Transcript

May's meeting of the County Council executive welcome to all and welcome to members of the public in the gallery and Have we got any members of the public on screen? Oh, well, welcome to them anyway, if they do come so very pleased to have you here and We'll go through this in a point agenda. So without further ado. Could I ask for? Could I ask for apologies, please Thank you. We have apologies from Andrew Crookham executive director for resources But we have Andrew McLean assistant director corporate transformation program here in its place Thank you very much Have I any declarations of interest? Councillor McNally Thank you later. Just a gen agenda item number seven, which is the minerals and waste local plan. I Do have a DPI on the site is listed on appendix 2 of the policies map Predominantly the thing is about minerals and this is waste but I think in the interest of transparency. I'll leave the room Just you want to advise councilman Ali if it's I Think thank you leader just to make you aware that I've had a number of pieces of correspondence reference The item 7 the minerals and waste local plan. Thank you Yes, I think we've all had a lot of correspondence which has all been shared and circulated. So all the exact members are all aware of Quite a substantial amount of correspondence both over the weekend, but previously as well Okay, any further so we'll note those has all been recorded of the correspondence Okay, anything else then? Okay any announcements by leader exact counselors or please? Have I any I just want to enter an update on the Deepings Leisure Center Thank you very much So when we continue to be in discussions with the community interest group around the Deepings Leisure Center Currently because they were due to put in an application for the Community Ownership Fund But because of the general election that's been paused So I propose to have another meeting with them after the general election when we know the position of that fund in a bit more detail And the only other announcement obviously with devolution unfortunately, it wasn't quite advanced enough to be able to go through the Government sweep up before the dissolution of Parliament. So that again is on hold Although we are very close to having an agreement, but you'll also be up to the new minister and government To decide to proceed along with several other potential devolution areas as well Okay, any further announcements? Okay Then I'll move on to item for then minutes of the meeting of this Executive on the 8th of May usual wish I sign those as a true and accurate record. Is that agreed? No, very good Okay with your permission then because obviously item 7 has as we all aware created a lot of interest just so that people who are Interested in that and perhaps not quite so interested in some of the other items on the agenda I propose that we move item 7 to To be the next item that we discuss. Is that agreed? Okay, then so we'll go on to item 7 then which is an extra minerals waste local plan preferred up approach to updating the plan and you'll see from your From your packs if actually what that means is The officers are asking permission to go out to consultation on the refreshed plan And here's the whole of Lincoln share not just one part of Lincoln chair And I'll say house crew has proved some quite controversial in in certain parts So I'm going to ask councilor Davey to introduce and then we'll go through the paper I think we need to be go through it very carefully. Thank you Thank you leader and you have touched upon the fact that this is a statutory document it's a formal process that is underway and the final decision in relation to The adoption of the mineral waste local plan refresh is a matter reserved to the full council as you all aware I'm going to ask Andy Gutherson to take us through the background the paper And the detail and then I'm sure we'll want to have a good debate about the various issues raised Okay, as you say full council, but we recommend After the potential out of the consultation that goes to the future full council. Thank you Yeah, just to clarify This is the beginning of the process in terms of it goes out to consultation. We receive the views of communities people affected statutory bodies It comes back into the the officer corps who then write the report that comes back to the executive To decide whether we wish to recommend it to full council or whether we want to amend it at that point Before it goes to full council There is a process and of course as an examination in public by the planning Inspectorate in relation to the soundness of what we've agreed so there are a number of checks and balances in the development of this process and of this plan and this is something the council's gone through and on a number of occasions as you know, we adopted the minimal waste local planning 2017 so this is a refresh of that With new information, so it's like that. We do a proper examination of it today to make sure it's sound And that we hear the comments of people Before we make a final decision about whether it goes to consultation or not or whether it needs needs any other kind of discussion around it, so if Andy can take us through the paper Thank You councillor Davey just going to provide an introduction then I'll ask Neil McBride as I had a planning to run through a more detailed presentation Not to labor the point the key points I was just going to stress with the points that councillor Davey has largely indicated that this is a statutory document the ultimate approval of the document is a council decision with as you say councillor Hill a recommendation from the executive the process that we are seeking authorization for for today is to take the preferred approach document out to Consultation so that we can be a fully aware of all of the considerations that then need to be taken into account for us then deciding what the the next draft of the local plan will then encompass as councillor Davey's indicated that process also involves an examination in public and the document that goes to the examination will be the document that is signed off by Council and After the examination in public the recommendation that comes back from the Planning Inspector Will also be referred back to Council before you finally adopt the document as as the authority So there are a number of further opportunities for full Democratic oversight of the process that we go through in terms of the the detail of the process that Neil had outlined There are obviously quite a number of representations on one particular site that we're all aware of Would remind members that this is a policy document that does cover the whole of Lincolnshire and by not having an up-to-date Waste and minerals local plan that can cause risks for speculative developments in other parts of the county Which could also then result in Standalone planning applications coming forward which may not be considered In line with our existing policy position because of that being outdated So the need to review this in an appropriate and a timely manner and follow through the statutory requirements So Neil a reference that this is the regulation 18 consultation. There's a statutory requirement to go through that in a set way And the result of that will enable us then to determine if there are further revisions or changes to the plan that are appropriate So there is a due process which again in the context of the examination that will take place The Planning Inspector will be particularly concerned to make sure that we follow due process at every particular moment in time a local plan not being adopted because we fail the test of soundness would be an embarrassment for the Organization in terms of not having followed due process so if I let Neil just so go through it a bit more detail and He'll try and pick up on some of the points that we know have been raised in Correspondence to help the debate and discussion that follows. Thank you Thank You Andy good morning leader and a counselors is it possible to have the presentation please just to Provide some background and context to the paper. I've prepared a presentation which I'll go through next slide, please So just Coming back to sort of basics the existing local plan is divided into two parts so we have a site location document, which was Adopted in 2017 and the core strategy and development management policies document, which was adopted in 2016 the approach that we're taking this time around is to basically put that in one document So it contains both the development management policies and the proposed site locations Which we feel is probably easier and simpler for both communities and