Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Emma Cresswell, Paul Gleeson, Chris Mountain and Claire Rylott.

No declarations of interest were received.

The Minutes of the Full Council meeting on 10^th November 2025 were agreed and signed by the Mayor.

The Chief Executive gave notice that Councillor Jonathan Noble had agreed to accept the Mayoralty for the forthcoming civic year.

The Chief Executive confirmed that no deputations or petitions had been received.

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Dale Broughton proposed that the order of business be changed so that Item F – Questions from Elected Members would be taken after the items of business under Part III (Motions on Notice). This proposal was seconded by Councillor Helen Staples, and following a vote by members of the Council the proposal was approved.

The Chief Executive confirmed that no questions had been received from members of the public.

To receive the draft Minutes from the meeting held on 17^th November 2025.

The Mayor, as Chairman of the Audit and Governance Committee, presented the draft Audit and Governance minutes from the meeting held on 17th November 2025 for councillors to note.

During consideration of the item, reference was made to the matters discussed by the Audit & Governance Committee in relation to the Proposed Amendments to the Council’s Contract Procedure Rules, which were before Full Council later on the agenda, and thanks was given to the Leader of the Council, Councillor Dale Broughton, and the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Economic Growth, Councillor Sandeep Ghosh, for responding to concerns raised by bringing forward a revised proposal in respect of the financial threshold for post contract evaluation reports, which had been amended prior to consideration by Full Council.

A comment was made regarding the draft Audit & Governance Committee Minutes in relation to asset valuations, and it was requested that the actual valuation figures for the assets referred to in the Committee’s discussion be provided to Members, in order to assist with transparency and understanding. It was noted that this information could be addressed through the Audit & Governance Committee in due course.

In addition, Members commented on the importance of appropriate officer attendance at meetings to support scrutiny, and queried clarification around certain asset valuation entries referenced in the external audit reporting and minutes. It was acknowledged that responses on technical points would be provided through the Committee and by officers at the appropriate forum.

(A report by John Medler, Assistant Director – Governance & Monitoring Officer)

The previous Vice-Chairman of the Environment and Performance Committee, Councillor Lina Savickiene, presented the Joint Annual Scrutiny Report 2024/2025, which summarised the work undertaken by the Environment & Performance Committee and the Corporate & Community Committee during the last municipal year. The report was considered by the Overview & Scrutiny at its meeting on 9th December 2025.

Members welcomed the report and reflected on the contribution scrutiny had made to policy development, performance monitoring and town-centre work. Points were raised on ensuring external bodies were invited to future scrutiny where relevant (including infrastructure bodies), and on the value of implementing recommendations from member working groups. Appreciation was expressed by the Leader of the Council for the work of former Chairs and Vice-Chairs and the support provided by officers.

(A report by John Medler, Assistant Director – Governance & Monitoring Officer)

The Assistant Director – Governance & Monitoring Officer introduced the report, which sought consideration of an appointment to an outside body where a vacancy had arisen, details of which were attached at Appendix 1:

·       Sir Thomas Meddlecott and Others Charity Trust (Skirbeck Quarter Charities) – one vacancy was reported.

The following nomination was considered:

·       Councillor Neil Drayton was nominated to sit on the Sir Thomas Meddlecott and Others Charity Trust (Skirbeck Quarter Charities).

The importance of ensuring full representation on local charitable bodies was noted. No further nominations were put forward at the meeting.

The recommendations were moved by Councillor Dale Broughton and seconded by Councillor Sandeep Ghosh.

Resolved:

That Councillor Neil Drayton be appointed to the Sir Thomas Meddlecott and Others Charity Trust (Skirbeck Quarter Charities) for the remainder of the 2025/26 Municipal Year.

(A report by John Medler, Assistant Director – Governance & Monitoring Officer)

The Deputy Leader of the Council, Councillor Mike Gilbert, introduced the report and provided an update on the Community Governance Review (CGR) being undertaken in respect of the unparished areas of Boston. The report set out the outcomes of the Stage 1 public consultation, summarised the evidence considered by the Community Governance Review Working Group, and presented the draft recommendations for approval to proceed to Stage 2 consultation.

