Agenda and draft minutes

To receive apologies for absence and notification of substitutes (if any).

Apologies were received from Councillors Richard Austin (Substituted by Councillor Stephen Woodliffe), David Brown, Anton Dani, Neil Drayton and Stuart Evans.

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

Several Members reported interests relating to matters on the agenda. Councillor Stephen Woodliffe declared that he was a Member of the Lincolnshire Police and Crime Panel, an interest relevant to the Policing item scheduled for consideration. Councillor Ralph Pryke stated that he served as a Board Member of Public Sector Partnership Services (PSPS), and Councillor Suzanne Welberry similarly declared her role as a PSPS Board Member, both interests being pertinent to discussions involving partnership?wide staffing and organisational policies. Councillor Anne Dorrian advised that she was a member of a Trade Union, noting this in relation to the agenda item concerning the alignment of workforce terms and conditions. No further declarations were made.

To sign and confirm the minutes of the previous meeting.

The minutes of the previous meeting held on 15^th January 2026 were agreed and signed by the Chairman.

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 5^th February 2026.

No questions were received from the public.

(A discussion with the Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Police)

The Committee received a comprehensive verbal briefing from the Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Police and the Chief Inspector for Boston and South Holland, who attended virtually. The Chairman welcomed both officers and outlined the purpose of the session, explaining that the Committee had invited senior representatives of the Force following a period of heightened local concern regarding resources, community safety and national discussions on police reorganisation.

The Chief Constable began by setting out the strategic position of Lincolnshire Police, noting that the Force had experienced long?standing structural underfunding over many years, resulting in constrained planning horizons and reduced capacity across operational and specialist policing teams. He described how the year?to?year financial uncertainty had historically limited the ability of the organisation to invest, modernise and stabilise its workforce. The Committee was informed, however, that the recent national financial settlement represented a marked improvement and provided the most sustainable outlook the Force had seen in many years. Members were advised that the 2026/27 funding package included an uplift of almost 5% in the central police grant. A Police & Crime Panel?approved increase in the council tax precept and a three?year £12 million annual stabilisation grant, allocated specifically to address the historic funding gaps.

The Chief Constable explained that the stabilisation grant was particularly significant, as it allowed the Force to begin rebuilding officer numbers back to establishment levels, reverse previous reductions in police staff roles, and increase PCSO numbers to strengthen neighbourhood policing and community visibility. The Force was also able to re?examine specialist functions, including areas such as child protection and investigations, where capacity had been stretched.

Turning to national policy, the Chief Constable updated Members on the Government’s ongoing work on police reform. Although proposals were at a high level, he highlighted the importance of ensuring that any future changes preserved strong local accountability, community engagement and the operational autonomy necessary to respond to Lincolnshire’s unique geography and demand patterns.

The Chief Constable emphasised that the Force was working constructively with national partners while maintaining a focus on neighbourhood presence and responsiveness at the local level. The Chairman thanked both senior officers for setting out the strategic picture and invited the Committee to move into discussion.

Members engaged in detailed discussion on policing matters affecting Boston and the wider locality.

Members questioned the levels of violent crime and the perceived prevalence of weapons in the town centre. The Chief Inspector provided an evidence?based breakdown of recorded offences, which demonstrated that the number of incidents involving knives or other weapons in Boston had remained comparatively low over the past four years. Members noted that the data contrasted with some public perceptions, and the Force acknowledged the need to continue improving communication so that residents understood the true picture of local crime trends.

The Chief Constable highlighted reductions in wider violent?crime categories including violence with injury and violence without injury reflecting a broader downward trend. The Committee then discussed retail crime, with Members reporting significant  ...  view the full minutes text for item 85.

(A report by James Gilbert, Assistant Director – Corporate)

The Committee received a detailed report from the Head of HR and Organisational Development on the second phase of proposals to align workforce terms and conditions across the South & East Lincolnshire Councils Partnership. Members considered the report and the associated appendices (Appendices A–C), comprising the SELCP Vehicle Purchase Assistance Policy, the SELCP Redundancy and Redeployment Policy extract, and the updated Annual Leave Appendix within the Time Off Policy. Members were informed that the long?term programme of work had been initiated to ensure fairness, consistency and operational coherence across all three partner councils, recognising that many services now operate on a shared basis with officers working across multiple authorities.

