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.

The Chairman of Council welcomed all present to the meeting.

A minutes’ silence was held for former Councillor George Chivers, who had recently passed away. The funeral was to be held on 10 October. Councillors Ian Selby, Ashley Baxter, Ben Green, Phil Dilks, Nikki Manterfield, Charmaine Morgan and Elvis Stooke (who submitted some thoughts prior to the meeting) paid tribute to Councillor Chivers.

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

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors:

Pam Bosworth

Steven Cunnington

Paul Fellows

Bridget Ley

Jane Kingman

Peter Stephens

Elvis Stooke

Rosemary Trollope-Bellew

Mark Whittington

Councillor Nick Robins declared an interest in item 48 (Councillor Gareth Knight’s motion) as he was the owner of a lettings agency.

Councillor Sarah Trotter declared an interest in item 39 (Ropsley Conservation Area Appraisal) as her property formed part of the Conservation Area as extended.

Councillor Penny Robins declared an interest in item 48 (Councillor Gareth Knight’s motion) as she was the owner of a lettings agency.

Councillor Ian Stokes declared an interest in item 46 (Councillor Sue Woolley’s motion) and 48 (Councillor Gareth Knight’s motion).

The minutes of the meeting held on 17 July 2025 on were proposed, seconded and agreed as a correct record.

The Council noted the Chairman’s printed engagements.

The Chairman made two additional announcements:

·       On 11 September SKDC were named the Best Service Team for Waste, Recycling and Street Scene at the Association for Public Service Excellence (APSE) awards in Glasgow. This award followed last year’s success at the same awards in the ‘Most Improved Performer’ in the Refuse Collections category. Well done to the Waste and Recycling team.

·       Joshua Mann from the Democratic Services team was congratulated on his ‘Rising Star’ award at the Association of Democratic Services Officers (ADSO) National Conference held on 11 September in Liverpool.

Further announcements were made by Members of the Cabinet:

Leader of the Council

·       The Leader and the Chief Executive attended the Association for Public Service Excellence (APSE) awards last week where there were a number of presentations given by local authority professionals.

·       There had been some discussions surrounding political balance at Lincolnshire County Council and for the time being Councillor Phil Dilks was a co-opted member of the Police and Crime Panel.

·       At a recent meeting of the Greater Lincolnshire Combined County Authority (GLCCA) the Leader spoke to the Greater Lincolnshire Mayor who was keen to talk to SKDC about local government reorganisation.

Cabinet Member for Property and Public Engagement

·       The Council had launched its engagement exercise on its proposals for Local Government Reorganisation (LGR). In person events would also be announced shortly.

Cabinet Member for Environment and Waste

·       It was pleasing to see national recognition for the huge improvement and consistency within the Waste service. The Head of Waste Management and Market Services was to be given credit for her role in developing the Waste service; work to follow included the restructuring of the collection round and food waste collections.

·       Of particular note in the award was the fact that contamination in dry mixed recycling had fallen from 30% to 5%, which was a credit to residents.

Cabinet Member for Corporate Governance and Licensing

·       Customer Service week was to take place week commencing 6 October. The Customer Services team would be holding events to commemorate the week and celebrate the work of the team. Each day of the week would have a specific theme.

·       The Customer Service Centre (CSC) Strategy was to be launched shortly and there would be an invitation to members to view the CSC.

Members considered the requirements placed on Full Council for the appointment of Members to its Committees and Panels.

Since the previous meeting in July there had been further changes to political balance with the formation of a new ‘Reform UK’ group on the Council. Group leaders had met on 8 September 2025 and had endorsed amendments to the makeup of the Council’s committees and panels.

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

DECISION

That Full Council:

1.    Note the changes in political proportionality of the Council and the consequent allocation of seats on committees (Appendix A of the report).

2.    Appoint Members to its Committees and Panels, in accordance with political balance:

Finance and Economic Overview and Scrutiny Committee

-       Councillor Graham Jeal (Reform UK) to take a seat on the Finance and Economic Overview and Scrutiny Committee, replacing the Conservative vacancy.

-       Councillor Tim Harrison (Grantham Independent) to take the vacant Grantham Independent seat.

Housing Overview and Scrutiny Committee

-       Councillor Ben Green (Reform UK) to take a seat previously occupied by the SK Independent group (it was gifted to Councillor Habib Rahman previously).

