Agenda and minutes

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 Phillip Knowles and Phil Dilks.

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

There were none.

The minutes from the meeting held on 18 February 2025 were proposed, seconded and AGREED.

All actions were complete.

The Cabinet Member for Property and Public Engagement informed Members that the extension to Cattle Market, Stamford car park would be open by the end of May 2025.

The Cabinet Member for Property and Public Engagement presented the report which outlined project updates to the Committee. Works had continued to progress on schedule following commencement on site in October 2024.

The report showed the risk register had only two items which were both low and the project was running on time in line with the budget.

The Deputy Chief Executive highlighted the dashboard included the additional £500,000 which was approved by Full Council which will be wisely spent on the mobilisation and fit out from the existing site to the new site. This is due to take place in October 2025, for an operational start in November 2025.

Steels had gone up on site at the depot and the main structure was now visible. Within the next month or so, it was expected that flooring, PV panels and roofing would be installed. Utility companies were on site to undertake work on drainage.

Members of the Committee were invited to attend a site visit at Turnpike Depot prior to the next scheduled meeting of this Committee.

One Member noted that the original budget approved at Full Council for the depot was £8m and had been increased to £9.3m. An explanation was requested as to why a 16% increase of the original budget was not over-budget.

A further query was raised on ‘other costs’ of £158,000 and what they were.

The Deputy Chief Executive clarified that the budget had changed from the original £8m to £9.3m following the approvals of Full Council. The project would be delivered within the £9.3m budget.

An explanation was provided for the cost category labelled as ‘other costs’ of £158,000 which was in respect of contingencies and was standard for a project of this size in the event of any unforeseen variations within the overall allocation of the budget.

Concern was raised that the budget had been increased once from £8m to £9.3 and one Member felt the project was not on budget at present.

The Leader of the Council noted that the original figure put forward was £8m following a procurement process, where two bids were provided. One bid was significantly higher than the budget, and the other was slightly over budget but following value engineering, the contract value was reduced. The Leader of the Council was satisfied that there was sufficient budget available to meet the total costs.

A lengthy discussion took place on the term ‘on-budget’ used by the Cabinet Member for Property and Public Engagement during his introduction to the report. Some Members felt the project was not ‘on-budget’ due to the original budget being changed from £8m to £9.3m, which was approved by Full Council.

One Member praised Officers and Members working on the project for working within the timeframe and within the budget.

It was felt that Councillor’s could communicate with constituents the reasons behind the budget increases.

One Member noted that the Committee had not scrutinised the details of the project dashboard.

The Committee:

Noted the current progress  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86.

The Leader of the Council presented this report relating to the East Midlands Building Consultancy (EMBC). The EMBC was now a fully staffed local authority building control partnership between SKDC, Newark and Sherwood District Council and Rushcliffe Borough Council.

The partnership was long-established and successful, it was based on a shared service agreement with SKDC delivering the service on behalf of other partners and themselves.

Building control is a statutory service which aims to ensure the safety of buildings and those who use them. Services within the function were either fee earning or non-fee earning. The split in workload was approximately 74 to 26%.

Non-fee earning work costs must be borne by the Council, whilst the service was allowed to charge fees for fee earning work on a cost recovery basis. The Council was not permitted to make a profit on these functions.

The partnership competed with registered building control approvers, formerly known as approved inspectors, for fee earning work. The service currently maintains an average of 60% of the market share, which was a significant increase on previous years, where the Council held only 50% of the market share.

There had been many legislative changes for building control, including a requirement for building control officers to demonstrate their competency.

 A number of Officers had received their competency validation and trainees were progressing well. EMBC was also engaging in the future of building control with the addition of two apprentices.

Appendix 1 provided details of the provision accounts for 2024-25.

Clarification was sought around the report, it stated that the EMBC had avoided costs by not replacing roles and then further on in report stated all positions had been filled.

The Assistant Director of Planning and Growth clarified that comments on money saved were from the Assistant S151 Officer’s comments about the report and were in reference to the previous financial year. The Council had savings in-year on the staffing likely due to vacancies. EMBC were fully staffed and could deliver the services required and meet expectations of customers.

Building control finances were separate to other services provided by the Council due to being fee-earning but not allowed to make a profit. The Council were also not permitted to charge fees for a proportion of work undertaken, which equated to 26% of the work and this element was funded from the General Fund.

A further query was raised on whether making profit each year would incur imbalances of income and expenditure and what happened to annual differences.

The Assistant Director of Planning and Growth confirmed it is within legislation to not make a profit but with some flexibility. It was difficult to manage the profit throughout the course of the year, meaning application fees charged for fee earning elements of work were reviewed continually.  The team would have to balance the costs of delivering the service against the income to offset that.

It was queried as to what level of qualification employees were trained to and when trained, and what  ...  view the full minutes text for item 87.

The Leader of the Council presented the report that provided information on the closure of the UK Shared Prosperity Fund for 2022-24 and also provided an update on the funding position for 2025-26.

All monies received had been spent for purposes designed for and no funding was due to be given back to Government. Funding received had been spent on the majority of villages and towns across the District.

Examples of projects was outlined in Appendix 2 of the report and specifically related to energy efficiency and climate change. Other projects related to the arts, for example, a mural in Deepings St James at Jubilee Park.

