The Overview and Scrutiny Management Board of Lincolnshire County Council met on Thursday 28 May 2026 to discuss the Council Plan Performance Framework for 2026, the Councillor Community Grant Fund, and the Freedom of Information and Environmental Information Regulations Performance Report. The Board also reviewed its work programme and noted the work programmes of other scrutiny committees.

Council Plan Performance Framework 2026

The Board considered the Council Plan Performance Framework for 2026, which outlines how the Council will monitor and deliver its Council Plan from 2026 to 2031. Tony Kavanagh, Assistant Director, Human Resources and Organisational Support, presented the framework, explaining that it combines performance indicators and key delivery activities across four core themes: Families, Community, County, and Spending Wisely.

Councillor Martin John Hill OBE raised concerns about the inclusion of contextual performance indicators, which he felt were difficult to measure and subjective. He also questioned why performance reporting for the previous financial year had not been made public and whether the new framework was solely based on the new Council Plan. Andrew McLean, Interim Executive Director - Resources, clarified that the framework was indeed focused on the new Council Plan.

Discussions also touched upon the rationale for changing the sickness absence target from a specific figure to a benchmark against national averages. Councillor Jane Catton, Executive Councillor for Resources, explained that this was to present a more realistic position for the council and to be attractive for recruitment and growth in Lincolnshire. Heather Sandy, Executive Director of Children's Services, addressed concerns about the rising rate of children in care, explaining the various strategies in place to support families and prevent children from entering care where safe to do so.

Councillor Richard Graham Davies questioned the move away from rigid, measurable targets towards softer contextual measures, expressing concern about how progress would be assessed. Andrew McLean responded that while some strategies were newer and required further development, many indicators were still hard numbers and competitive against national statistics. He assured the Board that they could be held accountable for delivering within the targets.

The Board acknowledged the report's recommendations to the Executive and noted that a summary of their comments would be shared with the Executive.

Councillor Community Grant Fund

Christopher O'Rourke, Head of Communications and Engagement, and Daniel Larkin, Policy Advisor, presented the report on the Councillor Community Grant Fund (CCGF). The fund, with a total budget of £500,000 for 2026/27, is designed to support local organisations, community groups, and grassroots initiatives. It is split into two streams: Divisional Grants (£3,000 per division) and a larger Strategic Fund (£290,000).

Councillor Jimmy William Brookes raised concerns about fairness for coastal areas like Skegness, questioning if one councillor could apply multiple times and how the strategic fund would be administered. Chris O'Rourke explained that councillors could support multiple applications and that transparency would be maintained through online publication of all accepted grants. Daniel Larkin added that councillors in adjoining divisions could combine applications for the strategic fund.

Councillor Brenda Hazel Collier asked about the application process and timeline for receiving funds. Chris O'Rourke outlined that the scheme would launch in early June, with divisional grants processed relatively quickly, while strategic fund applications would go through a more detailed assessment and scrutiny process, with updates to the Board from August onwards.

A significant portion of the discussion revolved around the involvement of councillors in the decision-making process for the strategic fund, with Councillor Ian Carrington expressing unease about potential accusations of political bias. Councillor Philip Maurice Dilks also voiced concerns about member involvement and the potential for politics to influence decisions. Councillor Martin John Hill OBE strongly advised against member involvement in deciding which projects receive funding, advocating for clear criteria and officer-led decisions to maintain transparency and avoid invidious positions.

Heather Sandy, Executive Director of Children's Services, assured the Board that their comments regarding member involvement would be recorded and forwarded to the Executive Councillor. Chris O'Rourke clarified that the OSMB's role in the strategic fund process would be pre-decision scrutiny of the overall fund's impact, not individual project assessments.

Councillor Collier also inquired about the data that would be tracked regarding the grants, such as how many people were helped. Chris O'Rourke confirmed that the number of people helped would be tracked, with the specific data depending on the nature of the grant-funded project.

The Board ultimately acknowledged the report's recommendations to the Executive Councillor for Community Engagement, with a summary of their comments to be shared.

Freedom of Information (FOI) and Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) Performance Report

Andrew Hancy, Head of Business Support, presented the FOI and EIR Performance Report for the period 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2026. The report highlighted an 18.57% increase in requests received, reaching 1,992. Overall compliance with the statutory 20-working-day deadline was 83%, a decrease from the previous year and below the council's target of 85%.

Councillor Philip Maurice Dilks asked about staffing levels dedicated to handling FOI requests, the number of requests from residents, and the potential role of AI in increasing request volumes. Andrew Hancy explained that the FOI team consists of 3.26 FTE business support staff, with the ability to draft in support from wider teams during peak workloads. He confirmed that it is not possible to track the number of requests from residents due to anonymity options, but that only 15 requests were identifiable as coming from councillors. He also acknowledged the increasing use of AI in request wording.

Councillor Jimmy William Brookes requested more data on the website, such as the cost per FOI request, to enhance transparency. Andrew Hancy stated he would investigate the feasibility of disclosing this information, noting the complexity of calculating individual request costs. Andrew McLean, Interim Executive Director - Resources, added that determining the exact cost of individual requests is challenging due to their varied complexity and the involvement of multiple departments.

Councillor Philip Roberts, Chair of the Board, raised concerns about the potential for foreign actors or bots to bombard the council with requests, potentially disrupting services. Andrew Hancy explained that while the council must respond to requests, they can deem them unreasonable or vexatious if they are from the same source and excessively demanding, citing an example of a requester submitting ten requests in two weeks.

Councillor Richard Graham Davies inquired about internal reviews and complaints, including those escalated to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO). Andrew Hancy reported 35 internal reviews in the past year and stated he would need to check with legal regarding ICO escalations.

The Board expressed assurance regarding the performance of FOI and EIR requests and supported the planned improvements to the process, including the exploration of AI technology, to ensure timely compliance.

Overview and Scrutiny Management Board Work Programme

Tracey Johnson, Senior Scrutiny Officer, presented the revised work programme for the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board. She outlined several additions to the programme for upcoming meetings, including items on information assurance, workforce metrics, complaints and customer relations, local government reorganisation, and various performance reports.

Councillor Martin John Hill OBE commented on the volume of items and the potential for the grants to be discussed, suggesting that the Board might be busy for some time. The Board agreed to approve the work programme, subject to the consideration of items highlighted during the day's discussions.

Scrutiny Committee Work Programmes

The Board noted the planned work programmes for the Adult Care and Public Health, Children's and Culture, Community Safety, Environment, Growth, Health Scrutiny for Lincolnshire, and Highways and Transport Scrutiny Committees. These reports provided an overview of the planned scrutiny activity for each committee.

The meeting concluded with thanks to all attendees for their input.