In 2019, InvestSK spent £6023.40 of public money on a specially commissioned film about “Inspirational Women of South Kesteven”.

The film was supposed to show that our district has some other famous and remarkable women beside the much venerated Margaret Thatcher. Unfortunately, three years later, the film has yet to see the light of day. It is not available on YouTube, Vimeo or any other platform.

The film does not feature Lady Charlotte Bertie of Uffington who was a pioneering translator, industrialist, linguist, collector, and mother of nine.

This expenditure explains £6,000 of InvestSK expenditure. Another £14,000 was spent on a knees up at Stoke Rochford hall. £50,000 was given as grant funding to a dance school based in Grantham. If you want to know what happened to the rest of the THREE MILLION pounds spent by InvestSK during its three year existence, you will have to do your own research!

The title of this particular blogpost is a direct quote spoken by leader of SKDC, Cllr Kelham Cooke (Con), at a Cabinet meeting on 19th April. The comment was in response to a question from Cllr Phil Dilks (Ind) asking why the Chair of a Scrutiny Committee had tried to prevent a member of the public from making comments at the start of a meeting on 3rd April about the Deepings Leisure Centre. Cllr Cooke’s further comments revealed that he did not understand the Constitution about which he was preaching.

It is intended that South Kesteven DC makes radical changes to its constitution at the Council meeting on Thursday 26^th May. In the last few weeks, various new articles and schedules have been drip-fed to members. A real overload of paperwork as well as many hastily scheduled meetings and workshops. Nevertheless, a meeting of Constitution Committee on Monday 16th May will discuss the changes and decide whether to recommend them to the Full Council.

The proposals will be presented on Monday by Cllr Linda Wootten, the Cabinet Member for Corporate Governance and Licensing.

The review of the Constitution was supposed to be a tidying up exercise to make the document easier to read which is a challenging task for anyone. However, in the process of ‘tidying up’, Cllr Wootten is proposing that several of the rules should be changed:

• The Leader would have far more ability to ignore and/or shutdown unwelcome comments and questions
• Where Councillors request items for discussion, the Chairs of the Scrutiny Committees (currently all Conservative) would have the opportunity to delay debate for 3 months.
• Members of the public would have to register their wish to speak several days before the meeting, and submit any questions in advance. The only reason for introducing these new restrictions is, in the words of a recent edition of Private Eye, “to give slow-witted Councillors time to come up with answers to tricky questions” (see attached).
• Restrictions on the ability of Councillors to participate and contribute to the scrutiny process.

Personally, I am appalled at the proposals to restrict freedom of speech for Councillors and members of the public. Last August, the Council received a report on its scrutiny functions which was critical of the current procedures which are ineffective. The report has been deliberately hidden from public view and instead we are expected to accept rule changes which will make it far more difficult to hold our local politicians to account.

Given the recent tradition of Conservatives at a national level to make up the rules as they go along, and mainly to suit themselves, we need to be increasingly vigilant that such injustices do not continue at a local level.

I have had some really positive feedback my election communication flyer. I am really grateful to my friend Andrew for his help with the design.

A couple of people have commented that the leaflet doesn’t say much about the specific problems of the rural villages of the Deepings West and Rural electoral division. I admit that I struggled in writing the leaflet to make particular reference to the villages for a number of reasons, the main one is that there is only so much one can fit onto a sheet of A4. A paragraph about each village would have filled the page.

The questions about the leisure centre, waste and recycling, highways and the ubiquitous pot holes affect the whole of the electoral division and I did consider giving a roll-call of Baston, Braceborough, Greatford, Tallington, Uffington, West Deeping, Wilsthorpe, Newstead, Barholm and Stowe, but to do so would only have proved that I can read a map, and I thought that mentioning the scarecrow festival or any events in other villages would be disingenuous because while I have enjoyed them, I can’t claim credit for organising them. Naturally, having served Market and West Deeping ward for 6 years, I have many examples of activity in that part of the Division but on briefly re-reading the flyer in response to a couple of e-mails including yours, I notice there are not many mentions of specific Market or West Deeping either!

