Agenda and minutes

It was proposed, seconded, and AGREED for Councillor Nikki Manterfield to Chair the meeting.

It was proposed, seconded, and AGREED for Councillor Elvis Stooke to vice-Chair the meeting.

The Council welcomes engagement from members of the public. To speak at this meeting, please register no later than 24 hours prior to the date of the meeting via democracy@southkesteven.gov.uk.

There were none.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Charmaine Morgan, Emma Baker, James Denniston, Lee Steptoe, Pam Bosworth, Rhea Rayside.

Councillor Rhys Baker sent notification that he would be joining late.

Members are asked to disclose any interests in matters for consideration at the meeting.

There were none.

The Street Trading Policy report was introduced by the Cabinet Member for Corporate Governance and Licencing.

The existing Street Trading Policy was approved by Cabinet in June 2022. Since then, a subsequent review of the policy had been undertaken, with the policy being suspended for a six-month period from 25 July 2025 to allow the review to take place.

Following feedback from the review, appendix two and three of the report outlined the proposed changes to the policy.

A consultation was also undertaken with stakeholders, local businesses, and users of the policy. A full consultation report was provided within appendix four.

On the advice of the Cabinet Member, an amendment was proposed, seconded, and AGREED for a third recommendation to be added to the report that the policy could be subsequently amended to reflect the advice of Legal Services Lincolnshire regarding the definitions of a Consent Licence and a Street Licence.

During discussions, Members commented on the following:

-       It was queried and confirmed that the 30-meter requirement within the policy would be removed for the version to be considered for Cabinet.

-       A Member expressed their staunch opposition to the DBS requirement being included within the policy, stating that requiring a DBS would put off volunteers and would be unrealistic to enforce. The officer expressed that the requirement for a DBS was because street traders work more alone than market traders. The intention was for a basic DBS to be held by the event holder, to encourage proactive ownership and oversight of the events.

-       The officer confirmed that a basic DBS was sought as the policy did not have the authority to request an enhanced DB. A basic DBS covered unspent convictions within the previous six years.

-       It was expressed that many DBSs could be transferred.

-       A Member did not support including the DBS requirement within the policy whilst ever it was not a requirement for Councillors to have a DBS.

-       It was confirmed that a bid was being undertaken for an Enforcement Officer that would proactively oversee the enforcement of the policy. With this in mind, it was confirmed that the policy was only intended for four designated areas within the district to aid its enforceability.

-       With these designated areas in mind, a member suggested including Deeping St. James.

-       A Member encouraged producing accessible materials to educate event organisers about events safety measures.

Following discussions, the Committee decided to note the report for Cabinet to consider with the noted comments of committee members.

The Annual Infrastructure Funding Statement (2024-2025) and Section 106 Update (as of November 2025) was introduced by the Cabinet Member for Planning.

The Cabinet Member confirmed that the Annual Infrastructure Funding Statement set out details of completed planning obligations and Section 106m contributions collected and spent within the year.

The intention of the statement was to provide transparency about Section 106 funding.

Highlights from 2024-25 included over £7 million of contributions secured via new Section 106 agreements secured throughout the year, with over £3.7 million of contributions spent, and 281 affordable dwellings completed. Over £2.3 million of contributions due were also collected.

The Cabinet Member clarified that that the total amount received through planning obligations (whenever agreed) spent in 2024/25 was £3,570,788, contrary to the figure in the report. Similarly, the total number of affordable housing units provided through planning obligations agreed in 2024/25 was 291, contrary to the report.

During discussions, Members commented on the following:

-       It was also queried whether SKDC would enact a Section 73 application to redirect Section 106 funding given that the number of children in schools across SK was declining. It was confirmed that a calculator was used from Lincolnshire County Council to determine the funding model for child yield places.

-       It was agreed that guidance for navigating and operating EXACOM could be shared with Parish Councils along with guidance on Section 106 agreements.

-       Praise was given to the Infrastructure Delivery Officer for producing the EXCOM system.

-       It was confirmed that SKDC ensure that Section 106 funding is spent in accordance with the agreements as the funding was not released until the relevant invoices were received.

The committee agreed to note the Annual Infrastructure Funding Statement (2024-2025) and Section 106 Update (as of November 2025).

The Planning Enforcement Update was introduced by the Cabinet Member for Planning.

