members of the Planning Committee or potential substitutes should be careful in expressing views where, for example, that view might be interpreted as meaning that they were against all proposed solar farms involving the loss of any agricultural land. All planning decisions must be made in accordance with Local Plan policies and other material considerations, including National Policy. Planning policies allowed balanced decisions to be reached, where the decision maker would need to weigh up the benefits and harms of any development. In the case of solar farms, the temporary loss of agricultural land would be a harm, however that would need to be weighed against the benefits of the solar farm in terms of its contribution towards decarbonising the energy sector. Every application was different  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29c

Free School meals for Primary School children in South Kesteven

It has been proven that well fed children eating nutritious meals achieve a higher standard of educational results. Children growing up in the District of South Kesteven could expect to be more competitive in a nationwide economy having been given a better start in life through the introduction of the simple and effective policy of free school meals.

During the current financial crisis local parents would benefit from not having to fund school meals for their children. This Council notes the approximate £2,000,000 budget underspend by Lincolnshire County Council in the last financial year.

South Kesteven District Council therefore resolves to:

Write to Lincolnshire County Council to ask them to review their policy and funding for free school meals and request that the free school meals scheme be extended to all primary school age children within the South Kesteven District Council area.

Note:  Councillors Emma Baker and Lee Steptoe left the Council Chamber and did not return.

It was AGREED to extend the meeting until the conclusion of the final motion. Speeches for Councillors on the motion were reduced to three minutes, following the agreement of those present in the Council Chamber.

Councillor Murray Turner proposed the following motion:

Free School meals for Primary School children in South Kesteven

It has been proven that well fed children eating nutritious meals achieve a higher standard of educational results. Children growing up in the District of South Kesteven could expect to be more competitive in a nationwide economy having been given a better start in life through the introduction of the simple and effective policy of free school meals.

During the current financial crisis local parents would benefit from not having to fund school meals for their children. This Council notes the approximate £2,000,000 budget underspend by Lincolnshire County Council in the last financial year.

South Kesteven District Council therefore resolves to:

Write to Lincolnshire County Council to ask them to review their policy and funding for free school meals and request that the free school meals scheme be extended to all primary school age children within the South Kesteven District Council area.

The motion was seconded.

The following views were highlighted during the introduction to, and debate on the motion:

• Feeding children nutritious meals would give them a better chance in society and would assist with achieving better results within school.
• Free school meals were the first step towards a more balanced society.
• Every free school meal costed £2.65 to deliver. Research by PwC in 2022 found that free school meals generated billions of pounds for the economy in return. For every £1 invested in providing meals to all children in households on both personal credit, £1.38 would be returned over the next 20 years through core benefits. This would result in around £8.9 billion being added to the UK economy, alongside savings to Lincolnshire County Council. There would also be indirect benefits, such as growing school food economy.
• The financial threshold for qualifying for free school meals currently was very low. There was a far greater need than the current budget allowed. Local food banks in Grantham were issuing a large number of meals, and a proportion of this was going to local children.
• Nationally there was a ‘pupil premium’; once young people entered schools they were in receipt of support of school meals, as well as books and other resources. The School Holiday Activity Fund gave money to Councils to share in their area, to ensure food and activities throughout the holiday period. There were currently mechanisms in place to support those from deprived backgrounds.

Having previously been proposed and seconded, following a vote the motion was AGREED.

The meeting closed at 5:18pm.