With hindsight, I regret not saying much about the lack of cycle and pedestrian infrastructure. An stark example is the lack of any sensible pedestrian route between Uffington and Tallington. During the last year I have been running around (literally) in order to become more familiar with the patch. The main road has a long stretch from Copt Hill Enterprises to Tallington with no footpath at all. The official footpath route would take you via Casewick and Barholm and the river route is not a right of way and impassable other than via farmers fields.  I’ve written more about my journeys elsewhere on my blog. https://deepingdo.com/runmyage/

In response to the specific questions posed by one of my correspondents, Nick of Uffington, I can’t put the detailed answers onto a leaflet but I am happy to publish them here:

What is your stance on the Tallington crossing?

I am hesitant to make any promise about the crossing because I remember, eight years ago, a Conservative candidate made reference in his leaflet about the need to find a solution to the Tallington crossing. I believe it has proven to be an empty gesture because nothing has happened. The County Councillor will not be able to make changes to the management or route of the East Coast Mainline. I will of course support a solution which improves road safety and decreases congestion. I attended a meeting of Uffington Parish Council (via zoom) where members of Tallington Parish Council made a short presentation with a potential solution. The solution was dependent on the construction of a Stamford Northern by-pass. In theory this seems more practical than a bridge or by-pass for Tallington alone which would only result in traffic arriving earlier to join the existing queues at the Morrison’s roundabout in Stamford.

The construction of a Stamford Northern by-pass seems plausible given the number of additional houses planned for the town but, let’s face it, it will take much more than four years to gain consensus on the solution, let alone build the road. Therefore, it is important to take action to mitigate the existing problems by encouraging vehicles heading from Spalding direction to choose alternative routes to the A1; and by improving highway safety on each side of the crossing. The next chapter in that particular story is a likely argument about a new vehicular access to Tallington lakes about which I am currently corresponding with the SKDC planning enforcement team.

Do you have an opinion on the quantity and speed of traffic on the roads connecting the villages, particularly the number of quarry trucks coming from Baston and other places?

Yes, I think that a number of rural roads have become ‘rat-runs’. I was reminded of this recently when cycling from Uffington to Belmesthorpe delivering my leaflets. King Street between Baston and West Deeping has also become a bit of a drag strip and the junction with Stamford Road needs to be made safer. The number of quarry vehicles is part of the reason for the deterioration of rural roads and the almost ubiquitous potholes in our area. LCC have let residents down by granting so many mineral licences without due regard to the condition and consequent safety of the roads.

How has Covid affected the rural economy?

The global, national and local consequences of Covid are obviously massive and largely detrimental. I am not only worried about the impact on livelihoods and the economy but also on mental health and social interaction. I spoke to someone in a village the other day about the impact of Covid on their kennels and cattery; while no-one has been able to go on holiday, the demand for boarding kennels has evaporated and these businesses have really struggled. My own work as an energy consultant has also suffered and I have had to take casual work in order to keep my family.
On the other hand, there are a few positive aspects to the Covid response including the reduction in vehicular commuting and people spending more time with their families. As we emerge from the crisis I hope that we will be able to remember some of the lessons we have learned including being thankful for what we have previously taken for granted.

Do you have thoughts on how affected business e.g. village pubs, cafes etc have fared and how they can be supported?

I have been a member of CAMRA for many years and I have always thought the government could do far more to support local pubs, eg. by reducing the price differential between drinking at home and drinking in the pub; for many people there choice between £4 a pint in the Bertie Arms and £1 a pint in your own living room is a no-brainer. The County and District Council could be better partners with local businesses rather than just appearing to be an enforcer of health and safety and other legislation (although this also important).

I genuinely intend to represent and communicate with the residents of the villages if I am elected. National and local circumstances have changed in the last four years which make the Deepings West and Rural seat far more ‘marginal’ than it was last time. My fear is that people in the Tallington, Uffington and Baston will not realise that their vote in this election actually carries far more influence than in other parts of the county or in the parliamentary elections.

Thanks again to everyone for your ongoing feedback. If you would like to keep in touch, please ‘follow’ me on this blog, or Twitter or Facebook.

I do hope you will feel able to support me on May 6th.

Best wishes,


Ashley Baxter
Independent Candidate
for Deepings West and Rural division

01778 344070
07799 077090

In yet another astonishing U-turn, South Kesteven Council has announced revised plans to unveil the controversial statue of Margaret Thatcher this summer. Having taken into account concern about public disorder in Grantham, a decision has been made to relocate the 10.5ft statue to Market Deeping.

The decision was announced as part of public realm improvements to the town centre which will also include the reconfiguration of the market place car park as well as a ban on the sale of takeaway food.