Members were reminded that the review was being undertaken under Part 4 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, and had been initiated in light of emerging proposals for Local Government Reorganisation, which would result in Boston Borough Council being abolished. It was explained that, in the absence of a parish or town council, the unparished areas of Boston would otherwise be left without a democratically elected tier of community governance.

The Deputy Leader outlined that the Stage 1 consultation, undertaken between 14 July and 26 August 2025, had sought views on whether a parish or town council should be established for Boston, whether any existing parish boundaries should be altered, and how future governance arrangements might best reflect community identity and ensure effective and convenient local government. A total of 126 consultation responses had been received, with a clear majority expressing support for the creation of a single parish council covering the unparished area of Boston.

The draft recommendations approved by the Working Group included the establishment of a single parish of Boston aligned with the current Boston Town Area Committee footprint, limited adjustments to the Wyberton parish boundary to address small unparished areas, a parish council size of 22 councillors, warding arrangements aligned to existing borough wards, and first elections to take place in May 2027.

Members engaged in detailed discussion on the proposed recommendations and the evidence underpinning them.

Broad support was expressed for the principle of ensuring that Boston residents retained a strong local democratic voice, particularly given the scale of change anticipated through Local Government Reorganisation. The importance of safeguarding Boston’s historic identity, civic traditions and assets was emphasised, and it was noted that the establishment of a town or parish council would provide a democratic body capable of holding and managing those assets in the future.

Concerns were expressed about the relatively low number of consultation responses in the context of the size of the town, and Members highlighted the need for the Council to take steps to increase public awareness and participation during the next phase of consultation. It was noted that some residents remained unclear about the implications of Local Government Reorganisation and the potential consequences of inaction, and that clearer messaging would be essential during Stage 2.

Members discussed the legal framework governing community governance reviews, including the statutory tests relating to community identity, effective and convenient local government, and the need to actively consider reasonable alternatives. The importance of ensuring that the process remained open, transparent and evidence?led was highlighted, with Stage 2 consultation recognised as a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

(A report by John Medler, Assistant Director – Governance & Monitoring Officer)

The Portfolio Holder for Economic Growth and Finance, Councillor Sandeep Ghosh, introduced the report which sought approval of proposed amendments to the Council’s Contract Procedure Rules (CPRs). It was explained that the review had been undertaken to ensure that the CPRs remained compliant with the Procurement Act 2023, to reflect changes in legislation and good practice, and to update rules which had last been comprehensively reviewed three years previously.

Members were advised that the proposed amendments had been considered by the Audit & Governance Committee on 17^th November 2025 and by Cabinet on 10^th December 2025. As a result of feedback received, the financial threshold within Clause 26.5, relating to post?contract evaluation and reporting, had been amended from the originally proposed £1,000,000 to £500,000 prior to submission to Full Council.

The report highlighted key changes including revised procurement thresholds, strengthened requirements around conflict of interest and pre?market engagement, enhanced contract management and monitoring provisions, and updated delegations to officers. Members were asked to approve and adopt the revised Contract Procedure Rules as set out in Appendix 1A within the report.

Members welcomed the clarification and amendment to the financial threshold within Clause 26.5, noting that it responded to concerns raised previously regarding transparency and proportionality in contract reporting. The importance of retaining robust written records and evaluation of high?value contracts was emphasised, alongside the need to balance governance requirements with operational flexibility.

Reference was made to Teckal agreements, with assurance being sought that such arrangements, where work was awarded to council?controlled companies without full competition, would continue to be captured appropriately within the CPR framework. It was noted that while Teckal arrangements were permitted under procurement law, Members wished to ensure that visibility, justification and monitoring arrangements around such agreements remained sufficiently robust.

Concerns were raised about the volume and complexity of procurement?related information presented to the Audit & Governance Committee and the ability of Members to adequately scrutinise such reports. Members reiterated the importance of officers being present at meetings to assist with detailed technical questions and provide assurance where required.

During the debate, some Members expressed concern that the proposed changes did not provide an adequate level of reporting and scrutiny, particularly in relation to exemptions, continuity arrangements and value?for?money assurance. It was felt that additional monitoring arrangements would help to ensure that Members could scrutinise procurement activity more effectively, especially given the volume and technical nature of reports considered by the Audit & Governance Committee.