industries To to work with next slide, please So in terms of the process There's already been some mention of the different stages that we go through So already we've undertaken a consultation on the issues and options that was undertaken in 2022 we're now at the preferred approach Stage which is what we're seeking Executive approval to commence consultation on and has already been mentioned. There are further stages That require to come back through scrutiny Executive and full counsel before we get to the formal adoption process Next stage, please Please so in terms of where we've got to the issues and options was consulted on in summer 2022 Which is the first stage and that was basically to try and identify the issues We needed to take into consideration in reviewing the minerals and waste local plan also, we Set out to industry to require or ask them to bring forward Sites that they wanted to be included in the site location part of the document and we've undertaken the call for sites process That also included a site selection methodology. So we indicated in that document the issues that we would take into account in terms of Assessing and evaluating those sites that were put forward at that stage that was undertaken In the summer of 2022 and Following on from that to call for sites we undertook a targeted consultation at the end of 22 running over into beginning of 2023 in terms of seeking views of Stakeholders in terms of the information that have been provided in the call for sites document to see if there was any potential showstoppers Which would mean that? sites that have been put forward weren't appropriate to take the next stage and that's largely been the work that's been undertaken since That process was undertaken in 2023 at the start of 2023 we've been evaluating the responses looking for where necessary further information from developers and Basically putting together the necessary documentation For the stage that we're currently at in terms of the preferred approach next slide, please So this is the second stage of the process It sets out the prepared approach to planning for minerals and waste and Lincolnshire up until 2041 So basically we have to plan for 15 years beyond the adoption and currently Where if we follow the current timetable the proposal would be that we would be looking to adopt in 2026 so 15 years from that takes us to 2041 It contains a full suite of proposed policies and provisional mineral site allocations the preferred Sites that at this stage that we're putting forward Recommended that are put forward for consultation We're proposing to publish for public consultation to allow communities and stakeholders to provide their views and suggested alternative approaches were appropriate and from the results of that That consultation feedback. I think it's probably also important just to recognize at this stage that when we did our initial targeted Consultation on the sites that were put forward the call for site stage back to basically represented probably one page per site and the document that we're looking to take forward as part of the consultation the assessment forms go to 20 pages plus so there's a lot more information at this stage in terms of Seeking the information from Communities and the stakeholders and that what was available about first Targeted consultation next slide, please So in terms of the things that we need to take into consideration so through the local aggregates Takes place behind the scenes we've basically identified for the plan period a shortfall of sand and gravel 21 Million tons and crushed rock limestone 10 million tons So you hold on just to explain what you mean by short for that so basically over the the plan period There's a calculation that's undertaken in terms of what minerals we expect to be needed for I suppose the local economy in terms of Construction sites and things like that and also bearing in mind What's been produced in previous years, so there's various sorts of variables that go into To that assessment and also The central government will basically through the local aggregates Association basically set Targets or amounts of minerals for different regions, so the East Midlands West Midlands and whatever and that basically is Where we're getting our figures from so Andy is that that this is something we have to do I don't know just to explain the policy context. Yes. So one of the principles in the local plan Is that we have to make appropriate provision for the future delivery of? aggregates and waste sites in the context of the likely generation of Need through the construction industry So if you align this also to what the district councils as local planning authorities have to cater for they have housing targets The expectation is those housing targets are delivered You can't deliver against those housing targets unless you can create the more raw materials that enables those housings to be delivered So in a unitary authority The waste issues that the mineral is issues that we're talking about today Would also be picked up in their local plans alongside their housing targets and it would be one joined up position about making sure that the? economy can deliver Obviously ourselves as a highway authority We have provision for a number of major road schemes that requires aggregates for those road schemes to be delivered as well So again, whilst there's not a direct link between our work as the highway authority and the provision of the local plan that there's an assessment made of the likely and expected materials that are needed for the economy to continue to Deliver I indicated at the beginning if we don't have an up-to-date local plan. That's where you then create the risk of Speculative development for sites by developing a policy framework and allocated sites You can provide an understanding and an expectation of where those sites will come forward You will always know as local members the frustration that gets caused on your patches when housing sites come forward There are not in accordance with the district local plan So it's that same type of arrangement as a minerals and waste planning authority We have to make that provision as well And again in terms of waste sites, we need to make projections in terms of understanding the likely waste That will be produced over the plan period so again We take account of increased housing numbers increased commercial development and therefore the likely increased in waste tonnage that therefore needs to be dealt with Hence why there will be further waste sites that are also part and parcel of the proposals that are in front of you today In terms of this we have to have a credible supply. Okay Okay, thank you Leader yeah, we've got two slides, please So, yeah in terms of why we have to do that, I think that's just been explained and Part of the way that we're seeking to to deal with that Shortfall is to carry forward existing allocations within the current local plan which haven't yet been implemented or excavated where there hasn't been any significant change in circumstances and From that call for science. We're allocating additional slides Where which as I say have been nominated from those sites that have been put forward by developers Which we feel meet the necessary tests to to take forward as a preferred allocation and also Finally we're moving away from a sort of an arrangement which was put created in the 1991 minerals local plan in terms of having three distinct production areas we're moving away from that and now and doing on a countywide basis rather than that previous approach which was to To basically focus on three different production areas next slide, please So These are the sites that are either in the existing minerals local plan that haven't yet been Excavated and therefore still available in table 1 table 2 is the preferred sand and gravel sites, which we are recommending from the sites that have been put forward at the latest call for sites exercise and Table 3 is these sites with identified in terms of limestone our previous local plan We didn't have a particular need for limestone. So there was no limestone sites allocated at that time We've identified this time around but we do need to there will be a potential shortfall of Limestone and that's why at this time around we did a call for sites which included limestone And those are the sites that at this stage. We're currently recommending to be taken forward for the consultation stage next slide, please In terms of the site assessment and selection process and there's Methodology that we've put in place in terms of The sites that are submitted and then we're we assess them on based on that methodology