Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies received.

No declarations of Members’ interest were made at this stage in proceedings.

RESOLVED

          That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 17 January 2023 be confirmed and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

Councillor Colin Davie, Executive Councillor for Economic Development, Environment and Planning, made the following announcements:

·       Scrutiny Panel B continued to develop work in agricultural sector support and the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA) were developing a framework for land use.

·       Nominations were open for the Apprenticeship Champion Awards 2023 until Friday 10^th March.

·       The Made Smarter East Midlands Programme was successfully launched by LCC on behalf of the East Midlands Growth Hub Cluster and had attracted interest from multiple SME manufacturers in Lincolnshire and other counties. Over 200 companies had registered and over 50 companies had received support from the programme since December.

·       Business Lincolnshire was holding the #GoDigital ‘Customer of the Future’ Conference at Bishop Grosseteste University on 8^th March 2023; the event would focus on digital trends and how businesses can adapt to the modern needs of customers.

(To receive a report by Chris Miller, Head of Environment, Dan Clayton, Sustainability & Natural Environment Manager, and Kate Percival, Senior Natural Environment Officer, on the Formation of Partnership for the Delivery of the Local Nature Recovery Strategy, prior toa decision being taken by the Executive at its meeting on 7 March 2023)

The Committee received a report by Chris Miller, Head of Environment, Dan Clayton, Sustainability & Natural Environment Manager, and Kate Percival, Senior Natural Environment Officer, on the Formation of Partnership for the Delivery of the Local Nature Recovery Strategy (LNRS), prior to a decision being taken by the Executive at its meeting on 7 March 2023.

During consideration of the report, the following points were highlighted:

·       Members enquired how nature recovery was being measured and how elements such as biodiversity net gain were benchmarked to allow for direct comparisons and establishment of performance; in addition, Members asked whether sanctions were being considered for not achieving targets. Officers explained that the Local Nature Recovery Strategy were used as a guide for Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG); there was a metric in development, a calculator set on a national level, used to measure the biodiversity value at set intervals (at the start, and when the development is implemented) which needed to indicate a net gain of at least 10% on site -ideally- and off site. Officers acknowledged that gains may not be always achievable onsite and offsite BNG would be necessary. Officers were collaborating with the strategic network of Green Infrastructure, Greater Lincolnshire Nature Partnership, and Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust towards setting up a registry of landowners who were keen on entering their land into the project as well as with developers who were interested in buying credits, within which they can negotiate prices for land (between landowners and developers). This was over a 30 year period, therefore robust monitoring and enforcement was essential in line with further guidance anticipated.

·       Further clarity was sought on whether this was a framework for administering the strategy and raised a concern on how the framework would fit into the ad hoc way in which biodiversity net gain was being developed and delivered through the planning system. Officers elaborated on how the framework was guiding the biodiversity net gain; the document was identifying the best habitats and places for wildlife and would also help ensure that the right habitat creation and enhancement fell within the right place.

·       Further concerns were echoed in relation to the 10% score to be achieved in terms of this being a potentially unrealistic benchmark. Officers explained that 10% was the mandatory minimum score.

·       Members commended the framework being put forward, acknowledged that there were clear benefits derived from that, however noted concerns on the long-term deliverability of the programme, on the value of taking agricultural land out of production in order to provide biodiversity, net gain and emphasised on the need for more information around the process and mechanisms that were being developed, which was anticipated when detailed statutory instruments were published.

RESOLVED:

1.    That the Committee supports the recommendations to the Executive set out on page 15 of the agenda;

2.    That the Committee endorses the progression of the Local Nature Recovery Strategy through a partnership approach

3.    That the comments made during the discussion of this item are shared with the Executive  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

(To receive a report by Phil Hughes, Strategic Planning Manager on the proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the planning system contained in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill (LURB), and likely implications for Lincolnshire)

Consideration was given to a report by Phil Hughes, Strategic Planning Manager, on proposed changes to the National Planning Framework (NPPF) and the planning system contained in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill (LURB) and the likely implications for Lincolnshire. It was reported that

:

·       The Planning for the Future White Paper was published in August 2020 and its contents were considered controversial.

There were four main characteristics identified in the planning policy from Lincolnshire’s perspective:

·       It considered the standard method of calculating housing supply as only an ‘advisory starting point’. 

·       It allowed a more permissive approach to the delivery of onshore wind farms.

·       The need for retirement housing, housing with care and care homes.