The following amendment was proposed by Councillor Anne Dorrian:

That Full Council further resolves:

1.     That officers produce a six?monthly report to the Audit & Governance Committee detailing:

·       the number and value of procurement exemptions and continuity arrangements;

·       justification for each exemption; and

·       thematic patterns or repeat use by service area or supplier.

2.     That where procurement is undertaken with fewer than the previous minimum number of quotations, a written value?for?money assessment is retained and made available for Member scrutiny.

3.     That a formal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.

(A report by Russell Stone, Director of Finance (S151 Officer))

The Portfolio Holder for Economic Growth and Finance, Councillor Sandeep Ghosh, introduced the report which presented the 2025/26 Mid Term Treasury Report for Council’s consideration. The report provided an update on treasury management activity for the first half of the financial year and confirmed the Council’s compliance with the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) Treasury Management Code, the Prudential Code, and the Council’s approved Treasury Management Strategy.

Members were advised that the mid?year position reflected the impact of higher?than?anticipated interest rates, the timing of capital expenditure, and the Council’s continued low level of external borrowing. Particular reference was made to the repayment of the historic State Street LOBO loan on 11 July 2025 and its replacement with a £1 million Public Works Loan Board (PWLB) loan at 4.81%, resulting in significant net savings over the remaining term.

Members were also informed that forecast investment income remained ahead of budget due to favourable market rates during the first half of the year, and that no difficulties were anticipated in meeting treasury or prudential indicators for the remainder of 2025/26.

During discussion, Members welcomed the significant financial benefit arising from the restructuring of borrowing, recognising the long?term savings delivered by the early repayment of the State Street loan. Comments were made on the importance of maintaining a cautious approach to investment and borrowing, given ongoing market volatility and interest rate movements.

Members noted the strong treasury performance recorded at mid?year and emphasised the need for continued monitoring of the Council’s investment portfolio, particularly in relation to property fund valuations. Council also acknowledged the importance of the treasury function in supporting delivery of the wider capital programme and ensuring future financial resilience.

The recommendations were moved by Councillor Sandeep Ghosh and seconded by Councillor Andy Izard.

Resolved:

That the 2025/26 Mid Term Treasury Report be received and noted.

(A report by Russell Stone, Director of Finance (S151 Officer))

The Portfolio Holder for Economic Growth and Finance, Councillor Sandeep Ghosh, introduced the report which set out the Quarter 2 Capital Forecast Outturn for 2025/26. The Portfolio Holder explained that the capital programme was being regularly monitored and updated to ensure that expenditure profiles remained aligned with project delivery across the Council’s major schemes, including those funded through the Towns Fund, the Levelling Up Fund (LUF), and other external grant programmes.

Council was advised that a number of budget adjustments were proposed to reflect updated project timelines, including the reprofiling of £100,000 from 2026/27 into 2025/26 in relation to the Crown House scheme as part of the wider LUF programme. Members were informed that these adjustments did not represent additional expenditure, but rather a change in the expected timing of works.

Members discussed the report and welcomed the update on the delivery of major capital schemes. It was acknowledged that large regeneration projects inevitably required regular review of profiles to reflect changes in construction timing, procurement stages, and contract mobilisation.

During the debate, a request was made for clarification regarding the Crown House site, specifically whether the movement of £100,000 into the 2025/26 financial year indicated that works on the site were ahead of schedule, or whether the adjustment reflected a rephasing of planned expenditure for other operational reasons. The Portfolio Holder confirmed that a written response would be provided to address the detailed technical point.

Members noted the importance of maintaining clear reporting on project timelines given the scale of the Council’s regeneration portfolio and the need to ensure that capital forecasts remained accurate.

Overall, Members recognised the continued progress being made across the capital programme and the importance of maintaining financial control and transparency during the delivery of externally funded schemes.

The recommendations were moved by Councillor Sandeep Ghosh and seconded by Councillor Dale Broughton.

Resolved:

That the Quarter 2 2025/26 Capital Forecast Outturn, including the proposed amendments to the capital programme for 2025/26 as set out in the report, be approved.

