Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 27 August 2024 be confirmed and signed by the Chair as a true record.

Please note that, in accordance with the Members' Code of Conduct, when declaring interests members must disclose the existence and nature of the interest, and whether it is a disclosable pecuniary interest (DPI) or personal and/or pecuniary.

Purpose of Report

To propose options for consultation on a 2025/26 Council Tax Support scheme, and an accompanying Exceptional Hardship Payments scheme.

Decision

(1)          That the following options for a 2025/26 Council Tax Support scheme be moved forward for public consultation and scrutiny:

·       ‘No change’ scheme, and/or

·       Banded scheme for all working age customers

(2)          That an Exceptional Hardship Fund of £25,000 for 2025/26 be approved.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

As set out in Section 5 of the report to the Executive, two options for a Council Tax Support Scheme would be subject to public consultation and scrutiny:

• Option 1: No change to the current scheme.
• Option 2: Introduction of a ‘banded scheme’ for all working age customers.

Reasons for the Decision

The Council Tax Support Scheme (CTS), which replaced the national council tax benefit system on 1 April 2014, may be determined by each billing authority, after consultation with precepting authorities, key stakeholders and residents.

As at 30 June 2024, there were 8,278 residents claiming Council Tax Support in the City of Lincoln. 2,546 were pensioners who were protected under the legislation and received Council Tax Support as prescribed by the Government (broadly similar to the level of Council Tax Benefit). It was the 5,732working age (including those classified as ‘vulnerable’ for CTS purposes) claimants where a local scheme could be determined which could change the level of support provided.

Unless a decision by the Council was made to apply scheme changes to vulnerable working-age customers, the localised CTS scheme would historically only be applied to non-vulnerable working age customers. The definition of vulnerable working-age customers was clarified within the officer’s report.

The current split of the 5,732 (30 June 2024) working age CTS recipients was as follows:

• Working age (vulnerable): 3,357;
• Working age (not vulnerable): 2,375.

The current, 2024/25 scheme contained the following restrictions for working age customers:

• Capital limit £6,000;
• Minimum entitlement of £2 per week;
• Property banding capped at Band B, so that a customer residing in a Band C and above property, would only have their CTS calculated on Band B liability;
• Backdating restricted to one month; and
• Temporary absence from home in line with Housing Benefit regulations.

The Council was actively involved in benchmarking with other local authorities, the latest exercise in relation to Local Taxation provided information regarding City of Lincoln Council’s CTS scheme 2023/24 and its impacts, as detailed at paragraph 4.2 of the officer’s report

In this Council’s Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS), the budgeted cost of the 2025/26 CTS scheme was £1.304m (i.e. City of Lincoln Council’s share 14.3%, - (with the estimated total scheme cost of c£9.369m dependent on increases in the main preceptors levels of Council Tax).

Changes to the CTS scheme may be made for both non-vulnerable and vulnerable working age customers, however pension age residents were ‘protected’ and the ‘default’ government scheme effectively applied. If the Council wished to continue protecting vulnerable working age CTS recipients, then any changes to the CTS scheme would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

Purpose of Report

To propose a policy for the maintenance of Council owned trees.

Decision

That a policy for the care of City Council owned trees in public open spaces be adopted as detailed at Appendix A to the officer’s report, subject to minor amendments agreed with the Director of Communities and Environment.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

To decide not to adopt the policy.

Reasons for the Decision

The trees in the city had many owners. Private property, businesses, and both tiers of local authorities all had tree assets that were all vital to contributing to the tree canopy we enjoyed. This policy related only to trees growing on land owned by the City Council, or for which it had responsibility (such as parks, gardens, amenity grass areas, and common land).

The trees in the city were considered to be a major asset. Expanding knowledge about trees in recent years had highlighted their value to the wider environment in terms of biodiversity, but especially to the wider beneficial health contributions they could make for people living in an urban setting.

Managing trees in close proximity to development and high rates of footfall could be problematic in ways that were not encountered in a more natural setting, and not everyone was as accommodating as those who recognised and accepted the compromises often required.

It was therefore right that the Council took steps now to put in place a clear and transparent policy on how it would care for its tree assets, so as to make sure that resources were properly attributed, that everyone understood the standards that were to be applied, and that ultimately the tree asset was suitably maintained.

Growing trees in a city usually meant compromises at some level, for both residents who were affected, and the trees themselves. Managing these compromises was a task undertaken by the City Council’s arboricultural officers, who handled hundreds of complaints/enquiries each year.

As each complaint/enquiry was different they usually had to use their knowledge of trees to map a route to an outcome that was acceptable to a resident, whilst not adversely impacting the health of the tree. In some circumstances, where a request was excessive, and there was no basis for the extent of work being asked for, the officer may have to refuse a request in part or completely. The potential for conflict was therefore constant and relatively high.

The development of this policy was intended to both aid the public in being able to provide them with clear statements on the Council’s corporate position on tree care, but also to assist officers when making judgements.

The premise for the policy was intentionally simple.

To have in place a system that cared for City Council owned trees, so as to:

·       prioritise public safety.

·       protect property and infrastructure appropriately.

·       ensure that all trees were looked after appropriately, having reference to their species, age, condition, and setting.

It made clear the value of trees, the intention to work to recognised industry  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

Purpose of Report

To propose both a policy and a separate supporting strategy that set a framework for requesting, receiving and accepting financial support from a wide variety of sources that could be dedicated to protect, enhance, and promote the City Council owned parks and open spaces as detailed at Appendix 1 (excluding the Commons which were subject to an Act of Parliament).

Decision

That the policy and strategy for financial contributions to support parks and open spaces be approved.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

a) All uses, including for any events/activities - free. In the current economic climate this was not a sustainable approach and it would do nothing to promote investment in the parks and open spaces.

b) All uses, including events/activities charged. This would not be practical to administer, would deter use and be counter-productive to Council aims to encourage residents and visitors to use our parks.

Reasons for the Decision

The parks and open spaces of Lincoln had a vital part to play in supporting many of the Council’s future ambitions for the city.

To realise that potential, and so maximise the benefits open spaces could provide always required more funding. In the current economic climate, allocating greater City Council resources to further increase spending on open spaces was very challenging.

There were a wide range of potential income streams for parks and open spaces such as grants, sponsorship, advertising income, and bequests. It was therefore essential that the Council did not overlook opportunities to generate funds that could be dedicated to support the city’s parks and open spaces. It was also recognised that it was important to consider any such opportunities carefully so as not to inadvertently or unintentionally impact park/open space users negatively.

The proposed policy and supporting strategy were intended to provide a framework for staff/volunteers/residents/third parties, under which an opportunity was provided to contribute financial support for a site.

It was not the intent of this policy to seek to redefine any casual activities such as dog walking, jogging, running, playing football (or any such similar casual use), as events or activities that might fall subject to a direct charge. This policy related to many opportunities for income, and specifically aims to do this without deterring fair and legitimate use.

Section 3 of the officer’s report set out the importance of parks and open spaces to the city, the Council’s aspirations for the important roles these spaces would play in the future of the city and the need to encourage public use.

The policy acknowledged the complexity of trying to set rigid rules where each site was different, each income opportunity was different, and the context of each case may vary considerably. For this reason, the policy was careful to identify clear policy where that was possible, but where it was not, it established guidance and a suitable decision-making route with accountability.

As owners of the sites the Council recognised its responsibility in ensuring all income opportunities that might be considered were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.