Rural and Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee

-       Councillor James Denniston to take the seat given to the Independent Group. As he previously had a gift from the Grantham Independent Group, this left a vacancy which was gifted to Councillor Habib Rahman (Liberal Democrat).

-       Councillor Lee Steptoe to take the seat given to the Labour and Co-operative Group.

Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee

-       Councillor Ben Green (Reform UK) to take a seat that was previously a Conservative seat belonging to Councillor Nikki Manterfield.

Planning Committee

-       Councillor David Bellamy (Reform UK) to take a seat that was previously a Conservative vacancy.

Standards Committee

-       Councillor Ben Green (Reform UK) to take a seat that was previously a Conservative vacancy.

Chief Executive’s Appeals Panel

-       A vacancy on the Chief Executive’s Appeals Panel would be filled by Councillor Nikki Manterfield.

To update the Scheme of Delegation.

Members considered proposed changes to the Scheme of Delegation within the Constitution (at Part 3(c) – Responsibility for Functions).

The Assistant Director (Governance and Public Protection) had delegated authority at Part 3(c) of the Constitution for functions related to animals and public health. No other officers had a delegation to take action; these proposals sought to rectify this.

The post of Assistant Director (Governance and Public protection) was mentioned at other sections of the Scheme of Delegation and these proposals sought to update these references.

One member raised an issue with mandatory member training and its frequency and wished to propose an additional recommendation be added to reduce the frequency of mandatory member training; they were advised that this should be discussed with the Chairman of the Governance and Audit Committee with a view to the issue being added to the workplan.

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

DECISION

That Full Council approves the following amendments to Part 3 (Responsibility for Functions) of the Constitution, under 3(c) – Delegated Powers to Officers:

1. Ref 2 (Animals) to remove the Assistant Director (Governance and Public Protection) as the ‘Officer Granted Delegation’ and replace with ‘Chief Executive, Deputy Chief Executive and relevant Director or Assistant Director and any other officers they authorise in writing as being appropriately qualified and trained.’

2. Ref 27 (Public Health) to remove the Assistant Director (Governance and Public Protection) as the ‘Officer Granted Delegation’ and replace with ‘Chief Executive, Deputy Chief Executive and relevant Director or Assistant Director and any other officers they authorise in writing as being appropriately qualified and trained.’

3. Remove the Assistant Director (Governance and Public Protection) as an officer granted a delegation within functions 1 – Air Pollution, 8 – Contaminated Land, 15 – Health and Safety, 17 – Legal Proceedings, 19 – Licensing, 21 – Neighbourhoods and 25 – Private Sector Housing.

In addition to the three printed recommendations, a fourth recommendation to amend a delegation to the Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) and refer issues instead to the wider Police force was proposed and seconded:

“That delegation 2, paragraph 2(f) at Part 3(c) of the Constitution be amended to remove ‘Community Support Officers’ and add the word ‘the’.

Comment was made that whilst there were fewer PCSOs than seen previously the Council should not remove delegated powers to them. They may increase in number in the future.

Other sections of the Scheme of Delegation already contained delegated powers to Lincolnshire Police, in conjunction with the Council.

Having been moved and seconded, following a vote the additional recommendation FELL.

In accordance with the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the Council is required to review its Conservation Areas from time to time and to prepare and publish any proposals for the preservation and enhancement of any parts of the District that are designated as a Conservation Area. This report considers whether the Council should designate the Ropsley Conservation Area and adopt the Ropsley Conservation Area Appraisal.

This report has been recommended to Full Council by Cabinet.

Note:  Councillor Sarah Trotter left the Council Chamber.

Members reviewed whether the Council should designate the Ropsley Conservation Area (CA) and adopt the Ropsley Conservation Area Appraisal.

Celebrating culture and heritage was a key element of the Corporate Plan. Ropsley CA was designated in 1981. However, the council did not have an CA appraisal for Ropsley, which was an issue that this proposed document addressed.

Changes were proposed to include areas of historic importance. Once adopted, material planning considerations would hopefully help to safeguard the environment and the area.

The council’s Conservation Team was in the process of updating the council’s website to improve guidance about what living within a CA meant for residents.