(A report by Russell Stone, Director of Finance (S151 Officer))

The Portfolio Holder for Economic Growth and Finance, Councillor Sandeep Ghosh, introduced the report which set out the proposed Local Council Tax Support (LCTS) Scheme for 2026/27. Members were reminded that the authority was required to review and approve its working?age LCTS scheme annually and that consultation had been undertaken on a range of options to ensure both continued support for vulnerable residents and the Council’s ability to maintain a balanced budget.

The Portfolio Holder explained that the Council had consulted on three options: retaining the existing level of support, or introducing revised maximum entitlement levels of either 90% for lone parents, 80% for couples with children, and 75% for all other working?age households, or a further reduced option. Members were advised that the Cabinet had recommended adoption of the more moderate of the reduction options, 90% / 80% / 75% as set out in the report, with the scheme operating in line with the annual DWP uprating of allowances and premiums.

A substantial debate took place on the proposal, noting the need to balance financial sustainability with the core purpose of the scheme in protecting lower?income households. Members recognised the increasing financial pressures on the Council, including the need to deliver a balanced Medium?Term Financial Strategy, and acknowledged that LCTS remained one of the most significant discretionary financial commitments within the Council’s budget.

Points were raised regarding the impact of the proposed reduction on households facing rising living costs, and Members discussed the potential consequences for families with children, single working?age adults, and those already experiencing hardship. Reference was made to the continuation of the Exceptional Hardship Fund, introduced alongside the current scheme, which would remain available to support the most vulnerable cases affected by changes to entitlement.

Some Members expressed concerns that reducing support could increase financial pressure on low?income households and disproportionately affect those struggling with living costs, while others emphasised the importance of fairness across all taxpayers and the need to ensure the scheme remained financially sustainable. Members also noted that precepting authorities had expressed support for options that reduced the overall cost of the scheme.

A recorded vote was requested and supported. The motion was carried by 18 votes in favour, 5 against, and 3 abstentions.

The recommendations were moved by Councillor Sandeep Ghosh and seconded by Councillor Dale Broughton.

Resolved:

That the Local Council Tax Support Scheme for 2026/27 be revised to provide a maximum entitlement of 90% for lone parents, 80% for couples with children, and 75% for all other working?age households; with the scheme operated in line with the DWP annual uprating of allowances and premiums.

COUNCIL NOTES:

That the current Council Procedure Rules permit Members to submit more than one question to Full Council within a single meeting cycle.

That recent meetings have demonstrated that multiple questions from the same member can extend proceedings, reduce time available for wider debate, and limit opportunities for other members to participate.

That ensuring fair and balanced participation from all elected Members is essential to the effective functioning, transparency and efficiency of Full Council Meetings.

Therefore, Council resolves

1.    To amend Council Procedure Rule 11.2(Questions on Notice at Full Council) to state that a Member of the Council may submit one question only to Full Council per meeting.

2.    That this amendment shall take effect at the conclusion of the Full Council Meeting on 12th January 2026.

3.    That the Monitoring Officer be authorized to update the Constitution and any associated guidance documents accordingly to give effect to the amendment.

Proposer: Councillor Andy Izard

Seconder: Councillor James Cantwell

The following Motion was received:

Amendment to Council Procedure- Limitation of questions to one per member at full council

COUNCIL NOTES:

That the current Council Procedure Rules permit Members to submit more than one question to Full Council within a single meeting cycle.

That recent meetings have demonstrated that multiple questions from the same member can extend proceedings, reduce time available for wider debate, and limit opportunities for other members to participate.

That ensuring fair and balanced participation from all elected Members is essential to the effective functioning, transparency and efficiency of Full Council Meetings.

Therefore, Council resolves

1.     To amend Council Procedure Rule 11.2(Questions on Notice at Full Council) to state that a Member of the Council may submit one question only to Full Council per meeting.

2.     That this amendment shall take effect at the conclusion of the Full Council Meeting on 12th January 2026.

3.     That the Monitoring Officer be authorized to update the Constitution and any associated guidance documents accordingly to give effect to the amendment.

The motion was moved by Councillor Andy Izard and seconded by Councillor James Cantwell.

