Transcript

I know a number of the residents in West Deeping, I know the residents of Multi-State, I have no financial disclosure of all Q&A interest in this, but I do still have a lot of contact with residents that I used to represent. So I do have a few questions that I would like answered by our team please. So I think one of the first things that concerns me is that we are being asked to recommend something to go to consultation when we don't have the full details. We don't have all the addendums. We don't have all the reports. We don't have the details of the sites that have been disregarded. And I think for me, that is an issue, and I think when are those reports going to go public? When are they going to be published on our website? And I think it's a shame that as a committee, we are being asked to consider something when we don't have the full information. So when will all the information be ready for this document? That's my first question, Chairman. Mr McBride. The intention is that the consultation will start sometime in early July, and at that time, all those reports will be available as part of the consultation and will be on the website and for people to view the local communities to understand the reasons as to why the sites that we're recommending to go forward are the evidence behind that process, essentially. Mr McBride, I'll come back to you, Kellen, but I think you may. I hope you understand Kellen's frustration, that the committee is being asked to consider something with a very short time before it is going to be considered by the Executive Board. Was there any particular reason why the reports and the evidence which Councillor COOK is referring to, has not already been provided to us, and was it your intention to provide all that material in total to the Executive Board as well? To, I think, to make sure that the progress of the local plan doesn't sort of get delayed any further, because we're well aware of the concerns that the local communities have expressed about the particular site, and to prevent further delays, we felt that we needed to bring the reports to this scrutiny committee and to the Executive next week to make sure that we were able to start the consultation, the public consultation, before sort of the summer holiday start. So, that's the reason why we want to make sure that we meet that timescale, and some of the reports, unfortunately, haven't yet all been completed, but they will be available as part of that public consultation exercise for residents and all the other stakeholders to view, and that's probably the reason as to why all the documents aren't currently available for the scrutiny committee and the Executive. So, and again, Councillor Cup will forgive me if I just tease a little bit more information out here, could you tell us exactly what these reports are, and confirm that if, as I understand it, the plan is for that next stage of consultation to go out in July, we're now at the very back end of May, and I think the Executive Board, due to consider this particular item, is it on the 4th of June? I think on the 4th of June. It's only a month or so, ahead of these reports being prepared, are you not concerned that this committee and indeed the board might be being asked to comment in detail on a matter that's very important, without being fully seized of all the materials? So, again, if in replying, you could just run us through what reports we don't have now that will be available in July, please. Thank you. Yeah, one of the slides set out in my presentation listed some of the key reports, so the sites and areas report being the main one that identifies the reasons behind why sites are proposed for allocation at this stage and the reasons why others have been discounted. There will also be a detailed consultation statement, which will go through all of the issues that were raised at the issues and options stage and set out how the Council responded to those in the New Preferred Approach document, and there will be a range of more technical appraisals to meet various legal requirements, such as sustainability appraisal, habitat regulations assessment, and they look in more detail at balancing economic, social environmental objectives and ensuring that we meet the various requirements of the statutory legislation that we're required to follow. Thank you, that. Back to you, Councillor COOK. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for the followup points. I mean, I'm not satisfied with the answers that you have just provided. We are being asked to make a recommendation on reports that we have not seen. And indeed, I was prepared to make a minor amendment to this. I'm more tempted at the present time to defer it back and to come back to this committee when we actually have all the information so we can make a legal and sound decision. We know the challenges and implications that a number of residents have raised from across this county in terms of taking legal action against this county council and the first stage as a scrutiny, we are being asked to make a decision on something that we haven't even got the whole information. Now in my professional day job, I work in community consultation and engagement on development projects, not mining or querying, I will add, but in terms of development projects, and the worst time that you would go back to consultation is over the summer holidays. Indeed, we do not do any consultation over summer holidays, and yet you are proposing that we are to go out to consultation in July when most of the schools break up. Now if there hadn't been a rush for whatever perceived idea, I would have said that this should be going out to consultation in September or it should have gone out well before now. So I'm not satisfied with the current places in terms of where we are, in terms of communications and engagement on this scheme. I don't know if either officers would like to make a comment on that. I have got a couple of other questions as well. I think in terms of the consultation that's why we want to start it in early July. So there will be at least three weeks before the summer holidays actually start. So people have an opportunity to view those documents in advance of the main school holiday starting, and then obviously they are still looking for the three weeks after the school holidays where people are able to make the comments. I think that there's always difficulty, whatever time of year, but you look to the consultations, there's always a concern about it's been too close to Christmas or Easter, and we have to obviously recognise that we want to move forward with the progress of making the local plan going forward so we have to identify a window where we feel is the best possible time to do the consultation, or to do it in a time that doesn't delay the process too much, and that's why we've identified the start of July as being the period that we will enable us to do that. I recognise that no matter when you do it, there's always a counterbalances to that it's a wrong time, but it's got to be done at some period and we think that's the time that we can do it and make people aware of the process. I think John that though, in terms of a consultation it has to be sound and meaningful, and my question on this is that the two times of year you don't do consultations with the public are Christmas and summer holidays, and that's for my own professional background in terms of what I do as a day job, and that's working with similar clients to the people that would be doing the quarrying as well, and however we'll move on. In terms of the other five sites that were proposed in South Lincolnshire, which have not been put forwards, how many were situated so close to a population village, a conservation area, and to have an impact on such a highly listed heritage asset? Thank you. I don't have the details of all the sites right in front of me now to go through and give you a list of every site, but I can say that within the South Lincolnshire the sites that have been assessed and have been discounted, have been subject to significant constraints, proximity to internationally designated sites of nature conservation, lack of information from site promoters in terms of the deliverability of the sites or the presence of mineral resources, so there's a whole raft of reasons why sites have been knocked out. This site, we acknowledge that it's in proximity to a number of constraints, but as I said in this presentation we've carried out an assessment, we're mindful that a site is already allocated, it's been assessed, and we're happy that the constraints can be mitigated. Thank you, chap. Just a final one for now, and I'll obviously open up the table. I think the other thing that surprised me in your presentation is you mentioned about how the county council was moving away from a, I think you're moving towards a county-wide approach from the obviously previous zones that I think we used to look at in terms of quarrying and minerals. And I think actually, if we were to look at the data in terms of what South Lincolnshire has delivered over the last plan period, I think we have delivered well above and beyond our allocation, and probably part of the reason why we're now creating a county-wide issue is because other areas are not doing or delivering their numbers and percentages of minerals, and actually South Lincolnshire is being asked to deliver even more when residents in our local area, of which I used to represent, and still represent down in Stanford, are quite frankly getting a bit fed up of this now. And I think that's my only fear is that you have now moved on to a county-wide approach when South Lincolnshire has already well above delivered its aspirations. Thank you very much, Councillor COOK. I think Councillor Hayegs, you're next. Thank you, Chairman. With what information that's been presented today, I have a great deal of difficulty supporting this application, as it stands at the moment. There are too many things that haven't been answered, correct? We haven't been given enough information on this. I would have liked to have compared the other sites that were under consideration with this one. I would have liked to have drawn my own conclusions, whether the other sites where this was the best site out of the other ones, I just feel that we haven't got anywhere near enough detailed information. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor, and next we move to... Councillor MARRIET, I did welcome you as a new member of the committee. You hadn't quite arrived at that point, so can I repeat the welcome? You're very welcome to the committee. We look forward to having your views, and in fact we look forward to having them right now. What are your comments on this particular right now? In the future, my comment is don't rely on public transport. It's not very good in Lincoln. That's why I was a little bit late. My concern relating to the Deepings application is relating to democratic sustainability. We obviously talk about it, it's just the ability. But I can't see a mention of democratic accountability in the sense of doing the local population want this, should it be forced upon them? And it's obviously an extremely unpopular proposal with the residents, and I've worked very carefully over the weekend in the last few days at what residents and their representatives have said, and I can understand their frustration and their anger makers looking at the photographs of the things that are looking at the photographs. It's a huge use of what works like very good agricultural land. I can understand residents asking the question, when is enough? Thank you very much for that. I guess it's not for me to answer the point, but I think in terms of democratic accountability, we are us, and as we've heard at a later stage it would go both through executive board and full council, and don't forget parish councils, said a parish councilor himself, who played a very important role and we've heard from Mr Fuller earlier on. But we'll move on to our next speaker, who is the Vice Chairman, Councillor Grieck. Thank you very much. I will just declare I had Mr Mooney on the Friday evening and he caught me off guard, and I didn't offer an opinion, but I thought it rude to hang up and say no, I'm not disgusting. And that's not influenced my opinion here today. I'm extremely concerned, the fact that so many residents have reached out and contacted me and I don't represent the area, for one chose a lot of red flags because that doesn't normally happen. Mr Fuller pointed out a key thought that I would imagine echo as many of our residents across Lincolnshire, and that's an extension on the future, an extension on site in the future, because once you've allowed something, well, it's not as bad to have a bit more of it. And I feel that many of our residents feel that if we got its consultation, that's a rubber stamp, but off we go it's going to happen. I'm extremely concerned and I don't want to repeat everything Councillor COOK did, that we're being asked to make a decision or agree to get a consultation, a really bad time of the year, without the documents. We as a scrutiny authority, it's our job to make objective decisions and not sit there and be at the mercy of people's emotions and feelings, however, we're not presented with the data in which to make an objective decision, which I find to be honest reasonably deplorable because we have a legal duty to our residents to make sure everything's safe in the words of Councillor DILKS to make sure it's legal and I don't feel we can with the report in front of us, I think personally it's unacceptable. Thank you very much. The next speaker is Councillor STRANT. Councillor STRANT, you wanted to come back and then Councillor COOK wanted to come back and then I might have a word myself, but Councillor STRANT. I'm just slightly confused, we make a decision today, conclusions, recommendations, to the executive on the 4th of June, and then we have a consultation, a further consultation in July and the reason I'm confused, it just seems a bit upside down. I think the answer to that question is, and I'll ask your emphasis to confirm that we are being asked to comment as the executive board is being asked to approve. I appreciate that. I make it a comment that it seems upside down. That's my comment because if, as I think Councillor COOK made clear, and also Councillor DILKS on the legal argument, if that was to go before a court on judicial review and I think it was Councillor COOK mentioned judicial review, I didn't, not initially. I just, I think it would put the Councillor in quite a bad position actually. Thank you. Unless I come back to what you're going to say? I will check with officers, but let's remember that we are in a plan making process here, and the stages in a plan making process are set up very clearly, and that's quite separate from do we have the right evidence to make a decision, but the various stages that we have to go through, I think are set out. So could officers, before we move on to other members who wish to speak, just revisit Councillor Spratt's point about the process, please, whether we are, as it were, Topsie-turvy, or whether we are following a course of action which is set down from by higher authority as to how we make plans. Okay, in terms of process, we are following a procedure set down, the time and contour planning regulations in terms of the stages we go through to produce this plan, the issue is an option stage to prefer the approach, there will be a proposed submission version, all of them go through the committee process, through executive for approval. So we're following a prescribed process in terms of the legalities producing the plan, in terms of the consideration of information, I don't have anything to add beyond what Neil has already explained. Thank you. Councillor COOK. Thank you, Chairman, I've actually probably done this in a committee meeting before. But look, you know, we are the scrutiny committee, and the decisions that we take, whether that's a recommendation or a principle decision, we have to be satisfied with the information that is presented to us that it is sound and that we have full understanding of the decision we are about to take. In my opinion, I've only been a Councillor for 13 years now, we do not have the full information even to make the decision to refer it to the executive for it to go out to consultation. Therefore, I'm going to make a proposal that we defer this agenda item to a future committee meeting where we have the full reports, where we have the full information with regards to all the sites, whether they are supported for quarrying and minerals or whether they are rejected, and there should also be a comprehensive consultation plan accompanying that, outlining when we are going to consultation at the best time of year. So we actually are not accused of not doing a meaningful consultation. I think we've got expressions for members here that wish to be on the site visit, but at the present time, I do not feel satisfied that we have the full information to take a decision on this today and I would request and hope that members will support this being deferred to a future meeting where it can be represented with the full information. Before, under normal circumstances, I would call for a seconder and I think as far as heart is concerned, I think everybody in the room would understand exactly where you are coming from, but I'm informed, I'll turn to our officer in a moment, that technically we cannot defer the matter. We can express a view that we would have deferred it, we can certainly pass all of our concerns and those which have been put to us the Executive Board, and we can request that it comes back, but it is on the Board's agenda for June, but I'd ask Emily to comment on that in more detail please. Yeah, it's just clarifying that the decision is by the Executive, so it's not the scrutiny committee's decision to make. Obviously, you can make a recommendation that you wish for this to be deferred, but it wouldn't be a decision to be made by the scrutiny committee. I mean, I'd see clarification on that because that's not what I'm used to in scrutiny, but in terms of the actions required in points 1 and 2 on the agenda, consider the architecture report and determine whether the committee supports the recommendations to the Executive as set out in the report, well, that's simply a case of no, then I do not support the recommendations because we do not have the full information and therefore it shouldn't be referred to to the Executive. That's a rather different matter to deferral, and yes, I'm trying to find a compromise chairman where we are not saying no, I'm saying let's defer it and bring it back. We have the Cabinet member for... Councillor COOK, I was actually speaking. You may not have noticed. Thank you. It is very much the role of this committee to make sure that the Executive Board is made aware of the views of this committee, and they've been pretty forceful and on a consistent line. Councillor Spratt, I'll come to you. Your hand is going up and down, but if you would just be patient for a moment, there are other people also waiting to speak. Technically, we may not be able to defer, and it is in any case going to be heard by the Executive Board. Our job, as in the actions before us in draft on the paper, is to advise the Executive Board. I'm sure we can find a form of words which will do that. Councillor Taylor, you have been waiting extremely patiently while a number of people have been speaking. Thank you. Please, let's hear your views and then we'll get back to Councillor Spratt. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Some serious concerns are being raised in this report also in this debate. This does affect quality of life, for residents in West Eben. These are serious issues. We are here, Chairman, you referred to this being part, a point in the process. We are here as a scrutiny committee to undertake a scrutiny function, and fortunately as colleagues as I've referred to previously, there is some gaps in the information. This does seem rather incomplete. We've been asking some questions, I don't believe we received all the answers in order for us to continue with this process of advice to the Executive. The many concerns are colleagues from the World Division of Councils, referred to a TMI traffic regulation orders. That also clearly affects quality of life for residents in West Eben, very close to properties. Some genuine questions have been raised here. We do need to hear feedback from residents. This does need to be that meaningful consultation. We know some consultations from some organisations are not meaningful. They do not take on board to the feedback. This is a concern. I've heard the advice there regarding the technical reasons for not a deferral. I'll have a second Councillor Cook's recommendation if that is possible, because I do not believe we in a position to make a decision or give that advice to the Executive based on the information or lack of answers in this meeting today. Thank you. Councillor SRIM, he wished to come back. Yes, thank you, Chairman. I'm not sure when you said there were technical reasons why we can't defer. I'm not sure those technical reasons were explained, but there's no reason why this committee can't ask the Executive to defer their decision. So I prefer to ask the three Councillor Hilda as soon as this meeting's over and ask him to defer the decision, pending full consultation and answers to the queries that have been put forward. Now, what's the problem with that? For as I'm concerned, there isn't one. I'll ask Emily to come back to us and just talk about the whole issue of deferral, which I understand is because it's going to go to the board anyway. My purpose throughout all of this is to make sure that the board is made fully aware of the views of this committee, but also that the board has in full as part of the evidence base to its consideration of the matter, all the views which have been put to us, so that every member of the board, individually, as well as the board collectively can take a fully informed decision. But before coming back to members, can I just ask Emily to expand on the point that she made earlier? Yes, so the papers have been dispatched for Executive next week and this is on the agenda for them to make the decision. So it's due to go there anyway. I think, obviously, the committee have got the right to recommend that it's - they don't support the plan and then whether they want to make any further recommendations about why or whether they would like to make a recommendation to - the executive defer it, but it is on the Executive agenda for decision next week and that's for the Executive to make that decision. I think, therefore, we need to respond to that as a matter of fact and make sure that we do get our views into the Executive. But Keira Hasiana is our