The following points were highlighted during debate:

• CAs could be more relevant to smaller settlements than Neighbourhood Plans (NPs). NPs could be time consuming and required a lot of resources. CAs appeared to stand the test of time.
• There were 14 responses to the Consultation which could be seen at Appendix B of the report.
• People needed affordable homes. In the opinion of one member much of the housing development in the district was shouldered by Grantham. However, it was not the purpose of a CA to stop development, more to preserve the historic centres of villages.
• There had recently been a review of the Local Plan, an opportunity for members of the public, and Councillors to put their views on planning and development forward.
• There were 48 CAs in South Kesteven.

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

DECISION

That Full Council:

1. Approves the formal designation of the Ropsley Conservation Area boundary as shown in Appendix A to this report.

2. Approves the adoption of the Ropsley Conservation Area Appraisal, as part of the Development Plan evidence base and as a material planning consideration; and

Delegates the decision making to the Assistant Director of Planning to make minor changes, typographical corrections or non-material amendments to the Ropsley Conservation Area Appraisal and associated documents prior to formal publication and to undertake the necessary statutory actions to implement agreed recommendations.

In accordance with the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the Council is required to review its Conservation Areas from time to time and to prepare and publish any proposals for the preservation and enhancement of any parts of the District that are designated as a Conservation Area. This report considers whether the Council should designate the Aslackby Conservation Area and adopt the Aslackby Conservation Area Appraisal.

This report has been recommended to Full Council by Cabinet.

Note:  Councillor Sarah Trotter returned to the Council Chamber.

Members reviewed whether the Council should designate the Aslackby Conservation Area (CA) and adopt the Aslackby Conservation Area Appraisal.

The Aslackby CA was originally designated in 1991. Conservation officers had reviewed the CA boundary and proposed an expansion of the CA. No CA appraisal was currently published; it was important that this was addressed.

The ward councillor for Aveland (the ward containing Aslackby) had consulted with the local parish council to seek their views on the proposal. The consensus of parish councillors was in support of the views of local residents, who were primarily in favour of the expansion of the CA in Aslackby.

The Cabinet Member for Planning noted that he himself lived in a CA in Deeping St. James, which was a privilege, however it did bring with it certain responsibilities.

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

DECISION

That Full Council:

1. Approves the formal designation of the Aslackby Conservation Area boundary as shown in Appendix A to this report.

2. Approves the adoption of the Aslackby Conservation Area Appraisal, as part of the Development Plan evidence base and as a material planning consideration; and

3. Delegates the decision making to the Assistant Director of Planning in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning to make minor changes, typographical corrections or non-material amendments to the Aslackby Conservation Area Appraisal and associated documents prior to formal publication and to undertake the necessary statutory actions to implement agreed recommendations.

Note:  The meeting adjourned for a short break before reconvening. Councillor Phil Gadd left the Council Chamber and did not return.

This report provides an update on the progress of the mandatory weekly kerbside food waste collection service rollout. The report asks Council to approve an additional revenue budget allocation for service provision within the current financial year. The report also asks Council to accept the additional £953,377.03 Extended Producer Responsibility (pEPR) payment for the financial year 2025/26.

This report has been recommended by Cabinet.

Members considered an update on the progress of the mandatory weekly kerbside food waste collection service rollout. The report asked Council to approve an additional revenue budget allocation for service provision within the current financial year. The report also asked Council to accept the additional £953,377.03 Extended Producer Responsibility (pEPR) payment for the financial year 2025/2026.

Cabinet had recommended this report to Full Council at their meeting held on 9 September 2025.

Full Council were asked to accept a significant increase in funding provided by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) in order to build resilience, maximise the service and improve efficiency within the Waste service. Also requested was the movement of funds to smaller budgets to deliver these services.

Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee were likely to further scrutinise the Food Waste service at their meeting scheduled for 23 September 2025.

A few points were highlighted by members:

• In view of the costings of the food waste service it should be optional for Councils. Some Councils would not be able to carry out this service without passing the cost onto their ratepayers.
• The previous trial collection of food waste in South Kesteven was a success. However in addition to households, supermarkets had a role to play in reducing food waste.