·       The availability of agricultural land used for food production should be considered when deciding which sites were available for development.

During consideration of the report, the following points were noted:

·       Members raised questions about whether onshore wind farms were necessary in Lincolnshire.

·       In some cases, homes in local villages had Victorian sewage systems and it was posited that any levy must be used to improve such outdated housing infrastructures.

·       The implementation and results of the LURB were difficult to forecast given recent instability in government ministerial appointments.

·       The Committee considered whether the LURB would provide support against the challenges of climate change, housing, and energy security; the Strategic Planning Manager assured it was in the governments interest to formulate a stable platform for planning based off these interests to create stability in the sector.

·       Further clarity was required within the NPPF on wind power before a national standard of planning could be established.

·       Members expressed concern regarding the imposition of national development management policy (NDMP). The Strategic Planning Manager acknowledged that a nationally set NDMP could undermine changes and the varied needs of local developments.

·       ‘Street vote’ powers outlined in the LURB would allow residents to make proposals for planning permission to extend/redevelop their properties if they are accepted via referendum of residents on the streets. It was noted this could cause unnecessary neighbor conflict and competing interests were already mediated in the planning process.

·       It was suggested that larger building firms prioritised profit over community development; the Strategic Planning Manager explained that smaller firms were decimated after the 2008 financial crash, which led to a decrease in quality and competition in the sector.

·       The Executive Councillor for Economic Development, Environment and Planning was going to submit a formal response to government about the proposed changes to the NPPF and the planning system in the LURB. He agreed to capture the comments of the Committee in his response.

RESOLVED:

1.    That the Committee receives the report;

2.    That the comments from the debate as captured are shared with relevant leading Officers and Portfolio holders as needed.

(To receive a report by Justin Brown, Assistant Director – Growth on the role of local enterprise partnerships and their relationship with Lincolnshire County Council)

The Committee received a report by Justin Brown, Assistant Director - Growth, on the role of local enterprise partnerships (LEP) and their relationship with LCC.

Councillor R Wootten highlighted he could no longer be the Director of the LEP Company and asked that a new member be sought.

It was reported that:

·       A strategic approach was adopted in 2010 to align the LEP and LCC to prevent duplication which led to a productive working relationship.

o   There was a LEP company which included LCC members.

·       The government had indicated that the role of LEPS could change; despite this, there was value in LCC continuing to support LEP and the alignment of economic priorities.

·       The Greater Lincolnshire LEP was working with approximately 200 private businesses and LCC relied on this work for informing strategy; consequently, it was considered important to retain the same level of private sector input.

During consideration of the report, the following was noted:

·       Members questioned the impact devolution could potentially have on LEP; the Assistant Director – Growth gave assurance that LEP had been supported in combined authorities who had a county deal elsewhere.

·       Work undertaken alongside the Local Government Association (LGA) had highlighted the importance of the private sector as it generated wealth that allowed authorities to govern.

·       Clarity was sought on how the LEP would provide funding, skills and support following cuts made to steelworks in Gainsborough. It was assured that the LEP had analysed potential business support programs to provide relief to those affected by the closure of steelworks; following mass redundancy, the government often created a ‘task force which drew on the LEP to support individuals, supply-chains and assets.

o   James Baty, the LEP Policy Manager, highlighted that Scunthorpe Steelworks had announced mass staff redundancy. Resultantly, the LEP brought together various government bodies, local authorities, and business experts to provide expertise to ensure supply chains and individuals received support.

·       It was suggested that the LEP was unelected and unaccountable; therefore, the LEP should align with democratic representatives at LCC. The Assistant Director – Growth assured the LEP was a evidence-based symbiotic arrangement between LCC and partners.

o   As a LEP Directors Board Member, the Executive Councillor for Economic Development, Environment and Planning highlighted to the Committee that LEP was an accountable body given that it’s worked aligned with LCC. The LEP was subjected to audit, and all public money received by the LEP was accounted for.

·       It was highlighted that collective working between sectors was vital because the economy of Greater Lincolnshire was interlinked.