Scrutiny Officer and she would like to make a comment. Thank you, Chairman. Without contradicting what my colleague, Emily, has just stated, I would like to confirm that the Environment and Economy Scrutiny Committee may advise the Executive that it does not support the recommendations and, therefore, make a recommendation of its own that the item is deferred, the decision is deferred, until further reports are available and the Board, the committee, apologies, is satisfied that the process has been followed. Thank you. Councillor COOK. Thank you, Chairman. Apologies earlier for interrupting you. Not at all. Following the information that we just had from our Scrutiny Officer then, I would propose that that is our recommendation because, you know, I don't want to be accused of being not towing the line - oh, Bert, we are scooting and not past political - but I would go along with that recommendation that we ask the Executive for this item to be deferred to a future date and for us to reconsider it with the full information. I'm just getting some advice, just hang on a second everybody. We have remotely Councillor Davy, who is, of course, on the Executive and he would like to comment on the matter. Councillor DAVY. Thank you very much, Chairman. I'm not going to comment on the substance of the debate because I've listened to all of it and, of course, as a member of the Executive, I shall report the committee's comments made in this debate, fully when we debate it as an Executive Board. I just think we need to - we've listened a lot about the concerns of residents in the both deepings and I'm always, as you know, concerned about communities and how they feel about things. However, we also have to remember, as has been said, most of you on this committee are involved in planning in some way, shape or form, either on the County Council or probably at district level. This is a process, a plan-making process, we have to follow. Obviously, there's been a call for sites from potential developers and applicants. We need to make sure we stay on the right side of the law in relation to the plan-making process, in everything that we do. I just want to make sure, maybe a firm that our director or some of them legal is in the Chamber, they could comment about how we manage this process going forward. I'd just want to reassure members, I've heard all the comments and I will report them back into the Executive Formula. Thank you, Councillor Dabia. I think, in fact, we don't have a legal representative with us, but we do have a very senior officer who would like to speak. Thank you, Councillor CURTINGton. The process for producing a local plan, whether it's the waste of minerals local plan or as those of you that are represented districts, the local plans that the district councils produce, is, as you've stated, set out by statute. It's a very well-established and, dare I say, tested process, been subject to legal challenges elsewhere in the country on a number of occasions. I would remind you that in the way this report is set out to yourselves today, the legal comments aren't indicating that there is anything in the process that we are taking forward which creates a particular risk to the authority. I hear what members are saying in terms of their concerns about whether they've got enough information upon which to actually endorse the recommendations that are in front of them, but I am comfortable and confident that the legal process that we are engaging in is appropriate and does not create any significant additional risk from a legal perspective to the authority. What I'd also remind members of, and again, knowing that the members of this committee that have long experience of sitting on planning committees as well is that you also need to be careful and mindful of not prejudging a consultation that hasn't yet taken place. We are seeking approval as an authority to take a document out to consultation and at that point all of the views, opinions of the representative bodies, individuals, would be played back and would then be considered in full and has already been clarified in this meeting this morning would be subject to further reporting into this committee, the executive and ultimately to council, because the adoption of the local plan is one of the policy documents that the council in its entirety has to take on board. We need to be mindful in the context of hearing local residence views, we are also making sure we are not queering the pitch of the process that Councillor DAVI has just indicated in terms of other interests who may also have legal opinions as to whether that process is being adversely affected. It's always in planning at least two sides to every argument, if not more, and ultimately we have to be mindful of making sure we don't step on other people's legal perspectives. I'll leave it there for now. Thank you very much indeed for that and I would urge the committee to bear that in mind certainly as far as the framework of the process is concerned as I think I mentioned at the very beginning of all of this that is set out basically in the Planning Acts and the regulations going associated with the Planning Acts and those are being followed. Councillor SPRAAD he wished to come back. Thank you. Mr. Gotherson is absolutely right, there are two sides in every legal argument that I agree with him entirely and he has put forward a very cogent one. There is a different side of it though and I know I'm not a lawyer but I suspect there is nothing in law to prevent us from recommending to the executive that this be deferred. Like Councillor said, Councillor... Sorry, Councillor COOK has said summer is not a good time for consultation and I don't think there would be a problem, I'm pretty sure there wouldn't be a problem, there's nothing in law to stop this consultation for example starting in September. Is there? Councillor interjecting. That's a thing to say if you want to help them because Mr. Gotherson would like to come back. As per the recommendations that are in front of you today as a committee, you are being asked to consider the attached report and determine whether you support the recommendation to the executive. I think in the context of the amendment that Councillor COOK has moved and I think Councillor SPRAAD you've indicated a willingness to second, that would be perfectly appropriate and legitimate for that to be your recommendation to the executive. Councillor DEPUTY, we wish to take that on board, is there a matter for them to debate at next week's meeting. In that, you've clearly made representations about the information in front of you and the timing of that consultation period. Again at this moment in time all I would indicate is that the consultation period has been subject to dialogue and discussion with our own internal engagement team who haven't raised any concerns about in the context of the overall period of the consultation period that some of that falling into the summer period is going to mean that that consultation isn't meaningful but I hear what both you and Councillor COOK have said in the context of your concerns but I would imagine they are matters of say, ultimately if that's your recommendation the executive would need to balance. I think it would be a good point just to remind us of the actions which are formerly before us at this point and Mr. Gotherson has alluded to them. They are one, that we consider the report presented and to determine whether we support the recommendations to the executive as these are set out on page 17 of the report and two, agree any additional comments to be passed to the executive in relation to this item. So I think we have to respond within the context of that. What I want to do is just to make sure that we have an absolute—we've had a number of speakers who have spoken and a number of occasions we've still got one or two who haven't spoken just to make sure that we have been very thorough in all of this and made sure that we have got the full views of all members of the committee. Councillor Mrs. Austin, I think you wish to speak, so let's turn to you. I think this got to the stage now where I'm seriously wondering how can I support or recommend something that I don't know because we are told not all the information is in here? I can't support what I haven't been told, I can guess, but that's not the way of doing planning. I want the whole document, please. Thank you. Can I, because I've been very quiet apart from Mr.atford people, I've got a couple of technical questions which I'd like to put to the offices, if I may, which may seem a retrograde step, but I think thoroughness in this matter is very important. I'd like to ask about heritage. We heard in one of the comments that's been made, I think it may have been from Mr. Fuller, a reference to earlier comments received from Historic England, which, if I understood incorrectly, were negative. I do understand that we have spoken to the County Council's own heritage team, and I think I'm right in understanding that the next stage of consultation will include going out to Historic England. Could you just background the committee on anything which Historic England may already have said particularly about the mill? Thank you, Chairman. I'm just locating some of the notes that I've got on this. We did, as part of our assessment process, we carried out a targeted engagement with statutory consultees, including Historic England. So, as part of getting to this point, we took those comments on board, and Historic England did indeed highlight the proximity of the mill, and potentially impact on settings, and that is why we also referred to our colleagues in the Historic Places team to get our deans and the local expert view on that position. The view is that, yes, there are setting impacts that need you consideration, but that these would be able to be mitigated at planning application stage. And just for the sake of clarity, the thought that it could potentially be mitigated or at a later stage. Did that come from Historic England, or was that from our internal team? That was from discussions with our own internal team, and part of Office of Judgement from the National Assessment Process, Historic England to this stage we've not gone back to them, so their comments are that their concerns at the moment that they've raised is no. And Historic England would be reconsulted at a later stage at the process. Yes, yes. Thank you for that. And secondly, reference has been made to the River Welland. I've been down to the site as part of Planning Committee visit, so all that general location but I'm not across the details of the River Welland, and I suspect many members of the committee aren't. Has any expert advice been taken? I recognise the fact that we are, of course, ourselves, the Lead Local Flood Authority, but has any expert advice been taken or any expert consultees express to concern about the river itself, please? Thank you, at this stage we've not received any detailed comments, any objections, any concerns. Obviously, as I said in the presentation, with mindful of the fact that this site was comprehensively assessed before it was allocated in the current plan, therefore we've not revisited everything in detail. We've looked at those elements that are changing, but this will go out to its consultation and those bodies will be able to feedback if they've got concerns. So I will add that we are allocating the sites at this stage. It's not a planning permission, so if