Phase 1 of the alignment process had already addressed several major contractual differences, particularly in areas affecting large staff groups. Phase 2 brought forward the remaining nine areas requiring harmonisation which included overtime arrangements, car loan schemes, notice periods, redundancy terms, pay protection, mobility clauses and annual leave provisions, several of which differed significantly between the partner councils due to historic local policies.

Members were advised that the proposals had been assessed against multiple criteria, including financial implications, fairness, operational resilience, HR best practice and alignment with legal requirements. Each proposed revision had been reviewed through the Senior Leadership Team, relevant Portfolio Holders and the Partnership Stakeholder Board before being presented to Overview and Scrutiny for comment.

The Head of HR confirmed that, should Full Council approve the recommendations, the changes would be subject to consultation with staff and recognised Trade Unions.

Members were reminded that the proposals set out in the report aimed to move all staff to the “best of” position wherever feasible. Where Boston Borough Council already offered the most favourable terms, no change was proposed. Where East Lindsey or South Holland had the more favourable provision, the proposal was to align Boston staff to that standard. The Head of HR highlighted that the approach sought to ensure equality whilst maintaining affordability and organisational stability.

A discussion on the proposals took place, reflecting the significance of contractual terms both for staff wellbeing and operational delivery.

Members asked for clarification on the consultation process with Trade Unions and staff, particularly whether any areas might return to Council if significant objections were raised. The Head of HR confirmed that consultation feedback would be carefully reviewed and that, if proposals required amendment, especially where financial impact or statutory provisions were affected, the matter would return through the appropriate governance route before final adoption.

Concerns were raised regarding the mobility clause, especially as some officers had caring responsibilities, disabilities, or restricted access to transport. Members asked what protections would be available should staff be required to work at alternative locations.

The Head of HR explained that the mobility clause had been standardised across the Partnership for new employees for some time, reflecting the modern working arrangements of a shared service structure. For existing staff with older contracts, the proposal aimed to align the wording for consistency. However, it was emphasised that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86.

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

The Committee received a comprehensive presentation from the Group Manager for Information Governance and Data Protection Officer on the updated Data Protection Policy (attached as Appendix 1 within the report) and Records Management Policy (attached as Appendix 2 within the report), both of which had undergone a full review to reflect recent legislative, technological and organisational developments. Members were reminded that the Council’s ability to deliver effective services was fundamentally dependent on the quality, availability and security of the information it held. The review had therefore been undertaken to ensure continued compliance with statutory requirements and to strengthen the Council’s governance framework for handling data across all departments and partnership arrangements.

Members were advised that both policies had been rewritten to integrate the latest requirements of the UK General Data Protection Regulation, the Data Protection Act 2018, and critically, the recently introduced Data Use and Access Act (DUAA) 2025, which brought significant changes to data-sharing, access rights, complaint-handling and public?sector interoperability. They were informed that the DUAA placed new obligations on public bodies particularly around ‘reasonable and proportionate’ search expectations for Subject Access Requests, transparency in data sharing, the handling of automated decision?making, and the management of datasets across partnerships and multi?authority environments. The updates had been embedded within both revised policy documents.

The Records Management Policy had similarly been modernised to reflect the full lifecycle of information, encompassing creation, storage, use, archival retention, secure disposal, and the handling of AI?generated records. Members were advised that the policy aligned with national frameworks, including the Section 46 Code of Practice under the Freedom of Information Act, and sought to ensure that the management of records both paper and digital met the standards expected of a modern local authority. The Group Manager for Information Governance and Data Protection emphasised that the updates were intended not only to maintain compliance but also to promote organisational resilience, operational efficiency and public trust, particularly as more teams across the South & East Lincolnshire Councils Partnership adopted shared processes and systems.

Members held a detailed discussion on the implications of the revised governance framework, recognising the significance of information handling to Council operations and the growing importance of data protection in public life.

It was explored how the updated policies would support the Council to manage increasing volumes of complex data, including digital records, cross?partnership datasets and information generated by emerging technologies. Members sought clarification on how the new DUAA requirements would influence day?to?day processes, particularly regarding Subject Access Requests and other statutory rights.