So we've undertaken initial tiger to consultation site visits Have been taken have taken place to visit to look at to the sites where appropriate we've requested further information from site promoters and a detailed report will accompany the preferred approach Document in terms of site allocation at the consultation stage which will settle out all that information and will be available for public scrutiny and obviously for the public to and stakeholders to comment on on that approach and the sites that we're Proposing to take forward as preferred sites I think it's important to that last bullet point to recognize that this provisional Allocation is at the very start of the process. So this isn't set and setting it in stone There will be opportunities depending on the results of the consultation feedback, which will be assessed and if necessary We can make changes before we get to the next stage, which is the submission stage and Potentially add sites in or take sites out depending on that consultation exercise and our assessment of those responses next slide, please Obviously, I'm aware that one site in particular has generated a lot of Before we go into specific sites We just talked about the whole plan. I Think to be fair. This is important for a lot of people Yeah, you know just before and I think we need to talk about this specific side But I just wonder if we just stop there at this stage and then talk about the generality if I could just maybe just Go on to the slot of a slide beyond that which picks up some of the consultation material I know there's been a question raised about the consultation material that wasn't available for For this committee and also scrutiny and whether you want me at this stage to give some Explanation to that or whether that can wait We can do the console chat, yeah, just talk about the consultation is that the next slide But it might be the next one of the one further on you just bring the slides back up This is just the next slide next one, please So in terms of the supporting documents these are the documents that will accompany the Consultation which currently aren't available. So the site assessment reports will go into detail in terms of including the sites that we're proposing for Inclusion and also the discounted sites and that will also contain Significant information as to why those selections have been made whether To bring those sites forward or to discount them And also the methodology that's used second document is a consultation statement and that will set out the Information or the responses and feedback which were received the issues and options and the targeted consultation stage which took place in 2022 The interim sustainability appraisal is a technical document which looks at the sustainability of the approach of the plan and As councils will be aware These sort of plans will require that sustainability analysis to take place to make sure that things are undertaken in appropriate economic and Sort of the environmental way and that's sustainable Sustainability appraiser will do that habitat regulations assessment We'll look at some nature conservation specific issues and make sure that's been undertaken in the appropriate way and finally the Strategic fluid risk assessment We'll look at the potential for any of these sites in relation to flood risk and again to make sure that we're not Promoting sites that would potentially include increase the risk of flooding in any particular area Those will be available to The consultation stage which at the moment subject to the executive of approval We would like to start in early July and all those documents will be available To accompany that consultation process. I think in terms of why they're not available today We have taken a pragmatic approach in terms of making sure that the most essential document Which is the preferred approach document is available and that is provided as an appendix These some of these other documents we have relied on and consultant support and some of those Reports hadn't been provided in the time that we had hoped for and rather than potentially delaying the process and also there is precedent because for the previous local plan Both the scrutiny and executive committees at those time didn't have those documents so that was considered to be sound previously and there is a balance between Obviously wanting to move this forward can see we're aware of the local interest Particularly in one part of the county but elsewhere and to continue to delay the consultation we feel Would not be in the interests of okay I think we'll part that because obviously we haven't heard from German scrutiny yet. So just in terms of I think that will be a point of discussion later. I think it wasn't the scrutiny I'm sure but I'll wait for can't counsel Carrington. Can I just ask exactly end of your presentation? All right, I'll let you do that And this is the next step so what we're obviously seeking today is to seek the executive approval to start the preferred approach consultation in early July which will be for at least six weeks that will give the local communities and stakeholders an opportunity to make comments and put forward alternative approaches There'll be an opportunity for developers to put forward further sites, which they didn't put forward at the initial call for sites and at the end of that process we will prepare prepare the Appropriate reports to come back to scrutiny executive and full counsel with the proposed submission version of the plan and if that is approved then we go to To the planning spectrum to start the examination in public Thank you very much for Neil. Yes Complicated but comprehensive. I'm going to hand over to Councillor Carrington, but just I've got one question on the Call for sites you've just been through. So can we just clarify that there were some extra sites put in Following on the you got the current sites on the current plan of some more sites being put in and where any sites Deallocated on the what's currently on the plan so in terms of The sites that we currently have in the current local plan We haven't deallocated or discounted any of those sites all the ones that haven't been worked Being up we're proposing to take forward into the next round New science being added in There's been no new science to the existing But the the where we were obviously have gone through an exercise where we're seeking additional sites for the next plan But obviously we haven't yet completed that process. And so this is this is part of the process of assessing those new sites As to whether we take those forward or not So you have two calls for sites then just so I understand so we have the initial call for sites in July August 2022, which we have 31 sites which were put forward From those 31 sites. We narrowed that down to the numbers that we are now proposing to take forward to the Preferred approach Consultation but as part of that consultation There's also an opportunity for developers who felt they missed the first round to put forward sites in this second round of consultation How's the Carrington scrutiny comments and there was lots of it. Thank you. So I'll hand over to you Thank you very much indeed chairman and good morning colleagues Yes chairman at our last meeting which was on the 28th of May the committee considered the report before us and Following hearing statements from the ward local members and the West Deepings Parish Council chairman and mr. Fuller We unanimously agreed not to support the recommendations in the report to the executive board Excuse me. Now two members of the board attended our meeting and a full Report was sent to you within 24 hours. So I will keep this summary concise and to the key issues Firstly, I think it's important to understand what the committee did not do on the 28th The minerals and waste local plan is a long and complex document as we've been hearing from our officers this morning And it covers a wide range of matters the committee's discussion and the comments put to the committee Related to just one element the proposed the potential extension of an allocated minerals extraction site known as sg 17 Moreover members concerns were not fundamentally with the process and again, we've heard that said out again this morning but with certain Specifics the process was made clear to the committee and was clearly understood by members it was stressed during the meeting that the committee was not a decision-making body in the matter and Also that its deliberations fitted into a larger picture following its meeting there would be a public consultation subject to the agreement of this board and a further iteration of the plan