it was to go forward as an allocation, a planning application would need to be lodged. These sorts of issues would be looked at in detail as part of the application. There are methods, tried and tested methods that mineral operators use in terms of standoffs and recharging and all those sorts of things which at the stage that we are in terms of allocation, it's not deemed necessary to get into that level of detail. We've got enough confidence, bearing in mind the site's context, already being allocated. We've got confidence that that could be addressed at the planning application stage, but notwithstanding this will be open to consultation and we'll take on board any comments we get from any statue bodies in terms of the water environment. Excellent. Thank you and just a final one. The issue of public availability of comments made so far, I don't have the answer to that one, where people have written into as part of the planning plan making process which this is, are those comments sort of an evidence base or a library of evidence somewhere which is publicly accessible or not? Yes, one of the documents that will be published alongside the preferred approach document is the consultation statement which will set out the responses that were received at the issue's option stage in Summer 2022, it'll go through the key issues and how the council has responded in terms of its proposals in the preferred approach document. Thank you. Before I try and summarise all of that, are there any further members of the committee who wish to speak? I won't express any surprise. Councillor COOK and Councillor SRIET and that order. Thank you Chairman. It was just expanding on the comments that you made actually because in relation to the responses we've just heard from Ms. Leonard and Mr. McBride. In terms of what I understand it, in terms of the level one constraints that SG-17 has, being so important, well surely that would almost ratify it for being excluded from the plan anyway if I'm taking what I've just heard correctly. Well, that's a point of view. Do the officers wish to comment or not? I'm not seeing an officer coming forward, but your point is noted. Does anybody wish to respond to Councillor COOK? Yes, that is, I know, I know, please. You know, the action I've taken in terms of requesting for it to be deferred is not you know, and I've never done this at the Council before. I just want us to fully understand as a scrutiny committee the decision that we are recommending to the executive and I'm sorry, I'm sorry Dan as well, that I don't feel comfortable at the present time to recommend that and that's why I have put forward the amendment that I have and I'm disappointed that I haven't got a response in terms of the level one as well. I understand, thank you for that, Councillor COOK, Councillor Spratt. I was going to second the amendment put forward by Councillor COOK. Well, I don't think we're in the business of an amendment per se. I think what we're, and I'll try and sum up and then we'll see how we frame our response. There are proposed actions before us and I think as our scrutiny officer has suggested there is a set of words which can encapsulate what we've done this morning. Right, I will now try and sum up. I think the first thing to say is where I began, this is part of a process, there is a set framework that we follow, this Council is following that set framework and we've heard advice from some very senior officers present that the framework itself, I'm not saying all the components within it, but the framework itself is lawful and is being followed properly. We can come back to the practicalities of timing but is lawful and is being followed properly and I'm sure although we don't have a legal representative with us today, I know that that is going on in the background and I'm sure that following this meeting that will be checked and rechecked. If I can summarise a very long and very full set of comments from members of the committee fairly briefly, it seems to me that the key concerns are firstly that the full documentation which will go out to consultation or is proposed to go out to consultation in July is not yet available and therefore members of the committee do not feel that they have the full amount of evidence before them to make a recommendation as is drafted to support the document before us and also that members have concerns about launching into a consultation in the summer holiday period. I have to say as a parish Councillor I've often noted with some amusement that these things come out at that particular time of year. That said we also have to bear in mind as our officers have emphasized there is a process which has to be done here we need to get this plan sorted out and there is nothing statutorily which prevents consultation at that particular time of year. What we have to do of course is make sure that a sufficient period of time is given for any consultation and it is properly publicised. So what I would suggest and I turn back to Keara here is that we have a form of words which A captures that and B makes it very clear that we would like all of the comments we have made but also all of the evidence applied to us to be made available to the executive board. I think the fear of members here is that we are not the committee is not sufficiently fully informed to make an informed decision. The executive board will want to make sure that it is so informed should it decide that it is ok for this consultation to go forward. So a draft set of wording would be along the lines of I move for the following consideration and debate. The committee advised the executive that we do not support the recommendations and I would put it as they currently stand and therefore we recommend that the executive defers the decision until those further reports which have been discussed are available and all the rest of the comments will be captured summarised by our officers and passed on and I would like to be able to give an assurance to those who have submitted comments that they will also be made available and we actually received comments and further information even as late as this morning which has been circulated to committee members. All of that will be made available to executive board members. And again my concern for the chair is to make sure that the executive board is as thoroughly informed as it can be when it comes to make a decision on this matter. Colleagues is everybody content with that form of wording as I have just read it out? I am seeing nods. In that case do I will I will formally move that. Seconded by Councillor Spratt could all members show in favour please are there any against any abstentions I think that is carried? Colleagues we have had a long and very full debate on just one item of a crowded agenda. I am aware of other items but I think at this point I will say that we will take a 10 minute recess and we will resume five minutes to 12. Thank you very much for your participation so far. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] On the schools, there's the public sector decarbonization scheme that offers some large scale grants to do that kind of funding. It's aimed at decarbonization of heating within buildings, so there are opportunities for schools to get into that. As part of the development work for this, we did a heat decarbonization plan for our canceled runners state. I think I've been discussing with colleagues in property about putting a second bid into that fund to do a similar study for our schools estates. So it will look at the buildings and it makes a series of recommendations on what can be done to upgrade them in terms of energy efficiency. So I think then it's a case of then what's that worth being done of them putting bids into the public sector decarbonization scheme. Usually they have a kind of rolling program of bidding being open. So we were successfully around previously where we got the funding to the heat decarbonization plan. So I think we'd look to work with property colleagues to support schools to do that. So I think the risk funding there is just getting access to it. And then on the contractors, I think a lot of our contractors are maybe a bit ahead of us in terms of electric vehicles and alternative fuels that they're using with some of their on site equipment. What we have done, I've been working with the procurement team and we've produced a set of guidelines to put into major contracts for a series of questions to be asked. So they are there, I think they've gone through the approval process so they're ready to be fed into major contracts that come up. Yeah, that's what I was looking for Chair, just for some context, in my day job, that's what I do in construction order in how they're suppliers on quality environmental health and safety. So that's the kind of thing I'm looking for that we are having those in the contracts and the checks going forward. Okay, thank you very much for that. I'll chip one or two in myself if I may. In the report you talk about emerging technologies, some of which are not yet necessarily mature enough for us to include in our own procurement program at scale. And if you could expand a little bit for the committee about what kind of technologies you're thinking of and when you think they might actually be the maturity whereby they can make a significant impact. Yeah, absolutely. Air source heat pumps are an obvious one where it's becoming more common to have large buildings heated by them. So we've got a couple of examples in the county. We've got a secondary school that's heated by Air source heat pump, I think North Boosby. I know that North links council have just completed some buildings where they've got external air source heat pumps. I think one of the challenges for us has been when we've done energy efficiency projects in the past, they've always delivered a reduction in running costs. It's not necessarily the case that that will be true with air source heat pumps. So with the price differential, I think we're getting quotes about 18 pence kilowatt for electricity at the moment and gas is coming in at about three and a half, four pence a kilowatt hour. So it's sort of three, four, five times cheaper to run things on gas, so you've got to get that higher level of efficiency from your air source heat pump. We've also been approached by a private company that's looking to develop a heat network in the centre of Lincoln, so we could be a potential off taker of that. I know they've been looking at potential sites, they've potentially been looking at two networks around the city, one north of the bayford and one south of the bayford. So we can become an off taker of that, so I think there was talk about looking at hydrogen options for heating. I think the government have kind of moved away from that. There was planned for a hydrogen town that was due to start later this year, but I think they announced a few weeks ago that that was going to be delayed. I don't think that's going to go ahead immediately, but there are lots of potential technologies there, so I think it's getting the right ones, and it's this focus on can we do it and still reduce ruin costs as well. Thank you for that. The final one from me, we are talking obviously about our own operations, but like any other council, we're looking at a wider, we're looking to reduce carbon emissions across the county, which involves working with other partners. I know the challenges of that being into your hazard member