Questions raised by members were answered by the Cabinet Member for Environment and Waste:

• The full estimated cost to the Council of the scheme was being formulated and would be informed by areas such as fuel and wages. Councillors and residents would receive full insight and feedback as costs were generated.
• With Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) looming there was no ability for the waste collection authority to determine how waste was disposed of.
• It was disappointing that SKDC had not received full capital funding from DEFRA. DEFRA had used an incorrect figure for the total amount of households within South Kesteven. SKDC had written to DEFRA to inform them of this error, but to date there had been no response on this issue. SKDC would continue to chase a response.
• Composting was fully supported to complement the food waste collection.
• General Fund reserves were not being used to support this scheme. In the medium-term funds would be used from the pEPR payment. A further government grant ringfenced for the Waste service was used to make up the difference in capital costs, so no ratepayer funds were being used to make up the balance.
• No maggots were envisaged in the food caddies, which would be collected on a weekly basis.
• The food caddies were two different sizes; the smaller caddy was for indoor use whereas the larger caddy was due to be placed outside properties. Alternatives would be explored for other properties such as small terraces and Houses of Mulitple Occupancy (HMO) in due course.
• Introduction of a new way of separating and disposing of food waste would reduce carbon emissions associated with the current disposal route, as well as improving the recycling and reuse  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.

This report proposes a recommendation from Employment Committee that Full Council appoint a suitable candidate to the role of Director of Law & Governance and the statutory position of Monitoring Officer.

Members considered a recommendation from the Employment Committee held on 16 September 2025 to appoint Graham Kitchen as Director of Law & Governance and Monitoring Officer.

There had been relatively few applications for the role, potentially due to the number of cuts seen in local government. Six candidates in total applied for the role. The process prior to the interviews included a longlisting process by a panel comprised of the Solace Group consultants, the Council’s Chief Executive, and the HR Team. Each candidate was scored against an objective criterion. The longlisting panel unanimously agreed that four candidates should proceed to an assessment stage held on 3 September 2025. Prior to the assessment stage, one candidate dropped out, which resulted in 3 candidates going forward to that stage. The assessment stage was composed of technical interviews, psychometric testing and a written exercise relating to the Code of Conduct. As part of the assessment stage, candidates all met with the corporate management team, as well as the Leader of the Council.

The candidate before Full Council, Graham Kitchen, had experience of handling Code of Conduct complaints and came from a background of Commercial Law. He handled questioning from Employment Committee very proficiently and was enthusiastic about taking the role.

It was confirmed that Graham Kitchen would have to serve three months’ notice with his current employer.

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

That Full Council appoint Graham Kitchen to the role of Director of Law & Governance and the statutory position of Monitoring Officer, from an agreed commencement date, as recommended by Employment Committee.

This report provides details of the proposed updates to the Council's Contract Procedure Rules.

This report has been recommended to Full Council by Governance and Audit Committee.

Members considered proposed updates to the Council's Contract Procedure Rules. The report was recommended to Council by Governance and Audit Committee at their meeting held on 23 July 2025.

It was a suitable time to review the Council’s Contract Procedure Rules taking into account the Procurement Act 2023. The review aimed to simplify the rules and make them more transparent. An important aim was to reduce costs to the council and potential suppliers.

Two new procedures were introduced:

-          A single procedure for smaller contracts which was shorter than the current practice and easier to follow. It hoped it would attract local suppliers.

-          There would be a flexible procedural approach for larger procurements.

Following a review of procurement activities and analysis of procurement spend it was proposed to update the procurement thresholds as outlined in the table below:

To strengthen social value and sustainability it was proposed that a formal weighting was included as part of the evaluation on all tenders above the Procurement Act 2023 thresholds and which will carry as a minimum a 10% weighting to the overall assessment where it is proportionate and applicable. It was also outlined that officers should consider on a case-by-case basis that Social Value and Sustainability was considered for any lower value contracts providing it was relevant and proportionate to do so.

Payment terms had been improved for local contractors.

The following points were highlighted during debate:

• The definition of a local supplier for South Kesteven included areas within the East Midlands (Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire and Rutland).
• One Councillor felt that there was still merit in gaining three quotes for work up to a value of £24,999, to help ensure the Council was gaining value for money.
• The current thresholds had been in place for a number of years and were now out of alignment with the average procurement values, across each procurement category.
• The hope was that by increasing procurement thresholds local suppliers could be used.
• The threshold values applied per contract. For example, if a contract was £10,000 per year for four years, the total contract value would be £40,000.
• Smaller suppliers tended not to bid for works due to the time and costs of doing so. Having to seek three quotes may end up discouraging local suppliers to bid for contracts.

