Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were tabled for Councillor Lina Savickiene with no substitute member and for Councillor Andy Izard with Councillor Barrie Pierpoint substituting.   Further apologies were tabled by Portfolio Holder Councillor Anne Dorrian. 

To sign and confirm the  minutes of the previous meeting.

With the agreement of the committee the Chairman signed the minutes of the previous meeting.

To receive declarations of interests in respect of any item on the agenda.

None declared

To answer any written questions received from members of the public no later than 5 p.m. two clear working days prior to the meeting – for this meeting the deadline is 5 p.m. on Thursday 9^th April 2024

None tabled.

A report by the Assistant Director – Leisure and Culture.

The Portfolio Holder Councillor Sarah Sharpe presented the report supported by the Assistant Director for Culture and Leisure and the Interim Cultural Services Manager.

Members were advised that A Street Art Policy had been developed by South Holland District Council after they received a local petition requesting a street art wall from local residents and artists in 2021.

A Task Group was formed from the Policy Development Panel (PDP) to develop the governance framework to support the opportunity for street art in South Holland. A policy was drafted following detailed work by the Task Group and tested with a Pilot project in 2023.  It was the intention to work towards adoption of the Policy across the South & East Lincolnshire Council Partnership (S&ELCP) sub-region

The aim of the policy had been to deliver best practice in managing graffiti across the borough while providing space for street art.  For the purposes of this policy street art is defined as: “Any work of art on building facades or infrastructure with permission that complements the public space in which it is situated. Such work will not detract, defame or depreciate the area. It could be a painting, land art, sculpture etc.” Whilst graffiti was defined as “Defacement of building facades or infrastructure without permission by use of paint or another form of marker. This is always a form of criminal damage.”

In South Holland the Street Art Policy had been in place for one year and had been well tested. During the Pilot phase one artist chose to go against the approved artwork for one of the two pieces of art and created a different piece about the cost-of-living crisis. That was a clear breach in the terms of the policy and because of the policy guidelines, that piece of artwork was defined as graffiti and removed.

The proposed policy would be piloted in Boston through a project working with partners, including schools and colleges to test the following steps in the policy:

Step 1 – Application for Street Art proposal to Boston Borough Council

Step 2 –Consultation with local community, ward members and the Parish Council or BTAC

Step 3 –Approval or rejection

Step 4 –Street Art work to be carried out with approval

A potential number of sites had been identified through the Public Realm Group, however for an initial project Central Park had been chosen as the pilot opportunity to test the policy in support of the ongoing work to achieve Green Flag status.

The pilot process for the policy would be planned to seek funding and establish partners (Transported Arts);  create artist commission and share widely; pilot location and art ideas presented to relevant Portfolio Holders and Ward Councillors for approval;  successful artist commissioned and artwork produced and  the results of pilot to be presented to Cabinet.
The proposed policy had been developed and tested in South Holland resulting in examples of where it had enabled the successful delivery of street art in the community.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

A report by the Assistant Director – Corporate.

The Group Manager for Transformation and Insights presented the Quarter 3 data.  Members were advised that it was tabled for information and, to enable members to identify any potential future work items for its work programme.  The indictors for performance providing a point of direction of interest on some areas not hitting targets.

Member commenting and questioning followed which is summarised:

Concern was tabled by some members at the trend information provided, which they felt was not informative as there was no benchmarking to compare the trend information to. Further comments questioned why targets were not in place as the Council had data from previous years to compare against and there was no information within the document explaining what a tread measure meant.

Following several questions relating to the trend measures the Group Manager for Transformation and Insights clarified the position. Trend measures did not have a target to aim to, sometimes due to there being no historic data to compare against and other times, the information was used to look at a specific area.   Trend data also fed into policy documents and was used to track a particular situation overtime and in certain areas like the number of properties improved it was impossible to set a target as it was unknown how many applications would come forward.

On questioning why the calls received data had been recorded in seconds, the Group Manager for Transformation and Insights advised that it had been to ensure calls were answered quickly.  However, that form of recording had been reviewed and the measure would be changing to identify customer queries being dealt with.  

Referencing the success in achieving and surpassing the target for the ‘homeless not becoming homeless’, a member queried if any follow up a year later was made on the outcomes to see if those homed were still residents or had moved on again or re-presented with the same issues.  Further comments were tabled in respect of homelessness and rough sleepers and the Chairman advised that should members wish to take the subject further, then it would be a matter for the sister committee, Corporate and Community committee. In response to comments identifying improved properties The Lead Officer for the committee advised it related to housing standards and not the sustainable warmth programme. Officers confirmed that further details would be sought on the matter.

Responding to concerns in respect of the market stalls and no target being in place, members were advised that the portfolio holder would need to look at the data to set a target.  A further point of clarity was made in respect of the cumulative savings for the partnership in that the number indicated in orange text referenced the savings banked to date, with the number referenced in blue being the target.  Confirmation was also provided that the criteria for the visitor numbers was based on the GMLP and not across the town or borough.

(For Members to note/discuss the Committee’s current work programme)

Ahead of the work programme the Chairman asked Cllr Dani to update on the Member working Group on its activity.

Cllr Dani advised the group had not progressed any further since the previous update to the committee as they were still awaiting information, and confirmed a further meeting was scheduled within the next few weeks.  Councillor Pryke confirmed the next meeting was scheduled for the 22^ndApril 2024 and advised the group would look to draw some conclusions.  Councillor Dani further stated that a lot had been discussed which he wanted to see implemented and he felt another two meetings maybe needed or one every three months to give the group the scope to push the town to be improved.

Members noted the work programme for the new municipal year and the Lead Officer for the committee the Assistant Director for Regulatory advised that a further report had been added to the agenda tabled, which was the Environmental Policy.

8.00