would then return to the Committee and the board for additional public scrutiny and discussion Before a decision on a draft to be taken by the board and full council and thence on to an inquiry in public So committee members concerns were not really with the process with one caveat, which I'll come to but with the available evidence on which the proposed Consultation would be made members noted that a number of documents then under preparation would not Would according to officers be completed by July but were not available to the committee and they felt they had inadequate information to endorse the details of a Consultation which they had not seen that really was the crux of the matter If I can turn briefly to some of the specifics which the committee discussed We heard from local representatives that there were fears of the site sg-17 being an unsound and unsafe selection Which did not align with LCC site selection policies as it fell under exclusionary Criterion 5 being immediately adjacent to the grade 2 listed Molcie mill Notwithstanding evidence of a robust and comprehensive assessment of the site it was believed that the initial assessment may have failed to identify fully these Exceptions and may have failed to explore the broader impacts on the local community which Believed that it would suffer from the cumulative impact of continuous quarrying on the village on the landscape locally and on Ecology and in relation to that latter point around the local environment and ecology We heard that the southern boundary of proposed plans which followed the river well And that may cause damage to the river's flow and stability and I'll come back to that I don't think that the actual texts of consortee advice were made available to us Particular concern was expressed relating to the details of advice given by historic England Relating to the nearby heritage asset Mansey Mill and details of what? Aggregation that body might find acceptable if the proposed extraction were to going were to go ahead Similarly go back to the river well and whilst officers gave assurances concerning impacts on and by the river well And members were concerned that they did not have sufficient detail relating to Hydrological impacts or potential hydrological impacts to endorse the consultation as it was put to the committee On a procedural note while not objecting to the overall process, which is we've heard from mr. Gutherson is a statutory one Some members did express concern with the proposed timing of the consultation which would take place during the summer holidays Chairman this one always comes up. I'm a parish counselor myself I have with my heart some considerable sympathy with that I have to say conversely that as someone who also has to undertake consultations I fully understand that time tied in public governments really wait for no one There is a balance to be struck in these matters to ensure that they are dealt with in a fair and timely manner But I draw that concern by some members to the board's attention I think in any case it's fair to categorize that as a subsidiary matter the main concern of committee members Being that in relation to the material considerations that I've outlined They did not feel that they had sufficient information to endorse the recommendation before them which was to support the proposal to the board that the Consultation should go ahead and they felt that due to the gravity of the concerns that they expressed and asked that the board defer a Decision on that consult consultation Chairman after the meeting to conclude I did ask that all the committee's comments and all the evidence including all the material put to us by local residents and local bodies should be made available to the board to make sure your members were Fully informed in your debate and hopefully help facilitate you having the information you need When you consider this important matter, thank you chairman. Thank you very much for that comprehensive report just to On that last point that hasn't come forward yet as it the information that Scrutiny requested it came to this committee. I'm not that I'm aware of German. I'm asking the officers I know that that was the list of reports that This is Right, okay. Do you want to as officers just respond to the some of those reports about concerns about the unsafe around and sound The river and the time the timing of the consultation Obviously some various points are raised. You want to just respond to those those points, please In terms of the timing obviously a consultation can take place At any time it's there's always some sort of concerns about that when that is We feel that if the consultation starts in early July That will give a period of two or three weeks before the school holiday starts and then obviously there's a period of when it moves into the into the holiday period it's noted that the Recommendation is for a minimum period of six weeks So if it was felt that a further period of time would be helpful, then there's no reason why The executive can't extend that consultation beyond the six-week period so that deals with the time in in terms of some of the sort of more specific issues that have been raised around the impact on rivers and water courses those issues were picked up when the site was originally Allocated in the 2017 document and I think the issues That have been raised this time around were also raised previously so in terms of historic England and impacts on Listed buildings those issues were also included in the development brief last time around so that they're not completely new issues That haven't been sort of previously dealt with and say those went through the due process and they went forward to a plan inspector who concluded that the evidence that was provided was done in a sound and Safe way and also I think the other point in terms of consultation documents again When we were at this stage Five it was maybe ten years ago now Again, those all those documents weren't provided to the scrutiny and the executive and again that wasn't found to be compromised by the By the by the plan inspector when when he dealt with the examination so I think we're we're comfortable that there's a precedent has been set that previously all those consultation documents weren't available for the scrutiny and executive but were and Importantly were available for that local consultation and people will see that stage fair to say though Ten years ago. There wasn't a lot of I don't seem to remember there was a lot of People coming back with all with concerns from my memory brother No, certainly I'm just saying the point but obviously we are a different we seem to be in a different scenario. Can I just yeah, that's fine. So thank you for that and yeah, I mean and just I mean we are talking about and just in terms of legally We if we chose to do this is a site The site we're talking about the one in question the deep inside Just talk us through if we were to deallocate a certain site out of a plan From a plan which has already been agreed. What? what's your advice on that matter without consultation of course because You know, I just think that if you try and do something that allow us even going to consultation I'm not sure that would be sound and just wonder your thoughts on that So If I can take you back to the issues and options paper that Neil referred to that we consulted on that established the principles that we were going to take as an authority in determining which sites to bring forward and that Document clearly identified that those sites that were not not yet Started extraction would be rolled forward unless any material considerations indicated otherwise So the site that's created the significant interest on this occasion is one of those sites that in essence We had established the principles that we would work to and we would bring it forward So in the context of the legal implications for us as the Planning Authority Bringing forward a plan. We've told all parties all stakeholders all communities all industry reps that was the process that we would actually follow if we were now to sort of Effectively subvert that process this early in the pro in the plan making process Without having going to full and extensive consultation. We would almost certainly Bring ourselves open to a form of legal challenge now within all of this process at different stages all of the parties whether it's developers stakeholders interested communities can of course take a view that we're outside a process but my View and advice is we set out a process. We're going to follow. We're now seeking authorization to take this version of the document out to consultation if on the back