Officers were ensuring the appropriate final claims and return submission were made to close down the previous scheme and were working on investment plan delivery, bidding and award process for allocating the 2025/26 funding to ensure the funding is fully allocated within the agreed MCCA timelines.

Members were pleased to see that all UKSPF funding had been spent by the deadline and congratulated Officers for their hard work.

It was requested that funding for 2025/26 and project updates would be brought back to the Committee. A query was raised on the timescale of when the plan would be finalised.

The Leader of the Council encouraged Parish Councils and organisations to manage their expectation of projects as a sense of urgency, projects would need to be in place prior to the deadline in September 2025.

It was noted that if the criteria of projects did not meet the UKSPF guidelines, other schemes such as the Community Fund were available.

One Member shared the success of Hive FM radio station, which had the potential to reach over 80,000 people as a result of UKSPF funding.

One Member noted that money had been saved on funding energy efficient projects and questioned how long it would take to see the financial benefit of those projects.

The Leader of the Council confirmed the general payback of solar PV was around 8–10 years but varied on the price of solar energy.

It was noted that the Council were able to deploy up to 4% of the total allocation towards monitoring and administration. Concern was raised that a postponed board meeting in March 2025 meant that organisations may have missed out on opportunities to receive the funding at a late stage.

The Chairman highlighted the board meeting in March 2025 was postponed due to no applications being put forward.

UKSPF had been created to replace the funding lost via the European Social Fund. The Government was placed under political pressure to replace the funding after the decision to leave the European Union. UKSPF funding would be distributed through the Mayor and the Combined Mayoral Authority, and the September 2025 deadline had been imposed by them.

The Leader of the Council felt that good administration of distribution of funding enabled the money to go further and be spent in the correct manner in conjunction with the deadline.

Some projects may not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 88.

The Leader of the Council presented the report and updated the Committee with progress made on the Grantham Town Centre events programme which was funded by the Future High Streets Fund.

The events programme was being developed and kept under review by the Future High Street Board and the Grantham Town Team.

The programme contained a diverse range of events with the aim of driving footfall into the town centre, supporting retailers and economic activity.

The role of the Grantham Engagement Manager had been extended to March 2026, to support the roll out of the programme. The post had been transferred to the Culture, Leisure and Place service area to provide opportunities for collaboration with Officers involved in arts and cultural events.

The first event was due to take place in upcoming days and featured ‘The Whale’, which had been well received when hosted in Bourne, Stamford and the Deepings in March 2025. The tickets over the weekend for this event had sold out, however, other complimentary activities were due to take place around the town.

Appendix 1 provided estimated costs of events.

It was queried as to why the programme of events ended in November 2025.

The Assistant Director of Culture, Leisure and Place clarified that the events programme would be supplemented by other events organised by the Council. The Council would host the Christmas Lights ‘switch on’ and market, which was planned for 30 November 2025. It was difficult to arrange outdoor events in winter months, due to the weather.

One Member suggested whether the Future High Street Fund would fall under the remit of Culture and Leisure Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

The Deputy Chief Executive confirmed that UKSPF and Future High Street Fund in terms of allocation, distribution and monitoring sat with the Finance Economic Overview and Scrutiny Committee. The emphasis of this report was to provide reassurance the allocation of funds was being utilised to good use.

ACTION: For the Culture and Leisure Overview and Scrutiny Committee to note the Grantham Town Centre Events report at their next meeting.

One Member provided an update on positive feedback received from traders and members of the public in Grantham. Officers were congratulated for their hard work on the project.

It was queried why Lincolnshire Day celebrations was not being celebrated on 1 October 2025 and was being celebrated on 4 October 2025 instead.

One Member highlighted that 13 October 2025 would have been Margaret Thatcher’s 100^th birthday. The events programme did not show any provision of celebration for centenary.

The Leader of the Council confirmed conversations were taking place with local businesses and schools in order to celebrate the centenary of Margaret Thatcher.

The Assistant Director of Culture, Leisure and Place outlined the commemoration would be a significant event for Grantham. The Council were aiming to collate a group of stakeholders to work in a coordinated approach. The Council hoped to promote the events under a ‘festival banner’ to add value to the anniversary.

It was confirmed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 89.

The Committee noted the Work Programme 2024-25.

The following items would be added to the Work Programme for the July meeting:

-       Six monthly update on Marketplace Footfall

-       Local Council Tax Support Scheme Proposals 2026/27

-       Discretionary Council Tax Payment Policy 2026/27

-       Discretionary Housing Payment Policy 2026/27

The following item would be added to the Work Programme for the September meeting:

-       UKSPF September 25/26 allocation

It was queried whether the Maintenance Strategy report could be brought to the July meeting. It was confirmed that an updated position in relation to the Action Plan would be brought to the September meeting.

One Member raised a query on the expenditure list and most recent list having several parts redacted due to personal data.

It was confirmed that if an individual was being paid for their service rather than a Ltd company, their details would be redacted for GDPR reasons.

The Deputy Chief Executive requested any questions on the expenditure list be sent via email for a full response to be provided.  

The Chairman closed the meeting at 11:42.