Effective planning enforcement was important to tackle breaches of planning control that would otherwise have had an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the area. It was also important to maintain the integrity of the wider planning system.

At the time of the report (10 November), 290 cases were received in 2025, which was slightly higher than the previous year. In 2024, the Council had a total of 314 enforcement cases.

Following the initial investigation steps, enforcement cases could take varying

amounts of time to resolve. The report outlined the number of site visits undertaken within the allotted timeframe. Once the enforcement team reached full staffing capacity in September 2023, the Enforcement team achieved 99% of site visits within time for the last four months of 2023 and achieved 97.5% of site visits within time for 2024.  

The Enforcement Team experienced some staffing pressures in 2025, with an

officer leaving in March as well as a period of prolonged staff sickness between June and August. During this period, only 28% of site visits within time were completed, with only one officer working. From September, (with three working officers) visits improved again and 95% of the initial site visits were completed within time.

The report also gave specific examples of enforcement notices served.

During discussions, Members commented on the following:

-       A Member thanked officers for their work regarding the Haddon Road case.

-       It was requested that updates regarding the following could be sent to Members: pre-2023 enforcement cases, cases referred from Councillors, legal advice from the Poplar Farm case. The Assistant Director of Planning and Growth agreed that officers were reviewing how to best update Members about retrospective cases.

-       A Member expressed gratitude to officers that had attended the Member’s Parish Council meeting.

The committee noted the Planning Enforcement update.

The 2024/2025 Authority Monitoring Report was introduced by the Cabinet Member for Planning.

There was a statutory requirement for the Council to publish up-to-date information which was collected for monitoring purposes and report on the progress against the Local Development Scheme. The Authority Monitoring Report satisfied this requirement.

The Authority Monitoring Report included information and headline monitoring results on the implementation of the Local Development Scheme, the Local Plan Review, Supplementary Planning Documents, Neighbourhood Plans, and information relating to co-operation under the Duty to Cooperate.

During discussions, Members commented on the following:

-       A Member queried the accuracy of the population statistics used within the report. It was confirmed that the statistics were cited from the Office for National Statistics which was the most reliable source available.

15:30 – Councillor Bridget Ley left the meeting.

-       A Member encouraged a co-ordinated approach between the Local Plan and local Neighbourhood Plans. The Assistant Director for Planning and Growth confirmed that the Local Plan was more up-to-date but the Neighbourhood Plan would still be considered.

-       The Member also invited the Assistant Director and the Cabinet Member for Planning to attend a Braceborough & Wilsthorpe Parish Council meeting to discuss this further. Both the Assistant Director and the Cabinet Member accepted the invite.

-       It was confirmed that no houses had been demolished on Lumley Terrace, Stamford.

Following discussions, it was proposed, seconded, and AGREED to endorse the 2024-25 Authority Monitoring Report and accompanying summary report and agree to their publication on the Council’s Website.

The Update on Planning Performance - Major Planning Appeals was introduced by the Cabinet Member for Planning.

The Council’s decisions on planning applications and other related applications could be appealed to the Planning Inspectorate.  This included appeals against a refusal of planning permission, against a condition imposed by the Council or where the Council had failed to determine an application (non-determination appeals). The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government monitored the quality of decision-making by reviewing performance on appeals. This report provides an update on the appeals performance (the quality of decision-making) in relation to Major applications.

For period January 2022 to December 2024, 124 Major planning applications were determined.  Eight of these decisions were appealed with six being allowed and 2 dismissed.  The performance measure was therefore 4.8% (6/124). Over the two-year period, 75% of all Major appeals were allowed.  Nationally, the average number of applications allowed on appeal was, on average between 28-30%.

The details of the performance against each of the appeals was detailed in

Appendix A of the report.

During discussions, Members commented on the following:

-       It was suggested for Bitesize planning training to be rolled out to all Members.

-       Members complimented Planning Officers and encouraged more legal support to be available to officers during the appeal process.

-       The Assistant Director of Planning and Growth confirmed that there would be financial and reputational consequences should SKDC enter special measures for Planning.

Following discussions, it was proposed, seconded, and AGREED to:

1. Note the contents of the report.

2. Agree for the Planning Committee to receive information about lessons learnt from appeal decisions.

3. Agree to the scheduling of additional training for the Planning Committee.

There was none.

The meeting concluded at 15.56.