The Group Manager explained that the shift from an exhaustive search obligation to a reasonable and proportionate one would reduce the administrative burden on officers while maintaining legal compliance and ensuring individuals’ rights were upheld. Members noted that it represented a significant practical improvement, especially in service areas managing large volumes of case files or legacy systems. They also discussed the new, DUAA?mandated complaints process, which sat outside the Council’s corporate complaints procedure and mirrored  ...  view the full minutes text for item 87.

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

The Committee received a detailed report from the Assistant Director – Governance and Monitoring Officer regarding a motion on notice previously submitted to Full Council on 12^th January 2026. The Monitoring Officer’s report relating to the proposed changes was attached at Appendix 1. Members were reminded that during the meeting, a point of order had been raised concerning procedural requirements under the Constitution. Specifically, any proposal seeking to amend the Council’s Procedure Rules must first be accompanied by a Monitoring Officer report and must be considered by a committee before being debated and determined by Full Council. Because the requirements had not been met the motion had been referred to Overview and Scrutiny for consideration, in accordance with the Constitution.

The Monitoring Officer outlined the purpose of his statutory report, which was to provide Members with legal, procedural and comparative context to assist them in forming a recommendation to Full Council. Attention was drawn to the wide variety of approaches taken by councils nationally. Some authorities imposed no restriction on the number of questions Members could ask at Full Council, while others adopted limits based on time, number of questions, or the length and scope of those questions. The variation demonstrated that councils had broad discretion in how they regulated questioning, provided statutory obligations and constitutional safeguards were observed.

Members were reminded that the motion under consideration sought to amend Council Procedure Rule 11.2 to introduce a limit of one question only per Member per meeting, whilst retaining the right to ask one supplementary question arising directly from the original question or its reply.

The Monitoring Officer confirmed that introducing such a limit was lawful and commonplace, noting that many authorities imposed similar constraints to manage meeting length, ensure orderly debate and provide opportunities for wider Member participation.

Members also noted that the motion originally proposed that the change take effect at the conclusion of the 12^th January 2026 meeting; however, as the amendment had not been lawfully approved at that meeting, the implementation date was no longer valid. The Monitoring Officer advised that, should the Committee support the proposal, the effective date must instead be updated to reflect the next Full Council meeting on 2^nd March 2026.

Members undertook a thorough discussion on the merits and implications of amending the procedure for Member questions at Full Council. Differing perspectives were expressed, reflecting varying priorities around democratic engagement, meeting management and the role of scrutiny within the Council’s governance framework.

Some Members observed that recent Council meetings had seen extensive questioning from individual Members, which had the effect of prolonging meetings and limiting time available for wider debate on substantive items of business. They noted that the purpose of introducing a question limit was not to restrict scrutiny, but to ensure that Council meetings could progress efficiently, maintain focus on decision?making, and provide other Members with equitable opportunity to participate. It was suggested that committees, Portfolio Holders and alternative channels already provided suitable routes for raising  ...  view the full minutes text for item 88.

(For Members to note/discuss the Committee’s current Work Programme and the Council’s Forward Plan)

The Committee received the latest Work Programme and Forward Plan for review. Members were reminded that the Work Programme was updated throughout the year to ensure scrutiny remained responsive and Member?led.

An update from the Town Centre Task and Finish Group was noted, with Members informed that the draft report was expected to be circulated within the coming week and would likely be scheduled for consideration at the Committee’s March meeting.

Members discussed the importance of ongoing Member training, particularly in areas such as roles, responsibilities, governance and statutory duties. A request was made for refresher training to be added to the Work Programme, and officers undertook to arrange appropriate sessions.

Members acknowledged the recent change in the Lincolnshire County Council Highways Portfolio Holder, with officers confirming that work was underway to secure attendance from the new postholder at a future meeting.

In terms of longer?term planning, the Chairman proposed holding a scrutiny workshop at the start of the new Council year to help Members shape priorities, identify future review topics and ensure the Committee’s forward planning remained effective.

Resolved:

That the content of the current Work Programme and Council’s Forward Plan be noted.

[Councillor Anne Dorrian left the meeting at 8.22pm, during consideration of the above item.]