 RESOLVED

1.    That the Committee endorses the continuation of the approach in which LCC supports the LEP in its production of the economic strategy, seeking to align and avoid duplication wherever possible;

2.    That the Committee encourages Officers to continue to seek private sector input into priorities and initiatives by active engaging with the LEP Board and its sub-groups;

3.    That the comments from the discussion as captured are taken under consideration by Officers responsible for informing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

(To receive a report from James Baty, Policy and Research Executive Manager and Thea Croxall, Adult Learning and Skills Manager on the common trends within Lincolnshire’s Labour Market and the County Council’s response)

The Committee received a report from James Baty, Policy and Research Executive Manager and Thea Croxall, Adult Learning and Skills Manager on the common trends within Lincolnshire’s Labour Market and the County Council’s response. It was reported that:

There were four main, interlinked labour market challenges for Lincolnshire:

1.    Economic inactivity had increased, which had led to reduced economic output and increased benefit claims.

2.    Employers had increased challenges filling jobs due to a lack of appropriately skilled applicants.

3.    The amount of young people not in education, employment or training was higher than the national average in Lincolnshire.

4.    The training provider system was fragile in Lincolnshire which created gaps in provision locally.

·       Businesses in Lincolnshire were citing difficulties with labour market supply, despite that Lincolnshire historically benchmarked with national averages.

·       Lincolnshire’s economy was vulnerable to circumstances as it drew labour from sectors most exposed to market risks such as hospitality, tourism, and food production.

·       The stop-starting of the economy during the pandemic had contributed towards challenges and had reconfigured the labour market. Resultantly, LCC had developed a range of opportunities to encourage employment such as work vacancies in the LCC restaurant and creating apprenticeships.

·       The challenge of the lack of appropriately skilled applicants was exacerbated by factors such as the funding landscape for training providers changing, the rurality of Lincoln, and the national challenge of teaching retention. It was assured LCC was working with local training providers to develop a shared-approach strategy for government for capital support.

·       The Learning and Skills Improvement Plan (LSIP) was being developed by the Federation of Small Businesses to guide longer term work.

·       It was assured LCC continued to deliver projects effectively, although it was acknowledged that more could be done if there were more resources.

During consideration of the report, the following points were highlighted:

·       Members considered whether Further Education (FE) providers could provide employment and skills training to address short falls in staff recruitment; the Adult Learning and Skills Manager informed the Committee that FE providers already had internal employer advisors which supported local employers to identify skill gaps and align training provision accordingly.

·       An instance was cited whereby a resident experienced difficulty entering employment, and consistently failed to receive application/interview feedback from employers. The Adult Learning and Skills Manager assured that LCC provided a range of employability training and provided CV and interview support for applicants, but accepted this provision needed extending.

·       The Policy and Research Executive Manager noted that LCC recognised challenges of employer engagement, but provided assurance that the Careers Hub bridged the gap between employers and individuals seeking work. Furthermore, it was suggested further employer engagement was required to ensure they were attracting appropriately skilled applicants.

·       There was a shift in attitudes observed towards work-life balance after the pandemic; young people particularly became increasingly isolated in the recovering labour market.

·       The COVID-19 pandemic had also contributed towards economic inactivity, especially amongst early retirees and those on long-term sick leave. Work was being undertaken with the Department for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.

(To receive a report from Vanessa Strange, Head of Infrastructure Investment and Tanya Vaughan, Senior Commissioning Officer, on the Local Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (LEVI) pilot being launched in Lincolnshire)

The Committee received a report from Vanessa Strange, Head of Infrastructure Investment and Tanya Vaughan, Senior Commissioning Officer on the Local Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (LEVI) pilot being launched in Lincolnshire. It was reported that:

·       The LEVI pilot scheme was the current national funding available to highway authorities; LCC was expected to use the funding to install more electric vehicle (EV) charging stations.

·       The importance of policy work was highlighted by Officers as it allowed LCC to communicate its ambitions for the funding to the government.

·       Initially, 100 EV charging ports would be installed across Lincolnshire; additional funding was expected in the future to expand upon this.

During consideration of the report, the following was highlighted:

·       The pilot was widely welcomed by Members.

·       Current funding facilitated standard EV chargers and covered 25% of the total cost. A hub facility comprised of rapid chargers was expected in the future but would require further funding.

·       Members questioned the ease in which standard chargers could be upgraded to fast chargers, consequently the Senior Commissioning Officer informed the Committee that LCC was currently identifying a contract that would allow EV charging provision in Lincolnshire to evolve alongside technological innovation in the sector.

·       Queries were raised about Tesla EV chargers that had already been installed in the county, and the Head of Infrastructure Investment highlighted the importance of LCC to balance the pilot with other activity emerging. Work was currently being undertaken alongside Highways colleagues which continued to monitor EV provision across Lincolnshire.

·       Funding was also awarded to District Councils in Lincolnshire to install EV chargers; it was noted that Stamford District Council welcomed inclusion in the scheme.