of that consultation response that Changes the view of the suitability of any of the sites That would be the point in time where the authority could take a view as to whether either to take those sites out or as Neil's indicated if on the basis of all the sites that at that stage might be brought forward by other promoters which May consider therefore are more appropriate That would be the point in the process where you would make those changes to do it at this stage would carry risks for challenge From a variety of parties I would suggest which would be difficult to defend and if we then proceeded on that basis without having had challenge my view would almost certainly a planning inspector would take a view that the plan process might have been unsound and we may then find That it's referred back to us at that stage which then creates further delay before you actually have a fully adopted local plan So my advice would be to guard against taking any site out at this moment in the process because we've not been to full and extensive consultation Thing I had chief legal is that are you agreeing with that? Leader I couldn't put it better myself quite frankly. That's a very comprehensive response, which I fully support So just to clarify in terms of you what you said because part of the correspondence I've received is the previous Allocation of this site didn't take into account with this to building the river, but you're clear that that actually was all discussed at the time Yeah Absolutely, and I'd refer you to the adopted document I think it's page 49 of the adopted site allocation document Which provides the full development brief for the particular site? that we're referring to but I would also identify that within that document all sites have also got a Extensive development brief and that identifies a number of considerations in relation to the natural environment Historic and cultural environment flood risk and water resources and other planning considerations, which would all have to be Addressed and dealt with at the stage where a planning application comes forward So again, just to remind all members is this is the policy document On the back of this policy document and the site allocations that are in that document developers still then need to bring forward detailed planning applications which have to meet the requirements that set out in our development brief and have to comply with all of the other development management policies that will be set out in the document and Then would be subject to debate and discussion of planning committee I don't think any members of this executive currently sit on the planning committee but you'll be aware obviously at that stage the detailed consideration and the matters that probably you all see in your post bags when matters are coming forward in planning applications and the way that those Matters are dealt with and considered at that stage and it is It's not not unheard of that Even if a site has been allocated that if the appropriate mitigation doesn't come forward Planning permission can be refused at that stage because they haven't met the expectations that are set out in the policy document Thank you very much. Right questions comments, please Councillor woolly Thank You Lita and I'll start with an apology because I think this is probably going to be a little bit long-winded Ms. 29 at some point became sg-17 and I believe that I've seen all of the information which agrees that sg-17 was part of Ms. 29 and so has already as it were being approved But the bit that I'm not clear on is if it's acceptable 29 Did not have any plant referenced on it But sg-17 does have plant referenced on it. So is that a Big material difference or does it not? Factor into account a particularly for the cup from the consultation point of view Are we consulting on a piece of bare ground or are we consulting on a piece of ground that has plant on it? Thank you So we're looking at I suppose the additional Proposals that have been put forward in over and above which was currently in our current local plan, so the the the proposal in our or the the site which is in our current Local plan is just for the extraction of minerals from that site What's now being put forward by a developer is to also to construct to extract minerals from that site But also to place a processing plant and also an access point and on to that site and we've taken a view that given the Extraction of the minerals was already established From the the previous local plan. We've focused our assessment on those additional elements, which is the batching plant and the and the access and that's how we've assessed the The the proposed site on that basis given that the fallback position has already been explained that we would take forward any Implemented sites Into the next local plan. That's the the position would be set out and we've looked at this site and said well what's different and they did the differences the processing plant and the access and that's where we've Sort of focused our assessment on a Okay, so remembering the answer to my last question which was don't deallocate Strong advice which I think we accept but this is a new Development. So does that advice still pertain to potential plants? Yes, yes in essence so the site allocation is Established in our adopted plan being subject to due process the additional considerations That have been assessed as being appropriate to bring forward on the basis of how the site would be developed Is that the batching plant and the access are appropriate and necessary? The fallback position as Neil's indicated would be that we would have still just rolled the site forward if as a result of the consultation Exercise which will be a full consultation exercise with all parties the industry Stakeholders and community if as a consequence of that it was considered that the either Either or the batching plant and or the access were inappropriate Then at that stage it could be a consideration for both Officers in their recommendations to you and to members to determine that actually the site was still subject to all of the previous Considerations and allocation was appropriate but the batching plant and or the access may or may not be appropriate but again in in the relation to the advice provided before The time to make that view and that decision is when you've got full consideration of the facts and the information when you've had a full comprehensive consultation exercise Thank you, and it's following on from that and I hear what you say but if a site was included in the 2017 Plan with apparently no objections and it's satisfied Policy at the time. What weight does that have in a possible? Deallocation challenge if it's not included in the the new plan So in terms of the pure allocation of the land alone as an extraction site All of the considerations back in the run-up to was adopting the plan in 2017 as it is Neil's indicator That was the same process that we went through on this occasion. So 2017 is the the end point in that process. So you've gone through various stages of consultation So that whole process has taken two to three years to get to that point All of that information is material and the consideration would have to be what is materially different in terms of the site in isolation and At this moment in time I would suggest that in the context of all of the considerations that are in the local plan document Relation to natural environment historic environment access arrangements and meanity etc indicate that all of those matters were given full and due proper consideration of that stage and there is nothing to indicate there is a material change to those matters for example the physical Attributes of the site remain the same the physical attributes of the heritage Assets in and around the village remain exactly the same. They haven't changed. There's been no additions to those So again the context of how you address and consider the site in relation to those surrounding assets is exactly the same Counselor Davis Thank you a couple of questions. I'm moving slightly up the a15 Conscious over the years that we've had considerable transport issues in and around Access through places like Langtoff Boston. You'll be very familiar with them now I can see and I get the argument that you know When planning permission is given we can put transport routing arrangements in at this stage Is there anything we can do to make that more rigorous? Because I am conscious enforcing these things is quite difficult and I just wonder with a lot of these sites particularly A-57 Is there something that we could do a little bit more intelligently around making the Transport