Agenda item

(A report by Pranali Parikh, Executive Director – Economic Development)

The Committee received a report and presentation from the Heritage Manager on the progress of a suite of heritage documents relating to Boston Borough and South Holland District.

Members noted that the documents, as set out within the appendices to the report, formed part of a comprehensive programme of work to preserve and enhance the historic environment across the partnership area.

The Committee considered the Boston Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan (Appendix 1), together with the proposed Conservation Area boundary map (Appendix 2), which provided an updated assessment of character and identified proposed amendments to ensure the continued protection of the area’s special interest.

Members also considered the Holbeach Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan (Appendix 3) and its associated proposed boundary map (Appendix 4), which similarly sought to review and refine the designation to better reflect the character of the area.

The Committee further considered the Spalding Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan, including the Spalding Shop Front Design Guide (Appendix 5), alongside the proposed boundary map (Appendix 6). These documents provided a detailed assessment of Spalding’s historic environment and included guidance aimed at improving the quality and appearance of shop fronts within the town centre.

In addition, Members considered the South East Lincolnshire Councils Partnership (SELCP) Traditional Building Design Guide (Appendix 7), which had been developed as a practical tool to support property owners, developers and officers in understanding and applying appropriate design principles for traditional buildings across both designated and non-designated heritage assets.

The Committee also had regard to the Spalding Heritage Strategy (Appendix 8) and its accompanying Action Plan for Transformative Change (Appendix 9), which set out a framework for heritage-led regeneration, including priorities for improving engagement with local heritage, enhancing the public realm, and supporting economic growth.

Members were advised that the appendices represented the finalised outputs of an extensive programme of work, informed by consultation, and that the documents would be presented to the respective Cabinets of the partner authorities for formal consideration and adoption.

Members welcomed the detailed work undertaken and recognised the importance of protecting and enhancing the area’s historic environment and local heritage.

Discussion was first held in relation to the Boston Conservation Area, specifically the consideration of the Rosegarth (PE21) development. Officers confirmed that this area had been assessed as part of the appraisal process; however, it had not been included within the conservation area boundary at this stage, as it was not considered to contribute sufficiently to the historic character. It was noted that the boundary could be reviewed in future should circumstances change.

The Committee considered the issue of funding in detail. Members sought clarification on the criteria for future funding opportunities and how decisions would be made regarding which projects or properties would be prioritised. Officers advised that funding was typically secured through competitive processes and was generally directed towards schemes delivering wider public benefit, such as publicly accessible buildings. It was acknowledged that this limited the availability of funding for private residential properties.

Further discussion took place regarding the priority mechanism for allocating funding, with Members seeking assurance on how properties would be selected. It was explained that prioritisation was influenced by factors such as public benefit, impact on the wider area and alignment with funding criteria, rather than a fixed localised ranking system.

Members raised concerns regarding the practical benefit of the documents in terms of delivering improvements to properties, particularly those requiring significant investment. It was noted that, whilst the documents set out clear aspirations, the additional cost associated with heritage works, particularly for private owners, could act as a barrier to renovation. There was concern that, in some cases, designation or guidance could discourage rather than encourage improvement. In response, Officers explained that the approach taken was intended to be pragmatic. The Design Guide, in particular, encouraged appropriate maintenance and incremental improvements over time, recognising that early intervention could reduce long-term costs. It was stressed that the aim was to support and guide, rather than impose unreasonable financial burdens.

The role and value of the Design Guide was discussed positively by Members. It was acknowledged that the document would provide a consistent and accessible source of guidance, helping property owners better understand expectations and enabling officers to provide more consistent advice. Members supported its use as an educational and practical tool to improve standards across the area.

The Committee also reflected on the importance of promoting local heritage and encouraging greater appreciation among residents and property owners. Members noted that engagement and awareness would be key to achieving the objectives set out within the documents, particularly where property owners were not locally based.

A further discussion took place regarding the differences between modern and traditional buildings. Officers explained that traditional buildings were generally designed to “breathe”, allowing moisture to enter and evaporate naturally, whereas modern buildings were typically designed to be sealed and waterproof. Members acknowledged that inappropriate alterations, particularly the introduction of modern materials to older buildings, could lead to deterioration and damage. The Design Guide was therefore welcomed as a means of improving understanding and avoiding such issues.

Members also highlighted the challenges associated with enforcement and the limitations in influencing absentee landlords or less engaged property owners. Whilst recognising these limitations, the Committee accepted that the documents provided a strong framework to support improved outcomes over time.

Overall, the Committee supported the principles and objectives of the heritage documents, whilst acknowledging the financial and practical challenges associated with their delivery.

The recommendations were moved by Councillor James Avery and seconded by Councillor Barrie Pierpoint.

Resolved:

That the documents and comments provided by the Committee, recognising the need to assess the area’s historic environments and, where appropriate, make changes to ensure that their special interest is preserved and enhanced, be noted.