at the district level, at the county level, who are we talking with, who are we seeking to influence and how are we seeking to influence them, please. Well, we are working closely with our district colleagues, so I think, as mentioned before, transport is our largest area of carbon emissions. In the county, the other two main ones are domestic housing and agriculture, so on domestic housing, we're working with the district councils on the local energy area demonstrator program, where advices are going out and working with residents to identify how they can access funding to make the homes more energy efficient. So that there's a project with the South and the Slinkenshire Partnership, and then there's a project with the Council on the western side of the county that the county council is working closely with. We're also working with the NHS colleagues from there, so we're developing that would probably bring to this committee later in the year, a climate adaptation program for how we deal with the effects of climate change and the NHS. That's a key part of that, I think there are also going to be representatives from the police at that event where we're looking at how those issues come forward. And then we were also with the agriculture work that was mentioned right back at the start of the meeting, I think climate change is a key part of that so we're looking at how the agriculture sector can reduce their emissions as well. So we've got a couple of projects lined up to get underway in the next few months to start tackling those issues. Thank you very much indeed for that. I'm looking around the room to see if any other members have any questions or comments, and I am seeing none. So can I thank you, I beg your pardon? Oh, I beg your pardon. Sorry, Casette Taylor, I didn't see you, go ahead, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I did indicate some comments, I've been covered in the answers since the report, I do welcome that, and thank you for the report and just a few brief comments. The Vice Chairman referred to the two-pound cap on public transport on some buses, but it exists, that is showing some results in summary as with this option. I know at the last four kinds or the Cabinet Member for the transport also, and the highway is also expressed as a desire for this to continue and to lobby that to the government or next government. So I think we can also press that point because we are seeing some shift there in the transport movement where there is that option. Also regarding electric vehicles and charging points, we know that move towards electric vehicles did stall a bit over the past year or so, of course with the increase in utility prices. I'm really well aware of that, but there's been some reductions this year, and that has been welcomed, and we know it has been some movement, particularly in towns, urban areas for those charging points. However, there seems to be some gaps in some villages, and we know this work to be carried out there, as we know the often in our most remote areas, the vehicle is not a utility is a necessity, and there's a cost from driving from that village to the nearest fuel station, so some infrastructure, we are not the opportunity to have some installed on private driveways or private properties, we just store some gaps there to encourage that movement or that choice. So, absolutely, we have reduced carbon safe money, just a comment on the street lighting reduction. Of course, that has saved money, that has reduced street lighting, it was a shock and a surprise for some people when that was implemented at 2016, a few years ago now. It doesn't take place in some areas, I know it has saved money, has – we have in the report the section 17, applications regarding trauma disorder, so we do need to be aware of that. There are vulnerable people out there, those are work shifts, we are still concerned about that, we don't feel that this time of year in May and June in the summer, but in mid or the winter that does affect certain residents, so I would also just not to go further with that, let's not look at 10pm or even further in the mornings there. Let's do consider, again, quality of life issues, should not go at a cost of reducing the carbon and saving money to do be aware, let's not go any further on that, just a few comments on those points in the report. Thank you. You should come back on that. In that case, thank you very much for that, so I'm sorry, I just missed you, Councillor Taylor. We have a portfolio over. I'm missing everybody today and need to get new glasses. Just whether, I think it was a couple of years ago now, an awesome Mumcovish parish council went into the Zero Carbon Parities project and it was an excellent thing. When we looked at the carbon emissions of the parish, we got grant funding, I think it was used on the football field and the pavilion and stuff like that, it saved money, it made the parish council put some money into that project as well, is that still going ahead, I mean, it's a really good thing to lower carbon emissions and stuff and help local communities. Yes, I'm pleased to say, as part of the development fund money, we've got a new round of funding to do a new round off Zero Carbon Parities, so that's something for members to bear in mind that if there is a local parish council that wants to work with us, then we'd be happy to have their details and look at the projects that we could do. So we've done things like LED lighting and village halls, we've done tree planting, we've done some and they came into them, we did some cycle storage there. So, yes, there's a whole range of environmental projects that we've done from that funding. Yeah, I'd very strongly endorse the point that you make and your response there, Dan, Hankton, in my patch, was one of the pilots in Zero Carbon Parishes, and they took it with huge enthusiasm and that is still a regular item on their agenda. I think it's one of those things where you can establish a habit and it's all about practical application. I think the interesting thing about this report and discussion today, it just emphasizes that simply declaring a climate emergency or waving a protest banner or throwing some orange paint, don't cut it, that makes absolutely no difference at all. What matters is practical implementation, sound science, maths, good engineering. And it's got to be said, a countency, working out how all of this will be funded without breaking the bank and making sure that the costs are both met and are proportionate is very important indeed. So, this is an ongoing piece of work and this is just a slice in time, but thank you very much indeed for that report. If there are no further comments from the Chamber, hopefully I haven't missed anybody this time. We have before us a suggested proposal, which is one, that I move that the Board supports the recommendation to the Executive of Detailed on page 173 of the report, and two, that I ask our comments, as they have been captured by Kiara Hazyyanu, our scrutiny officer, be shared with the Executive ahead of its consideration timeline. Do I have a seconder for that? The Vice Chairman, thank you. We will now vote. All those in favour please show. Are there any against? Any abstentions? That is carried. That is carried. Thank you very much indeed colleagues. We now move to item 7 on the agenda, waste transfer station improvements, food waste project. The final pre-decision report on today's agenda, this can be found between pages 225 and 238 of your agenda pack. Defra has announced the – and I put it in quote marks – simpler recycling initiative. Mandating weekly food waste collections by all local authorities by April of 2026, which may sound a long way away, but it isn't. To support this £9.6 million in capital funding is required for Lincolnshire County Council to facilitate food waste collection by its district partners. This funding will be used to purchase land, construct a new waste transfer station, modify existing stations and purchase a wheeled loading shovel. Transitioning food waste from incineration at the energy from waste facilities to anaerobic digestion - the new technology, will enhance the council's recycling rate projected to improve by 7%. This change aligns with the waste hierarchy as anaerobic digestion is considered to be recycling, thereby significantly boosting the council's overall recycling performance as measured by the recycling rate corporate key performance indicator. A decision on this matter will be taken by the Executive Councillor for waste and trading standards and the Leader of the Council at the Executive Councillor for Resources Communications and Commissioning between the 3rd and 7th of June 2024. The actions before us this morning - correction, the actions before us this afternoon are to consider the report presented and to determine whether we support the recommendations to the Executive Councillors as these are set out on pages 227 to 228 of the report and to agree any additional comments to be passed on to the Executive Councillors in relation to this item. And the report is going to be delivered to us jointly by Chris Yourston who's head of waste and we also have with us Rachel Stamp, the Waste Partnerships Project Manager. Chris, I think you're going to introduce the item so over to you. Good afternoon Chairman. Thank you very much. Okay, so overview of the Food Waste Project. So in October 2023, DEFRA released simpler recycling and this is detailed the changes required by all local authorities under the Environment Act and this is included the mandatory weekly collections of food waste starting from April 2026. So our current position is that food waste is currently mixed in with your residual mixed and this is sent to the Energy for Waste facility in North Hikem, which is energy recovery. DEFRA have confirmed in simpler recycling the Environment Act that anaerobic digestion is the preferred disposal route for food waste treatment. Anaerobic digestion has been classed as recycling by DEFRA, so this will move the waste that's currently in our residual mix which is being sent for recovery into recycling. So Linkenshire, we have about 30 to 35,000 tonnes of food waste in our residual mix and this equates to 7% of our overall waste volumes. So moving this from anaerobic digestion to anaerobic digestion would increase our recycling rates. Currently we're around 41%, that bring us up to about 48% and that moves us much closer to our target KPI which is set at 50%. So there's also a cost benefit to anaerobic digestion. Processing waste for the energy from waste facility is around 90 pound a ton. However anaerobic digestion is around about 0 pound a ton currently and that's remained consistent for a number of years. However to accept the food waste at our current infrastructure we're going to have to modify our five existing waste transfer stations. Plus the law should be a requirement to build a new one in the Lincoln area. So this will enable our district council partners to drop off collections efficiently within or as close to their district boundary as possible. So the infrastructure required to accept food waste at our existing transfer stations. We're going to need new retaining walls, internal drainage systems, external sealed tanks for any fluids collected, odus suppression systems because we're concentrating food waste into one pile, fire suppression systems and detection system modifications and washed down facilities. The new waste transfer facility in Lincoln would also require those infrastructure changes. LCC do currently have a facility which we rent at South-hycoming at the minute which accepts the city of Lincoln's waste and some of Norco Stevens. But this is a very small operation currently which is just accepting the mix dry recycling. It doesn't have the capacity, it's too small and doesn't have the infrastructure to accept food waste. So the capital funding required is broken down so there's 5.4 million pound identified for a new waste transfer station. 