routing more rigorous so that we can perhaps as we go into a consultation at some point Alleviate some of these concerns because I know that will come up Less so we kind of swindled be in the Trent Valley area, but particularly the a15 corridor I think is a concern and to a certain extent the kirby on bain site. I think also has similar issues And my second question is is there a particular time constraint for this whole process? And I'd like to come back on that depending on the answers In terms of the transport question I think that as part of the process as it goes forward and we look to do a development brief those sort of issues in terms of transport and the impact on the local highway network and whether they could be mitigated through a section 106 agreement or Necessary engineering works. Those are things that we could identify that the developer would need to bring forward in their Application so we can draw it to their attention and say these are the things that obviously the evidence supports that then that's what they'll need to do to to justify their application So we can give them I suppose a steer on on those sort of issues of things that we would feel that would need to Be done to make it acceptable And I think in terms of the second point in terms of the overall timeline for the process We have a statement of community involvement which sets out our intended a timeline for actually delivering the local plan We are slightly out of kilter with that already in the context of delays in the process to date So we can amend that and we can push the timescales out in terms of what we believe might be the appropriate time That'll take us to actually get to the final adoption That's our call the risk that comes with that is the fact that then we are we've already admitted that our local plan needs to be reviewed and therefore I would suggest that there is a Risk where developers then take a view that we've admitted that we're in a review process If that review process has been delayed, we run the risk of more Speculative developments not just for mineral sites but waste sites Which their starting point would be we've got an out-of-date local plan and therefore as a result of that They feel that they can make those proposals acceptable now again That doesn't necessarily mean they would be Acceptable because the planning application of that time would be judged on its merits There'd be a range of other material considerations, but the longer it takes us to carry out the review process There is a risk that we create To those communities that could come under pressure from speculative development Yeah, thank you for that I hear what you're saying about the day I don't think we're delaying the review We just my suggestion is I think we need to look at the timeline for this and perhaps extending it slightly in particular I I have a lot of sympathy for the scrutiny committee in terms of the documentation not being available I think it's an issue for us here today And I personally I think we've well, we've had the consultation questions before us before leader I think that's been a really useful experience to be able to say this is the package that's going out to the public I think that so that's very powerful We don't have that in front of us at the moment and I wonder whether some thought with some Consideration should be given to whether we say let's get that documentation back through the scrutiny committee back to us we can hold additional meetings if need be just so that the true the Processes is clear and transparent and that as many members as possible are getting the opportunity to review the the complete Information rather than the no doubt what you do will be good But I think for for clarity sake I think bearing in mind the level of sensitivity and concerns expressed Notwithstanding what happened last time, but I think this time is what would we're living and breathing what's happening today And I think that is that's a risk we run. So I think I would actively support is doing that later if that's at all possible Thank You councillor Davis, I mean personally I do think that there is an issue about we've been requesting I'll see the question Request Where you know weren't satisfied that all the information or most of the information wasn't there So in terms of I don't see why it's not possible to defer a decision for one month So to enable your team andy to actually get as much of this information to us again I think the principles are pretty clear. We've had very strong advice about You know not taking some precipitive action at this stage, but I do feel that It is best practice that we have as much information. So and then obviously then there will have to be a presume another scrutiny committee to do it, but the proposal is then that The next executive in July and also conscious that we mustn't we shouldn't delay this too much longer because a for the reasons given But also to minimize the uncertainty of all the communities which you have have to have these Waste and mineral sites close to them. So as your proposal we defer for a month is it councillor Davis? Yes, we defer for a month to give the scrutiny committee time to review the missing documentation and the complete package to come to us In due course for approval the additional information or nearly all of it, but I'm sure some of it will be More mundane, but I think the important list and I think it's important. We actually know which sites were Discounted because obviously it's a choice, isn't it? But anyway is anybody you can second that Councillor leader, I'm happy to second that. All right councillor, but tried I seconded all those in favor of that. Please show Thank you. That's agreed then. So that's what we will do and I'll see You'll have sorry guys, but you will have to give you a bit of a quicker work, but it's got to be done Anyway, so thank you for that. I think that is I think in principle we understand what we need to do But I think we just need that bit more of information. Thank you for your attendance Okay Okay Move on to item five then which is the carbon management plan Councillor Davie Thank you very much leader. I'm gonna ask Chris Miller to take us through the paper Obviously, this is excuse me. This is carbon management plan for we've had three successful plans to date and I think we can be very proud of what we've achieved and As a council in terms of our carbon reductions over the years. I think we've been proactive I think we've also been pragmatic in our decision-making around this issue and I think It's a great great credit to not just the executive but the whole council and all the members of the council who supported the journey we've been on I think it's It's probably safe for me to say that we've probably done some of the easy stuff and it becomes more challenging going forward as we Try to reach out towards what the government has laid out in its strategy around net zero But I'll let Chris take us through the paper first, and I'm sure we'll have a good discussion about it Thank You council Davie good morning executive Yes, so the paper before you is the seeking of adoption by the Council of carbon management plan for Our previous carbon management plan covered the period 2016 to 2024 We recently commissioned WSP to review the progress made over that timeframe Draw together the opportunities for going forward into the next iteration being the report that's been before you now And that will take us up to the proposed period up to 2030 The actions in the plan are aligned to lower our greenhouse gas emissions in pursuit of meeting the green master plan target of being net zero in terms of those emissions by 2050 During the period of the last plan Councils and taken a number of initiatives as Councillor Davies mentioned across services to improve energy efficiency most notably through the rationalization of our property asset and investment in the public sector decarbonization scheme and savings sale it's Revolving fund for energy efficiency the principal scheme within that has been the swapping out of older sodium streetlight bulbs for more efficient LED bulbs In total, we've managed to reduce our gas consumption by 23 and a half percent and our electricity come consumption by 28 and a half percent over the plan period Adding this to the national decarbonization of the electricity grid means our reduction is just under 45% in terms of energy usage and this is predominantly across buildings and transport work in the next plan We will we will look to continue these themes but also to focus on one known as the scope three or indirect emissions from our outsource services and Contract arrangements such