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

DECISION

That Full Council approve the proposed updated Contract Procedure Rules as detailed at Appendix A of the report.

Note:  Councillor Ian Stokes left the Council Chamber and did not return.

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.

Question One – Councillor Lee Steptoe to the Leader of the Council

Councillor Steptoe asked the Leader of the Council how much money was contributed by SKDC to ‘Thatcherfest’ being held in Grantham.

Councillor Baxter was grateful to people involved with Thatcherfest. The event would cost the council nothing and would raise money for charity. Tickets were selling fast for the different events taking place over the course of the week.

Question Two – Councillor Richard Dixon-Warren to the Leader of the Council

Councillor Dixon-Warren asked whether the Leader would stand up for all its communities and safeguard the environment in which they live, as the National Grid was building 50 metre high pylons through the district. A stage 2 consultation was due to take place in 2026.

Councillor Baxter was happy to support communities through the Cabinet Member for Planning, Planning Committee and other relevant bodies of the Council. He appreciated all concerns about the use of nuclear energy, solar energy, anaerobic digesters, foreign gas, and onshore wind, however everyone was consuming energy, and it had to be delivered to residents’ houses somehow.

Question Three – Councillor David Bellamy to the Cabinet Member for Corporate Governance and Licensing

Councillor Bellamy asked how due diligence was taking place on the procurement of electric vehicle (EV) batteries when they were produced in China.

Councillor Knowles confirmed that all aspects of procurement were looked at throughout the process of securing contracts. It was likely that SKDC had limited influence on improving the conditions under which batteries were produced in China.

Question Four – Councillor Max Sawyer to the Cabinet Member for Housing

Councillor Sawyer was concerned about the loss of 11 single bed properties on Lumby’s Terrace in Stamford and how these would be replaced.

Councillor Moran highlighted the Stamford North development, which included 1200 houses of which 30% would be affordable homes. She was sure that SKDC would be taking ownership of some of the properties there, budget permitting. The council had already built on Elizabeth Road in Stamford.

Note:  Council Procedure Rule 19.3 was suspended to allow Councillors to remain seated when addressing the Chairman, should they wish to.

Question Five – Councillor Ben Green to the Cabinet Member for Housing

Councillor Green asked why a window repair for a local resident had not been resolved within the usual timeframe.

Councillor Moran would reply to Councillor Green by email on this issue.

Question Six – Councillor Tim Harrison to the Leader of the Council

Councillor Harrison asked the Leader to join him in thanking Councillor Bridget Ley for her outstanding work as SKDC’s Armed Forces Champion. Councillor Harrison pointed to tributes paid by local veterans, who highlighted the tangible difference that Councillor Ley was making.

Councillor Baxter was happy to echo Councillor Harrison’s comments and congratulate Councillor Ley for her Armed Forces work to date.

Question Seven – Councillor Rob Shorrock to the Leader of the Council

Councillor Shorrock asked the Leader what strategy would be used to monitor and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

This Council notes:

1. Currently small HMOs (3-4 occupants) can be established without planning permission under permitted development rights, meaning no community consultation
2. There is a widespread perception that HMOs cause over-intensive use, noise disturbance, traffic problems, and negative impacts on property values
3. Many councils including Brent, Ealing, Walsall, Barnet, and Brighton & Hove have successfully introduced comprehensive HMO regulation through Article 4 directions and additional licensing schemes
4. Whilst HMOs can often be a valuable addition to an area’s housing stock the Labour government’s strategy of moving asylum seekers from hotels to HMOs has tarnished this type of accommodation in the eyes of many residents.
5. The Labour government’s failure to address the backlog of asylum applications, necessitating the use of hotels and HMOs across the country, is providing a direct incentive for landlords to convert family homes into HMOs to capitalize on the surge in demand. Contracts with companies like Serco are putting increased demand on our public sector housing stock and reducing the rental market for our residents.
6. There have been 14 new HMO licences issued across Grantham in 2025 so far, totalling 81 permitted occupants. Serco are the licence holders of 4 of these properties.

This Council believes:

1. All residents deserve to know about and have input on HMO developments that could affect their neighbourhood.
2. Comprehensive regulation through both licensing and planning control provides the best protection for communities while ensuring legitimate housing needs are met.
3. Current gaps in regulation allow problematic HMOs to operate without proper oversight or community input.