Councillor Izard introduced the motion by explaining that recent Full Council meetings had seen a trend of multiple questions from the same Members, which he believed had extended proceedings significantly and reduced the time available for meaningful debate on substantive agenda items. He emphasised that the motion sought neither to restrict democratic accountability nor to limit Members’ ability to ask supplementary questions or questions arising from the agenda. He stated that the purpose of the proposed amendment was to ensure fairness, balance and efficiency, enabling all Members to have the opportunity to participate fully without meetings becoming dominated by lengthy questioning sessions. Councillor Izard argued that a limit of one question per Member would encourage focused and purposeful questioning, contributing to a more effective and professionally run meeting.

In seconding the motion, Councillor Cantwell expressed his view that the proposed amendment represented a fair and proportionate adjustment to the Council’s procedures. He commented that recent meetings had been negatively affected by prolonged sequences of questions on notice, which in his view had overshadowed broader debate and contributed to public criticism of the conduct and efficiency of Full Council meetings. He highlighted the importance of ensuring that all Members, particularly backbenchers, had a genuine opportunity to contribute, noting that where multiple questions were submitted by the same Member, others could feel unable to participate to the same extent.

Councillor Cantwell added that the motion retained all existing routes for scrutiny, including supplementary questions and committee processes, while helping to maintain the professional management and reputation of Full Council. He concluded that the motion would support a more balanced and accessible decision?making environment, improving both the quality of debate and the public perception of the Council’s meetings.

During debate, Members expressed a wide range of views on the proposed amendment to the Council Procedure Rules.

Some Members supported the motion, highlighting a pattern at recent meetings where  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

The Chief Executive confirmed that thirteen questions had been received.

1.  Question to Councillor Sandeep Ghosh from Councillor Jonathan Noble:

At Full Council on 10^th November 2025 you stated: ‘Boston have paid back everything. At the moment we do not have any debts left’. Do you still stand by this statement?

Response from Councillor Sandeep Ghosh:

Thank you for the question and the opportunity to provide further clarification.

To address the point raised at Full Council, my reference to repayment in full related specifically to the PWLB loan, as that was the focus of the question. The State Street loan is a separate issue altogether and, given its very high interest rate, one that the previous administration appeared content to continue servicing for a considerable period.

From my very first discussion with the then Section 151 Officer after I took over the finance portfolio, I made it clear that, as Portfolio Holder for Finance, I had no appetite for retaining expensive, long-term borrowing. The intention was always to exit such loans when market conditions allowed, and since then we have kept a close and careful watch on opportunities to secure better-value alternatives.

For clarity on the State Street refinancing:

·        The original State Street loan was taken out on 29 January 1991 for a period of 60 years at an interest rate of 11.125%, with an annual interest cost of £111,250.

·        This loan was repaid on 11 July 2025.

·        A replacement £1m PWLB loan was taken on 15 July 2025 for five years at an interest rate of 4.81%, with an annual interest cost of £48,100.

·        This produces a full year net interest payment saving of £63,150 pa

·        Reflecting that the premium paid on clearing the loan will be released over the remaining life of the loan, the full year budget saving will reduce by £18,047 to a net position of £45,103 saving in 2026/27.

In addition:

·        The PWLB loans were repaid in full in 2024, delivering savings of approximately £6.5 million.

·        The refinancing of the State Street loan means the Council is now paying roughly half of what it was previously paying in interest.

To confirm the wider debt position:

·        Boston Borough Council currently has the £1m PWLB loan referred to above.

·        Just to give you information about our partners…..South Holland District Council has £67.456m of debt relating to its Housing Revenue Account.

·        Neither South Holland District Council nor East Lindsey District Council has any external General Fund borrowing.

Supplementary Question to Councillor Sandeep Ghosh from Councillor Jonathan Noble:

The question was “Do you still stand by this statement?” It was a yes or no answer and clearly it's “No” Councillor Ghosh doesn't stand by that statement because on the very next page he talks about the Public Works, Loan Board loan of £1,000,000 taken out in July 2025 and interest rate of 4.81% so that is a debt. It's a debt. So we do have debts. But my question about this PWB loan, this new one is, what  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.