as the highways contracts and the care and school states Whilst clearly there's been a beneficial impact on the environment is also had a budgetary impact especially across the electricity bills 2016-17 we consumed 38.7 million kilowatt hours of electricity and that is now reduced to 27.7 million kilowatt hours in 2022-23 The significance of this is following the Russian invasion of Ukraine prices of electricity jumped significantly by 20 pence Our reduction of 11 million kilowatt hours has meant that we have not had to find the 5.5 million pounds Which would have been needed at the previous consumption rates The actions in the new plan are designed to meet a target of a 25% reduction on current greenhouse gas emissions However, we have to recognize as council Davis said that much of the low-hanging fruit has been achieved and further work is now required across Services to deliver greater interventions the new plan takes a broader focus than the previous iterations and we're seeking to embed the work across all Services and in line with the new staff behaviors and values which include being eco-conscious Thank you any questions comments, please Councillor Davis Yeah, this is a good report. Actually. There's some really good work going on. I'm pleased to say I just wondered Are we the only thing you didn't touch on is maintaining productivity? So I just wanted to get some reassurance really that we're not kind of Shooting ourselves in the foot and you know mean we don't need so many shoes Thank you, yes So the first part of the plan is very much that trying to establish where we take it next over the next Four year period the first year year and a half will be doing some of the the enabling actions if it's on the summary Plan page five. I'm afraid I don't have the report page number That outlines our enabling actions and that we're making sure that we take into account those very issues you raise Making sure that what we do can be affordable because as we said the low-hanging fruit is now off the tree And as such, you know, we need to you know, perhaps invest to save potentially but we have to look into that and see where the balances are between the Carbon efficiencies in the heat decarbonization the energy efficiencies against potential cost savings and cost investment as well So that'll be in the first part of the plan. The second part will be delivery of that I just wanted to ask you because you say you want to maximize Opportunities with schools and school buildings. Well, a lot of school buildings aren't ours anymore They're academies and a number of them are church schools as well So and the church schools I have to say in very often a very small village schools Which were built in the Victorian time, so I think it's a great idea But I'm not you know, I want to see how we would I mean you can do the easy bits first, can't you? But actually some of the buildings that you would need to try and make warmer is the very old buildings That that we have in our smaller villages, really. So I just ask you what's your plan? Thank you. Yes, and that was also raised environment economy scrutiny and so There is now a government imposed requirement for all schools to produce a net-zero strategy and have a member of staff to be responsible for the delivery of those plans Using some of the development for money that we've had allocated in the last year We now have a project to work with schools to help them to try and access the public sector decarbonisation grants So whilst we completely right, you know, we recognize that some of these buildings are our past best But there will be wins that we can make even in those situations But our role will really be to help those schools try and access the appropriate grant funding that might be available elsewhere Got a couple of questions one is you did mention Contractors and I think similar to Councillor Davies question. Well, there's no costings here because obviously if there are requirements put on Contractors to do things in a different way Presume presumably they'll be a cost because for example, you talked about learning through we you had the Knights Street lights off at night, which is ticked all the boxes but going forward That won't be there is no sort of costing in terms of Hitting some of these targets because obviously for a contractor example and you're expected to do it in a different way There will be a cost but there doesn't seem to be any financial sort of costings put into that what the the cost to us of Going down this road, which we've got to go down Thank you. Yes, you're quite right not as yet. We are working with the procurement team Looking at the tendering processes for the major contracts and making sure that the environmental responsibilities Does now form part of that and the set of questions is being? Aligned to that so when we get the tenders in we can see the values against that as well But you're quite right that's not in the report Yeah, that forms part of that scope three work that we need to do going forward in this new plan period Be that going down a eco route very quickly of course cost us Millions of pounds more but where does that factor into our decision-making process? I'm not sure what you said is just talking to procurement doesn't really answer it. So I suppose ask chief executive or indeed There is an issue there how we are when we make these decisions we're clear What the trade-offs are Absolutely, thank you very much leader so when the the policy document is very much a strategic document and clearly anything that we do in terms of the projects that fall underneath and within the The plan will need to be subject to a comprehensive business case that then will need to be subject to political review as well I think we need needs pushing Firmly put in the in the decision-making process. I mean council Detroit you've got properties Yeah, thank you leader. It's something that we have been discussing and it's something that the property team on newly constructed buildings schools Etc like the send and over other things have been building into or at least future-proofing The building so it can be retrofitted at a later stage so it's something that's already been adopted into the new design and if we look at the Ashleyford Children's School Center. There's there's a whole range of environmental procedures and solar and rainwater catching and various other things that are already going into that design, so it's something we're We're looking at across the board. I think our existing estate is it's already Highlighted a little bit more challenging But it's it's something we're looking at and as we're looking at what buildings we're looking to keep and investing that will form part of our property strategy going forward Final question I suppose is in the middle of a general election new government will come in which might have radically different ideas about Reducing carbon emissions climate change. So is it the right time to actually agree this today? I don't want to have another deferral but is there flexibility in the system that a new government comes up with something much more stringent that we are able to react I Don't see why not leader I think we could just Expand upon the existing plan These are the outline actions there may be others that come to light over the period of the planet We may wish to seize the opportunities on to help deliver potentially more stringent and requirements. Should that be the case going forward? Thank You the recommendations are on page 13 so that the this management plan for is Approved and updates are brought to as appropriate. Is that agreed all in favor? Please show. Thank you You're not voting Councillor Davis Sorry, just checking. It's checking. Okay, that's agreed. Thank you very much So we move then to our thank you for that Chris okay final paper item 6 then which is health watch Lincoln chair recommissioning Council woolly Ladies are pointing at each other, which is always worry Thank You leader This this paper is asking the executives agreement To go out to competitive procurement for the health watch service every upper tier Authority has to have a health watch service and the time is now up since 2019 when when with this particular contract came out, so I'm now going to hand over to Martin Samuels and Anne Marie to put a little more flesh on the bones as they say Thank You council really So as council Williams just said every upper tier local authority in the country is required by statute to have a health watch service, it's the latest incarnation of public involvement in the direction of health care and adult social care The importance of these services. I think it's now