This Council resolves:

1. To implement a district-wide Article 4 Direction removing permitted development rights so that all HMOs (small and large) require planning permission.
2. To establish mandatory HMO licensing covering all HMOs regardless of size, with robust standards including fire safety, room sizes, parking, noise management, and waste arrangements. This list should be publicly accessible.
3. To implement these measures according to the following timeframe:

?      Within 1 months: Prepare and commence the required formal public consultation on the proposed Article 4 Direction and draft HMO licensing scheme (minimum 10 weeks consultation period as required by law)

?      Within 4 months: Complete consultation process, review representations, and confirm Article 4 Direction and HMO scheme.

4.    To revoke the Officer Delegation to issue any HMO licences and assign this responsibility to the Licencing Committee, thereby protecting officers from having to make politically sensitive decisions and ensuring proper democratic accountability.

Note:  Councillors Nick and Penny Robins, and Emma Baker left the Council Chamber and did not return.

A motion to extend the meeting for a further hour to hear the remaining business was proposed and seconded, but following a vote this motion FELL.

Due to time constraints, the motion from Councillor Sue Woolley was not heard.

This council notes:

1. The High Court judgement in the case of Epping Forest District Council versus Somani Hotels Ltd, popularly known as the Bell Hotel asylum seeker hotel case of 19^th August 2025;
2. That the fundamental issue in the case was an unauthorised change of use of the hotel from a functioning hotel to accommodation for asylum seekers on behalf of the government;
3. The considerable public unrest in the area caused in large part following the arrest of a resident of the Bell Hotel for sexual assault, the case ongoing at the time of writing this motion;
4. Previous use of hotels in South Kesteven for accommodating asylum seekers including the Urban Hotel in Grantham, the Eden Hotel in Grantham and the Stoke Rochford Hall Hotel in Stoke Rochford parish;
5. The subsequent appeal by the Home Office arguing that the right of asylum seekers trump planning law and the rights of residents;
6. The Appeals Court judgement of 29^th August 2025 overturning the High Court.

This council believes:

1. The council has a licencing system for a reason and licence holders should abide by the terms of that licence;
2. That using hotel accommodation for housing asylum seekers is a material change of use;
3. That there must be a democratic mandate placed on any change of use.

This council resolves:

To write a public letter of support and solidarity to our colleagues at Epping Forest District Council as they continue their legal fight not only on behalf of their residents but on behalf of all planning authorities.

Due to time constraints, the motion from Councillor Sarah Trotter was not heard.

This Council notes:

1. The ongoing public concern about the housing of asylum seekers by the Labour government;
2. That the closure of asylum hotels is increasingly raising the question of where the government will go next to house asylum seekers;
3. That the private rented sector is a logical area for the government to exploit;
4. The use of Section 21 “no fault eviction” notices and fears from charities and tenants that they are being used to free up accommodation for government contractors to use for asylum seekers before the Renters Rights Bill abolishes Section 21 notices;
5. The Renters Rights Bill scheduled for Royal Assent in July 2025 with implementation scheduled from October 2025 to January 2026 (at time of writing the Bill had still not received Royal Assent);
6. That a wide range of councils have established mandatory registration for private sector landlords, primarily as a means of addressing concerns about “slum landlords” and substandard housing.

This Council believes:

1. In transparency for the sake of community cohesion;
2. In supporting our residents in private sector rental accommodation who fear eviction for no stated reason;
3. That the private rented sector is a valuable part of our housing mix and that landlords should always be supported in removing tenants who break the terms of their rental agreements.

This Council resolves:

1. To immediately introduce a voluntary register of all privately rented accommodation in South Kesteven, the landlords and managing agents of each property and a voluntary declaration as to whether or not the property is being used for a government contract or if Section 21 notices have been served by that landlord at any time in the last 12 months.
2. To ensure our housing officers receive full support in the fast and full introduction of the mandatory register as prescribed in the Renters Rights Bill.
3. To conduct a capacity review of our Private Sector Housing team to ensure they are adequately resourced to give proactive support to ensure our residents in private sector rental properties have safe and high quality accommodation.

Due to time constraints, the motion from Councillor Gareth Knight was not heard.

The meeting closed at 5:12pm.