·       Consideration was given as to whether a traffic regulation order (TRO) would be required to take effect on parking spaces near chargers. The Senior Commissioning Officer clarified that LCC intended to install EV chargers in areas with limited/no off-street parking; TROs may be required however locations were chosen where traffic was already regulated such as two-hour parking bays, and she highlighted it was a priority to engage with residents throughout the pilot.

·       According to current policy, LCC could not receive any payment to install an EV charging point outside a property upon a resident’s request however it was noted that policy could change. The Head of Infrastructure Investment also highlighted that current EV policy was practical and addressed issues such as charging cables on pavements.

·       LCC would not incur a cost from the scheme; the funding model revenue share from the installed chargers was part of the funding model itself and costs would be experienced for the commercial provider and pump priming from the LEVI fund.

·       Some EV chargers were owned by petrol providers and were installed at petrol and service stations; these companies had identified a key shift in attitudes towards electric travel. This alleviated some practical issues in provision such as cables on roads and potential pedestrian disruption.

·       Members acknowledged the rural nature of Lincolnshire, resultantly many locations could not be provided an EV charger. Despite  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

(To receive a report by Samantha Harrison, Head of Economic Development and Mary Powell, Place & Investment Manager on the visitor economy situation in 2022 in Lincolnshire, prospects for 2023 and the County Council’s Response)

The Committee received a report by Mary Powell, Place and Investment Manager, on the visitor economy situation in Lincolnshire in 2022, prospects for 2023 and the County Council’s subsequent response. It was reported that:

·       Videos about attractions in Lincolnshire were now uploaded onto the Visit Lincolnshire website.

·       The Coastal Bird Trail was a successful example of partnership working, and LCC drew on expertise from the Greater Lincolnshire Nature Partnership, RSPB, Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust and the Lincolnshire Bird Club.

·       Skills training for businesses was being rolled out on topics such as Green Tourism and Pub Development; this was providing local businesses with information on how to attract tourists.

During consideration of the report, the following was noted:

·       Members suggested specific promotion for events held in Lincolnshire, and the Place & Investment Manager assured that an ‘events’ section was being further developed for the Visit Lincolnshire website.

·       Members identified long periods of time without events being held in Lincolnshire according to the website, and suggested communicating with Borough and Parish councils as they circulated local events lists. Further assurance was provided by the Place & Investment Manager that Visit Lincolnshire was in the process of uploading events for 2023, and it was noted that some quality control had to occur to ensure the right events were being advertised by LCC. It was also noted that the Visit Lincolnshire website was not intended to be comprehensive, it was intended to inspire potential visitors and to encourage them to visit relevant district and borough and private sector websites.

·       LCC was working with smaller, local sectors such as aviation and birdwatching, with some organisations approaching LCC before Visit Lincolnshire had made contact.

·       The Visit Lincolnshire website was comprehensive, and constantly adding more events and attractions. The Place & Investment Manager urged Members to contribute suggestions of events to be added in the future.

RESOLVED:

1. That the Committee reviews and comments on the current progress to date and provide input to assist officers to plan and facilitate future Visitor Economy interventions;
2. That the Committee supports the partnership approach to developing the Local Visitor Economy Partnership for Visit England endorsement and accreditation, and;
3. That the comments from the discussion as captured are taken under consideration by Officers responsible for the Committees representation at the working group.

(To receive a report from Samantha Harrison, Head of Economic Development, Chris Miller, Head of Environment, and Mike Reed, Head of Waste, which sets out the performance of the Tier 2 Service Level Performance measures for 2022-2023 Quarter 3 for Economy, Flooding and Waste which are within the remit of the Environment and Economy Scrutiny Committee)

The Committee received a report from Samantha Harrison, Head of Economic Development, Chris Miller, Head of Environment, and Mike Reed, Head of Waste, which set out the performance of the Tier 2 Service Level Performance measures for 2022-2023 Quarter 3 for Economy, Flooding and Waste which were within the remit of the Environment and Economy Scrutiny Committee. The following was reported:

Economy

·       The target for the measure of the number of businesses supported was exceeded.

·       The target for adult qualifications was exceeded.

·       The target for external funding to Lincolnshire was not met. This was attributed to the phasing of government grants as despite funding being secured, these packages were being delivered incrementally across multiple years.