something like a quarter of all government expenditures on the NHS and adult social care It was the single single largest area of expenditure for upper tier authorities So it's really important that we have a really effective way of linking with the people who draw on current care and support So the health and Social Care Act 2012 requires us to to have a health watch service It also requires us to have that service contracted from a not-for-profit organization So we currently have that contract with an organization called Imaginatively health watch Lincoln sure and as council woolier said they've they've had that contract since 2019 The contract expires at the end of September this year We've used all of the extensions that we can so we we need to go through a new a new process We've done a review of the of the service. So we've identified a number of areas for Adjustment and improvement in the way that the service is delivered but the the net nonetheless that needs to go out for a Procurement process the suggestion is that we go for a longer period of contract So for a five and a half year contract period as the initial term partly because that kind of longevity Makes it much easier for an organization which is trying to make links with the public to establish those links on those relationships And the the half year is because the NHS planning system works from April to April And it's just much simpler if the health watch contract is aligned to that which is why Five and a half years as opposed to just five years and then to include an option An option for us to extend for a further two years. Should that be should that be appropriate? Worth noting that we've been working very closely with colleagues in the NHS to make sure that we are Developing something which meets their needs It is one of the ways the legislation was set up that although the focus of health watch is on the NHS The contracts are held by local authorities, but I say we work very closely with the NHS on that Recognizing as leader you've just mentioned there is a I believe there's an election taking place at the moment There is always the possibility that an incoming government might choose to change policy on this We did reflect on whether we could in the light of the recent announcements pause on on this However, given that the contract expires at the end of September and we have no no possibility of extending it It does seem sensible for us to continue the process now Should events turn out during the course of the procurement that we do need to change Then we can review at that point But it would seem sensible at this point to continue on the assumption that things will Continue as opposed to pausing and then finding that we have that we would need to to secure a a short-term Short-term fix. I'll just check with colleagues whether there's anything important that I've missed out. I Think the only thing really to to add top Martin has said there is around the fact that Health watch is required to cover core statutory activities. It must cover those whilst maintaining a level of independence from The Commissioner as well in terms of the current service. We've seen very strong performance against the targets Performance measures have been achieved well there we are going to review those to make sure they're sufficiently stretched and Challenging to incentivize the provider and continue to maximize the impact as Martin has said We're also looking to strengthen the local liaison With the provider to ensure we have a work plan that's balanced and aligned with both health and social care priorities for the new term of the contract and just in terms of the funding mechanism The local reform and community voices grant is paid to LCC from DHSC and that provides one element of the funding DHSC does expect councils to fund the remaining portion of the cost of the service as that's now rolled into local government settlement So the current annual budget is two hundred and ninety nine thousand six hundred and that is drawn From both the local reform community voices grant and the public health grant That has remained static throughout the current five-year arrangement So in recognition of the inflationary cost pressures highlighted during market engagement is Proposed that the future annual budget will be three hundred and ten thousand that represents an increase of three and a half percent And that will be drawn from the public health grant along with any future increases in recognition of any cost pressures I'll just hand over to Carl in regards to the commercial aspects for the contract. Thank you Thank you, I think Martin and Emery have covered a lot of the contents of the paper But I thought it would be helpful just to stress that the current arrangement is delivered as a grant funding Agreement but it's proposed that the next iteration of the arrangement will be delivered as a contract for services It's important for the council to be able to effectively monitor and oversee the service and establishing the arrangement as a contract Gives us a more robust mechanism to do that It's also important to note though that the contract will include safeguards such as a conflict of interest process in support of the statutory Requirement for the local health watch function to maintain independence From the local authority commissioning it because of its role in the oversight of Commission services right across the health and care system And we're proposing that the the the right way to identify that the best delivery organization is by following a competitive process rather than just by continuing with the current delivery body as a continuation of the grant funding agreement because There is as we've demonstrated through the market engagement a viable albeit limited market for the provision of the health watch function So we know of at least three Organizations who are interested in delivering the services in Lincolnshire in future all of whom are actively delivering health watch services Locally and elsewhere. So that includes our incumbent health watch, Lincolnshire And so by running a competition that will help us to identify The organization that can deliver the best outcomes for for Lincolnshire Thank you Got a couple one is obviously pleased to hear that you're changing the nature of it. It's the remit Been changed of what we're expecting a future provider to do or is it? The the Statutory functions are largely prescribed But we have reviewed and refreshed the service specification and that's been done in it with engagement from Health watch England to ensure that the updates to the specification are in line with their Expectations and still meet the statutory requirements of the local health watch service Second one is in terms of Success record in sort of getting the NHS to address Legitimate concerns The performance of the service has been really strong and we've we've seen in terms of the influence and impact of the service some really good examples of the the work of the health watch function what we're building into the Performance management mechanism for the new contract is Reporting to enable better visibility so that we can Moving forward continue to promote and Raise awareness of the positive impact that the service is having based on feedback of views received from Lincolnshire residents Procurement under a set some which is unusual. So why's that? We're setting the budget based on funding available having gone through a pre market engagement exercise working with engaging with the interested provider market to ensure that they are confident and we can be confident that the amount prescribed is going to be Sufficient to enable the delivery of effective services in line with the statutory requirements Yeah, I just think it's Pointing to note that the health watch do sit around the ICB So voices of Lincolnshire do get to be heard around the table of the ICB and so they can address them to The committee and they can and it does get heard live over the Lincolnshire on on the live committee meetings So I think that's really good that people do know that they have got dental problems or whatever They do take it directly to John Turner and he does note it and they don't go back to them, which is really good Any further questions comments, thank you for that recommendations on page 82 so as described we approve the procurement initial annual cost of 10,000 and delegates to the director in consultation with a portfolio holder to Do the final details is that agreed? Please show that's agreed unanimous. Thank you for that. And with that concludes the meeting. Thank you for your attendance You You Thank you. [end of transcript] [BLANK_AUDIO]