4 million pound to modify the existing transfer stations. There's £200,000 for a new loading shovel which will go at the new facility so that totals 9.6 million. In the previous years the energy from waste has generated from windfall energy sales because of the Ukraine conflict with secured £6.1 million of additional funding which has been capitalised by finance and set aside for this project. So we need £3.6 million is the additional ask. The reason you burn as funding, but this has been released by Defr0r but this has only been given to the waste collection authorities. So our principle is an invest-to-save basis for this project. So the estimated revenue savings to switch from EFW to anaerobic digestion is circa £3 million per annum. We've got all the savings from not renting the existing transfer station at South-hycoming and there's the potential increase of headspace at the energy from waste because we're taking that material out. So we'll have the capacity to sell this to the commercial sector and LCC have a profit share agreement with the contract with the owners of that so we may be able to present additional income through that. There will be revenue implications for the new transfer station which is estimated at £390,000 per year. So the overall estimated annual revenue savings are £3.6 million per year so that will pay back the additional capital ask of the £3.6 million within one year. The consequence of not delivering the project is that the waste collection authorities will have to tip out a district and LCC become liable for the tipping away payments required so the WCA will have to pay more vehicles, higher more staff than their new burdens funding currently allows. Also the direct delivery from the waste collection authorities to a single or a couple of AD plants stretched across the county is not efficient. So typically delivering locally at one of our transfer stations can lead to a vehicle undertaking two to three rounds a day. If you have to travel across county, it may be only one delivery a day so it's not efficient method of transporting direct to an anaerobic digestion facility. So the current program for infrastructure delivery is that we would like to make the existing transfer station modifications throughout 2025. And for the Lincoln transfer station, ideally we'll have an agreement on the part of land by the end of this year planning applications submitted in early 2025 with a construction start towards the end of 2025 and become an operational in mid 2026. That's everything. Thank you very much. Thank you very much indeed. For that, Rachel, is there anything you wish to add at this point? Nope. In that case, the floor is open to members for comments and questions, please. Councillor bottles. Thank you, Chairman. Yeah, could I just clarify, Chris, and what you just said about it not being economical in terms of direct delivery to the AD plants. I'm thinking, as with my West Linsie hat on, yeah, obviously, there's an AD plant that happens. Well, the ideally in my head, you would think West Lindsay would just deliver direct to that. You're saying that's not good. I can't imagine if they're doing the collection rounds out market rates away to come to the the station in my division in Gainesboro to drop that off to them after other collections, then go to the plan. I know it's a bigger picture than just West Lindsay, but I'm just in my head. I would assume that we'd like to get to a point in West Lindsay where they can just directly deliver to the plan and it would sort of minimize our travel backwards and forwards to the station. Secondly, in terms of the station, obviously, like I said, it's in my division. I just look at some reassurances of work you were going to do there. Can we take some real good look at the drainage there? Because that was one of the big issues when the station was initially built. So there's, you know, some concern locally that if we're looking at food waste being there, that's obviously going to have a lot of discharge, potentially. So really looking at the waste. More generally, can we just have a look at that site? It's an absolute ISO. Considering it's something that's not very old, you know, it's on the main road driving through Gainesboro or round Gainesboro, I should say, on the sort of bypass. And it's just, it's mucky. It's horrible. There's clearly a lot of discharge going on on the building, and it's just mucky stains all over it. And it's just, it's complete ISO. So slight left field, but it's, if you're going to be doing work on the station, I would hope we can make it look a bit better than it does. And not quite as embarrassing with the LCC logo on there stained and dirty. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Yeah. Some excellent points there. So yeah, with the West Lindsay issue, we are aware that there is a anaerobic digestion facility in the county. We're currently out for procurement for anaerobic digestion facility capacity at the minute. So that may change our plan slightly in the future, but that will be dependent on where the locations are, but the principal will be the same that we want to provide every district council location as close or near to their boundaries. So we're trying to optimize the efficiency for each of our district partners and we're working with them together where their tipping locations are going to be located. With the drainage situation, the plan is that it will all be internal to the existing building at the minute. So there won't be any additional impermeable areas for rainfall to be captured. We'll make sure that it's going to be a sealed drainage system. So any fluids captured from the food waste will go into a segregated tank and then they will then get pumped away and they'll get taken by the anaerobic digestion facility because this is a good quality material that they want to take and process. And then your point about the, the transfer station being, being lucky, I'll get that investigated and the follow that up for you and I'll respond to you of course. Thank you. Councillor Ms. is Austin. Thank you Chairman. And there hasn't been any analysis into the source of food waste. I mean, I deplore food waste. And I've seen my travels from time to time. Well, I know people buy far more than they want. And then they waste most of it. You know, is this, can this be coupled with public education if it is domestic food waste? If it's on a, I don't know, is some of it related to the processing of food? I'm very close. My patch includes the marsh lane industrial estate where food is processed. It's sort of halfway through the food valley if you like. And again, is that where food waste is coming on? You know, I want to know where is food being wasted and why is it being wasted? Obviously if it's meat, you've got to get rid of bones, that sort of thing. But I just would like to know more. I mean, I did, you know, it's just as principle that I don't like wasting food. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. We undertake quite regular analysis of the waste that's presented to us. And that'd be the 30,000 to 30,000 tonnes that's been identified as. It's been shaped through that. So that is currently what householders are throwing away into their residual mix. As we progress through the project, there's quite a lot of engagement, community information that needs to be provided out there to educate people, because ultimately, this is moving this waste up the waste hierarchy from recovery to recycling. But what we would ultimately like to see is waste minimisation. So informing people not to throw this food waste out, or to not buy it in the first place has got to be the more important points. And that's something we'll be presenting. We've got a team that go out of schools, go to community groups, and we talk about the waste hierarchy to different parties. And this will be one of the messages that we'd push in, is the waste minimisation to prevent it coming as food waste in the first place. Thank you. Councillor GROANS. Yes, just a short point from me. I can't disagree with scheme. The report in front of us. I do generally disagree with food waste collection. And part of the reason is for anyone who remembers when we rolled out the paper collection. If you'll represent a more metropolitan area of Aboriginal County and everyone's got a terraced house trying to find storage for different waste streams is really difficult. And I live just in a normal three beds, any. And I've currently got like four bins in my kitchen, to which there's no room really for those four, let alone a different one. And just as sort of flippant point on Councillor Austin's point, I generally go shopping on Monday. And I've noticed over the last couple of years, the amount of times you go to buy fresh food and go like it's got two days left on it. It'd be interesting to see how much of the waste stream is made by people going, I've gone to do a weekly shop, half my shopping's gone off. Because I tend to find more and more in every shop, not just big supermarkets. You're looking, you're looking to get a couple of days off it. So supermarkets argue people like to go shopping multiple times a week, but I would argue that's out of necessity more than because that's their third shopping method. Completely agree with what you're saying. I think it's about not knowing what we don't know yet. So we're just in the process of doing some work with our partners in the districts and also with our communications team to do a little bit of engagement and focus group work and trials with people to understand their shopping habits, what our messaging needs to be, where the waste is coming from, what behaviours we need to look at, challenging and then also then do we need to work with the shops and the manufacturers around these sort of things. You're quite right. We could be in danger of assuming everybody does a weekly shop or everybody who lives in a town calls at the local shop on the way home, we need to understand what that demographic looks like and address that smart in a smart way and not just take a blanket approach to it. So I completely agree and we don't yet know what we don't know. So we are looking at that Councillor GRIx and we'll be driving that forward in our own communications and engagement campaign. Mr Haynes, please. Thank you Chairman. Two questions, if I may, Chris. First one is I don't understand these systems terribly well. So my first question is what happens to the liquid and my second question is we've got an anaerobic digestion system holding them near Sleeveford. And at the moment, it uses produce from farms. Does this mean that we can, and it's a private company so it's up to them, but does it mean that presently the fields that grow crops for anaerobic digesters? Can that will a take food and so that we can produce more food stops for ourselves in Lincolnshire? Thank you, Councillor. So the way anaerobic digestion works is that the food waste is presented at the facility. There's a debugging area that takes out any plastic contamination and then goes into these vessels where the microbes work. It's effectively a bit like a cow's stomach where the material is churned around and the gasses and the fuels are taken off from that. So that is one part of the mix that you can then use that as energy or a biofuel. And the second part is that the more solid and liquid base is turned into a digestate which is used for fertiliser on farmland. So then the second point is that there's two types of anaerobic digestion facilities. The ones that are licensed currently for farm and agricultural waste and then there's the ones that are able to take household waste. They're licensed in different ways and you have to have different equipment and there's different regulations that you have to follow to accept that material. So obviously the ones that we're going out to at procure ones is that they can accept household waste at this stage. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed for that. I think you've gathered from members comments and I hope we'd all agree that education in this matter is going to be extremely important. There's always someone who pops up whenever we introduce a new coloured bin, purple-lidded bins have been the most recent ones which have gone out district by district. And there is the classic thing of somebody who appears in the social media in the local newspaper who will say I won't do this because it won't work. We had this in North Castiven and that particular individual has just popped up in Boston, I think, who just just gone for it. Certainly in North Castiven, that particular stream, paper and card is more than 99% pure and it is one of the most pure streams that actually goes into the paper mill down near King's Lyn. It can be done but food waste is going to be more complicated as a member has observed. There's not what Vice Chairman observed. There is quite a few bins. This will mean more containers of some sort. It's another level of education, it's another level of practice. It's going to be a tougher one so I very much applaud the work that's already going on with our partners, the waste collection authorities, to make sure that we understand the way the public will approach this because that is going to be critical to the success of the matter and for investing all this money in. And we need to make sure that we get a robust waste stream which can generate some revenue coming back. So if there are no further comments or questions from the floor and I don't think there are, I will move us forward to the proposal which is I move the board supports the recommendation to the Executive Council's detailed on page 227 of the report. For comments, as these have been captured by Kiara Haziano, our scrutiny officer, to be shared with the Executive Councillors. One of you, of course, we have President today ahead of their consideration timeline. Is that seconded? Seconded by the Vice Chairman, we will now take a vote. All those in favour please show. Anyone against? Any abstentions? That is carried unanimously. Thank you very much indeed, colleagues. We now move to item eight on the agenda, LCC Business Centres and Economic Development Portfolio Performance Report. This scrutiny report can be found on pages 239 to 244 of the agenda pack. The purpose of this paper is to provide the committee with a summary of the performance of the Council's portfolio of business centres and industrial units, including occupancy levels and tenant feedback on the suitability of our premises in meeting the needs of small businesses. And the actions before us today are, we are invited one, to consider the contents of the report and comment on the appropriateness of the measures used to review the performance of the Council's portfolio of business premises, and two, to consider whether the structured interview format provides more reliable feedback to gauge the success of the portfolio and whether members support the work of offices to undertake further tenant engagement and support activities. And this report will be presented by one of the most patient people in the County Council, Mr Simon Wright. Thank you very much for, I think, probably anticipated, presenting the report a little bit before this time of the clock. So, Simon is the regeneration and portfolio manager. We'll take questions after the briefing. Simon, over to you. Thank you very much, Councillor Carrington. I appreciate the members today. I've had a very busy morning, so I'll be as brief and succinct as I can. I won't go through the paper in detail as you've reminded me at the beginning of the meeting. The paper has been circulated previously. But what I would like to do is pull out a small number of, which I think particularly salient points from that paper, just to highlight some important principles. In particular, the first one is really that our team of portfolio officers who manage our state continue to do so in a very proactive way. And that's across our whole of the state of offices and industrial units, which are spread out across the county. We also are very mindful of our letings policy, which has been before this committee before, and it remains a really useful resource to guide our decision making and recommendations on how our portfolio would be managed. Since January, my team have been undertaking a raft of structured interviews with our tenants to gain valuable feedback on a range of topics. Very much following a similar theme to last year's interviews, so that we do hopefully now have a strong baseline to measure performance year on year. While I would like to stress in my interpretation of the results is that overwhelmingly, our tenants do continue to show a high degree of satisfaction with their business space and the services that we provide. There are some roovative improvements, which I'll come on to, but generally speaking, there is a high degree of satisfaction. It was also notable this year that some tenants did indicate the fact that they are considering either upsizing or downsizing from their current space. And I think what that does, members, is very much highlight one of the main strengths of our portfolio and what we offer our tenants. And that is all of our tenants are given a rolling break for the very reason that if they want to upsize to, to more premises and expand their business, we will not act as a barrier for them to do so. In fact, we obviously would support them and do all we can to encourage them. One of the way we do that is by dis-allowing them to return their keys to us and break their lease at very short notice. And that is a very unique feature of our portfolio, which one, that we are very proud of. Our further responses demonstrate that there are a number of positive attributes to our premises, including their location, their cleanliness, and the fact that we have very helpful and approachable professional staff manning our business centres in particular. There is also a high level of satisfaction or a consistent level of satisfaction, as I should say, with the rental levels that we charge. In fact, there's been very little movement over that response rate from last year, which I hope is encouraging. In the interest of balance, I did mention that there are areas of improvement and we did get some feedback from tenants suggesting that the improvements could be made in the premises. For example, there was some noise noted from across offices and the age-old problem of lack of car parking. And most answer to those feedback was whilst we are listening and would do all we can to mitigate those, a lot of the feedback seems to be very much a behavioural one, rather than something that we can physically change the building. So we can work with our tenants to educate them and encourage them to be mindful and respectful of their neighbours. What it also does I think, where there has been one or two physical suggestions that we need to tidy up premises, it does reinforce the need for the council to continue to invest in this portfolio and to implement its plan to prevent this maintenance strategy, which the team are developing at the moment. Finally, I'd also like to mention a very strong theme that came out when I was before you last year, and again this year, and that is about tenant support and engagement. We have a number of new members of the team this year, and we are very much focusing on how we can support and engage with our tenants even more fully. And I think a really good example of that would be that on the 18th of June, at the Market Deep in Business Centre of Entus, we are holding a tenant engagement breakfast seminar, where we've invited a ranger speakers to come and talk to our tenants. I think I'm writing saying that that's the first time we've done anything of that nature and of that magnitude, very much using as a test bed. And if it's as successful as we hope it will be, then our intention is to hold a second event in the later on in the year, but focusing in the north of the county, probably at Merckgway Housing Games, and recognizing that the people, our tenants, do them very busy lives, busy businesses, and their time is out of premium, so we will travel to them to provide that level of those services. So in summary, the structured interview approach, I do believe, has allowed for us to have a very informative discussion with our tenants. The feedback has been very similar to last year, and it does suggest that our portfolio is managing to hold its own at the present time. Looking ahead for the remainder of the year, that increased emphasis on tenant engagement will be a major focus for everybody. We're very much as well working towards that business engagement event, which I've mentioned, and looking to roll that out across the county. So just to keep summary from the paper Chairman, which I hope to have helped members this morning. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much, indeed. We'll start with the Vice Chairman, Kaster Griggs. Yeah, thank you very much. It's always a pleasure to read this report. I think it's a really useful service we offer businesses, and I spoke about that when the least report came, so I won't go over that again. I just have a couple of questions. Unfortunately, there's lies, damage, and statistics, 14% of people say this and there's 5 respondents. Is that representative of the whole of the feeling of the tenants? I'd imagine it is to be fair, but what assurances do we have that is representative? The only other thing I have a slight concern over is the occupancy levels table on page 241. The number of tenants in the quarter of '42 to '23 is 147. My mass makes it 145. I appreciate that that's rather pedantic, but it's the same number in the next year's figures, even though that number is 147. I didn't know whether that was a typo or whether we're missing potential numbers out of that table. I have a question that arrives from the 3% reduction in industrial occupancy by floor area. Is that just as a result of natural churn? I know leases go up by... I think it was RPI mentioned in the report, which we know last year was extremely high, so I didn't know that forced people out of the potential market. What sort of waiting lists do we have if any? Are we providing all the particular spaces that is required by the market? Is there large amounts more we could do in different areas? So like I said, I think it's a crucial service that the county support businesses finding their feet moving from being someone's garage one man band up to functioning businesses that employ people across the county. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councillor Griggs. I try to pick the key questions there. The first one is, in terms of the industrial occupancy and the 3% differentiation, I think I would put that down to the general churn. I don't think it's significant of any other major factor at this time, as I say. The satisfaction at our rental level is consistent, so I know that it's not because our rents have suddenly increased which is a big major deterrent. I think it's just the general churn in the market. I would certainly double check those numbers when I go back to the office. But what I would say is it is quite a dynamic portfolio, so the numbers do flow through it because we're always changing the area of space. For example, our business centres. A lot of the internal walls are demountable. So if a tenant wants to expand, we create space as much as we can. So it does tend to sort of show a change each year, but there are reasons for that in terms of how we are accommodating growing businesses or trying to release more business space if we're not maximising the space. That would account for that. Forgive me. Wasn't there another question? Yeah. It was in terms of do we have anyone on waiting lists that we can't accommodate and what a future capacity may be needed. Thank you for reminding me. No. We don't really have much of a waiting list. Before COVID, we did always have a waiting list at market deaping, which was always our most popular centre. But we are managed to accommodate all interest as it comes. Our industrials sometimes can be on the market for a month or two before we find occupiers. So we're not, we don't have a waiting list at the moment. Councillor Spraat, please. I'm allowed to speak again, Chairman. Councillor, thank you for the report, Simon. I'm particularly interested in the council's role as a facilitating body in terms of economic development and such like, and I know I got into trouble at a meeting previously, but talking about being an economic interventionist. And I think that the role of the council, so comments, rather questions, from Chairman, and I think that if we get devolved powers after the general election, whoever wins, I'm hoping that devolved powers will lead to more activity to build on the success that we've got in in local authority economic development. I noticed that in terms of expenditure and income, the expenditure is higher than the income that comes in. Shall we keep that a secret? If that goes any further behind me. But I also noted the 5th paragraph on page 2 and the 42 that we don't, we do review rents of course, but we try and keep them less than market level or perhaps not less. It responds, in response to market levels, so that it doesn't disadvantage our traders, for example, compared with elsewhere, and when everything else is going up, isn't it? The basic chairman, the fact that small businesses, medium-sized businesses, that's some larger businesses, who have premises, from us, at least there's a little bit of slack there for them, to encourage development and prosperity and economic growth generally. So a few comments, Chairman, rather questions, thank you. I have to say and you've just raised two points that I was going to raise, but far more eloquent than I would not. I absolutely agree with you. The point about the money, by the way, is one that I think we do need to keep an eye on. I know that some district councils run similar operations and do not run them at a cost. Now the cost is not small and I think the benefits are, sorry, the cost is small, a few hundreds of thousands and I think the benefits are very much outweigh the cost. It would be good to try and get this revenue neutral as quickly as possible. But I absolutely endorse Hilton's point. People often think there's this great gulf between local government and the private sector, and there isn't. Local government and, indeed, national government has a great role to use your word, Hilton, as a facilitator, and that's something we do and we do very well. Particularly when you look at the balance of business in our county, which is heavily swayed toward small businesses, SMEs, and indeed micro-businesses, providing them with a place to start, and often also through our economic development team, some guidance and help and advice, is absolutely key. You can't grow a garden without actually planting seeds, and that means you've got to have a fertile bed in which to plant them. These kind of facilities provide such a place where companies can establish, where companies can develop, where they can grow, and that adds to the prosperity of our county. Given our geographical mix of being somewhat isolated in parts of the county and also partly rural, having a good spread of these distributed across Lincolnshire is extremely important, so I'm sure the committee would join me in commending the work that is done by this team, and we look forward to your next report. Do we have any other questions or comments from members in the chamber? I'm seeing none in that case. Thank you, Chairman. Again, I missed the portfolio holder, who is way outside my line. My apologies, please cut ahead. Yeah, thank you, Chair. It's just a bit of a random one, but in terms of we've got any sort of evidence or any data or knowledge of how we got the right centres and industrial units and is that we offering something as well as the general business community, or is there a gap somewhere? I saw a program this morning, and there was some, I think it was Manchester, and they've got these 20 foot containers where they'd set up sort of little sewing things or an office, because it's not quite industrial units that size, but it's still very small scale. There's no way, if there's a gap in the mark, I'm not necessarily saying we'll fill it, but I'm just intrigued through it. Thank you for the question. I like to describe our portfolios offering the first wrong in the latter, so we provide the space for people to come out of their bedroom or at that garage and take that small-scale business space. What we have found traditionally is that the private sector is very willing and able to provide the second and third wrong in the latter, i.e. bigger space for what's the business established, and then they can take the risk of signing a five-year lease and being committed to that five-year lease. I think geographically we do have a very good spread of locations across the whole county, I think we're covered there. I think the size of our property is right, and I think the legal aspect, if you like, by a flexible lease is also filling the gap. I think we hold that portfolio in the way that we do, because the private sector wouldn't be willing to do so. The private sector could not take the risk of giving its tenants a rolling break at any time, so that really is, I do emphasise that, that is our unique selling point. We do provide new space and time to time, and we monitor the success of that. An example of that would be the whole beach, which we've provided some very small workshops there, and some office space. The reality is the office space has proven very popular. The very small micro-workshops have been less popular. We do test the market when budgets allow from time to time, but the evidence of our most recent experiments suggests we're in the right market with a physical... liner where we offer them. Thank you for that. Just one more thing, and it's more of a Commander's District responsibility. Have you had any sort of experience with pop-up shops? The short answer is no. We haven't got involved directly in the high streets, actually. The closest we would get is that one of our estates at Long Sutton, which we refer to as Holland Way, I would say we have some crazy retail units in there in terms of one of our tendencies as a nail operator. We also have a cafe, but we have never had a high street present to offer that sort of pop-up shop offer. We don't have any properties in our portfolio that would lend themselves to that, so we would have to become acquisitive if we were to do that with an economic infrastructure. And if we were to allow the city to do that, then there'd be none of that. I'll take the risk of saying it again, and hopefully I won't have missed any of you at this time. Are there any further comments or questions from Amy's side of the chamber at all? No. I'm making sure that my peripheral vision gets used this time. What I do with this Council does in that area. My proposal with Forest is as follows. I move that the Committee endorse the report that our satisfaction be recorded on the detail of measures employed to review the Council's portfolio of business. I'm very very happy that this is very positive because nobody expressed a view. And I do think that is shared with relevant officers and portfolio holders for their information and further actioning. Any dissent from that? If so, please show now. In that case, thank you very much. That is agreed. The committee work program, and you will find this item on pages 245 to 250 of the agenda pack, and it enables the Committee to comment on the content of the work program. It will be presented by Chiara Hazziano, scrutiny officer, and our actions are to review the work program and highlight any additional scrutiny activity which would be included for consideration in it. Over to you, Chiara. Thank you very much, Chairman. So, yes, in the interest of saving time, I just would like to take your attention to page 246 and to our next meeting, which is to be held on the 9th of July 2024. We will be taking four reports at that meeting as things stand at the moment, we're anticipating the adult learning provision for 2023, 2024, and plans for the 24, 25, academic year. We are due to the business linkage, growth, annual performance and future business support landscape report, which is also an annual position report. We will be reviewing quarter four service level performance reporting on the KPIs for economy, flooding and waste. And last but not least, we are due a paper on the transition of local enterprise partnerships. Other than that, the work program has not been amended or changed since the publication of this agenda pack. However, until the next meeting, we may have any changes in accordance with the forward plan for the council. If there's any other items that members would like to bring to my attention, please do that either now or offline. And the same goes for officers. I am working with them constantly to make sure that the work program remains up to date and that the needs and wishes of this committee are reflected through the works program for the next few months. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Keanu. Does anyone have a question or a comment? I am seeing none in that case. The proposal before this is I move that we note the report and approve the existing work program as detailed in pages 245 to 250. Does anyone dissent? I am seeing no dissent. Thank you very much. That is agreed. And that brings us at slightly after 12.15, which was our program time, almost 10 minutes past 1, 8 minutes past 1, to the end of the meeting. Thank you, everybody, for your attendance. Thank you to those who have followed the meeting on our livestream or website. And that brings the meeting to a close. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. [BLANKAUDIO]