The report was considered by the Committee and the following was noted:

·       Members considered whether the withdrawal of European funding would be a limiting factor in LCC’s ability to interface and assist businesses in the future. The Head of Economic Development informed the Committee that previously, £8 million had been received in European funding which helped the business support programme delivery, LCC had requested £1.7m from the shared prosperity fund across the ten local authorities. Funding had been secured for West Lindsey, Rutland, and Lincoln City, and positive conversations were ongoing with South and North Kesteven. Expressions of Interest were submitted for North East Lincolnshire, North Lincolnshire and South East Lincolnshire and were awaiting the outcome. It was agreed an update on the final programme would be shared at the next Committee.

·       Further information was requested in relation to the ‘businesses by priority’ target.

·       The ‘businesses assisted by location’ data would be represented to show performance in all seven districts, and the Head of Economic Development clarified that due to an administrative error the data for the South East Lincolnshire Partnership was initially grouped; once it had been disaggregated, Boston did not feature in the data. She agreed to provide additional information about Boston at the next meeting.

Flood

It was reported that:

·       In quarter 4, 20 section 19 investigations had commenced over 23 properties. This was an increase from 2021-2022 which saw five s19s affecting ten properties.

During consideration of the report, it was noted that:

·       Despite there being a drier winter, there was an increase in section 19 investigations being initiated. This was historical data from the August 2022 flooding event.

Waste

It was reported that:

·       The waste performance data in the report incorporated the waste hierarchy – the methodology used to treat the statutory obligation LCC has to manage waste. Waste minimisation was the main priority whereas waste disposal was at the bottom of the hierarchy.

·       ‘Household waste collected’ had been reduced and was below target, which was in line with the waste hierarchy.

·       ‘Household waste in landfill’ was reported as below the target and performing well.

·       It was noted that the overall recycling rate and the performance of household waste recycling centres (HWRCs) can report better performance for waste minimisation whilst also reporting a lower recycling rate.

o   There were 8,000  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.

(To receive an interim verbal update from Justin Brown, Assistant Director – Growth, on the workings of Theddlethorpe Geological Disposal Facility Working Group so far)

The Committee received an interim verbal update from Justin Brown, Assistant Director – Growth, on the workings of the Theddlethorpe Geological Disposal Facility Working group. It was reported that:

·       A full report on the workings of the Theddlethorpe Working Group was expected at the next meeting of the Committee.

·       A Community Partnership Working Group had been established and had held multiple meetings. This helped to coordinate community events which opened up avenues of communication with residents in Theddlethorpe. The Group had supported the establishment of the Grand Fund Programme, and further details on the partnership were also expected at the next Committee meeting.

·       Members were directed to Theddlethorpe.workinginpartnership.org.uk for additional information.

During consideration of the verbal report, the following was noted:

·       The Community Partnership facilitated the circulation of information which would eventually inform a public vote. Timescales of the working group would be impacted by technical advice, community feedback and government policy, although it was highlighted this vote would not be imminent given the complexity of the topic.

·       Members were reminded that the residents in Theddlethorpe were the decision-makers in relation to the disposal facility, although LCC was represented in the working group to provide residents with help on how to ask appropriate questions.

·       Nuclear Waste Services (NWS) had organised drop-in events where the community could ask questions and voice concerns, and it was reported that some residents were uncomfortable about the proposal whereas others were optimistic. It was noted that LCC was keen to maintain a role in the Community Partnership to ensure these widely ranging views were represented adequately.

·       From an LCC perspective, it was important to view the situation as fluid and explore opportunities for locality and inward investment, as well as awareness of risks.

RESOLVED

1. That the Committee receives and makes comments on the update
2. That the Committee requests that the comments from the discussion as captured are taken under consideration by Officers responsible for the Committees representation to the working group.

(To receive a report by Kiara Chatziioannou, Scrutiny Officer, which enables the Committee to comment on the content of its work programme for the coming year to ensure that scrutiny activity is focussed where it can be of greatest benefit)

Consideration was given to a report by Kiara Chatziioannou, Scrutiny Officer, which invited the Committee to consider and comment on the content of its own work programme for the year to ensure that scrutiny activity is focused where it can be of greatest benefit.

Members were informed that an inaugural meeting for the Campervans and Motorhomes Working group was being held on 8 March 2023.

 RESOLVED

1. That the work programme be approved

(To receive a report from Mick King, Head of Economic Infrastructure, which provides an update to the Committee on work and progress made on key activities since the Energy for Growth paper introducing the Utilities Leadership work programme was presented in October 2022).

It was noted that this item was for information only.