The bronze statue of the Rt Hon Baroness Thatcher or Kesteven will be situated in front of the ‘Cigar Box’ emporium in order to underline Thatcher’s long association with the tobacco industry. The ‘Iron Lady’ will not face towards the roundabout because of her predisposition against u-turns. However, the statue’s plinth will be of an particularly innovative design which include secure parking facilities for bicycles, which have been the focus of animated conversations among many Deepings residents in recent months.

Local councillor, Mrs Dilys Philkes commented “I realise Lady Thatcher was not everyone’s cup of tea, so to speak, but this monumental erection is bound to attract sightseers from far and wide which can only be good for the town”.

Councillor Ashley Baxter was less enthusiastic and suggested “If residents don’t want the Deepings to be dominated by a Conservative with little or no local connection, they must vote Independent on 6th May!”.

At Monday’s meeting of SKDC Full Council, the Portfolio Holder for Housing announced his intention to build new council houses at a small number of houses across the District. These include 14 houses at Wellington Way in Market Deeping.

The housing schemes have been ‘in the pipeline’ for several years but, as with so many other SKDC projects, the pace of progress has been almost glacial. I was shown some plans for the Wellington Way scheme, in confidence, way back in 2018. I don’t know all the reasons why it has taken the council nearly three years to ‘go public’ and start the process of applying for planning permission but it will be due in part to the large turnover of senior officers at SKDC in general and in the beleaguered Housing Department in particular. The changes in Cabinet roles (three different portfolio holders in three years) and of course the global pandemic will also have had an impact. The current Portfolio Holder, Cllr Robert Reid (Con) stated said that he hopes the scheme will be presented to the council’s internal Housing Group (composed of senior officers and cabinet members) later in March and then Planning Permission will be requested in May.

I do not have accurate up-to-date information regarding the details of the new ‘housing units’; they might be flats or bungalows but I think they will be small houses. As for the precise location on Wellington Way, you don’t need a Town Planning degree in order to make an educated guess at where it might be physically possible to build 14 homes, especially if they are to be built on land owned by the Council.

In 2018, I was assured that the future of the Scout Hut would be secure; and I have no reason to believe it is at risk now.

The other South Kesteven sites progressing in 2021/22 financial year are:

A few weeks ago, a resident of Godsey Lane contacted me with a few issues about policing, traffic and young people which, strictly-speaking, fall outside my role as a District Councillor. Nevertheless, we had a long chat about the various issues and I decided to get some answers direct from the police ‘horse’s mouth’. I hope the questions and answers below will be interesting to many people in the Deepings.

Dear Councillor Baxter,

Thank you for your email which was forwarded to me by the PCC as your queries were about operational issues, specifically about policing in the Deepings. I’m happy to answer the questions posed, and would also encourage you to engage with your local Neighbourhood Team, to understand what they are doing to keep the Deepings safe.

I have set out your questions below, followed by my response:

1. Do the PCSOs have powers to issue Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs)?
   They do, and whilst this is useful, the purpose of Police Community Support Officers is primarily to work with the community to solve problems rather than to enforce. Whilst enforcement is one solution, it is rarely the first or preferred approach to local problems.
   
2. If so, for which of the following misdemeanours can Lincolnshire PCSOs issue FPNs?
   
   a) Illegal or inconsiderate parking
   Lincolnshire County Council leads on parking enforcement and their Wardens address parking issues, not PCSOs, with the exception of Obstruction offences
   
   b) Cycling on the pavement
   Yes, PCSOs can enforce on this issue, but the safety of all road and pavement users is the primary concern – education is the preferred approach
   
   c) Cycling without lights
   PCSOs have not been given the power to issue FPNs to people cycling without lights.

d) Littering
Yes, PCSOs can enforce, but we work with District Councils where there is a persistent issue.

e) Dog fouling
No – again, PCSOs have not been given this power.

As mentioned above, the primary role of the PCSO is not enforcement. For the majority of the time PCSOs have been a part of policing in Lincolnshire they have not had any enforcement powers, and whilst these additional powers were granted to allow for a full range of outcomes, there is no incentive or expectation that enforcement will be used.

3. At a pre-Covid meeting of the Deepings Police Forum, I recall one of our PCSOs saying that powers to enforce parking restrictions were being extended beyond LCC Parking Enforcement to allow PCSOs to issue FPNs for parking. Did this ever happen? And have the PCSOs received the relevant training?
   PCSOs can issue a Traffic Offence Report (TOR ). This is a report that is considered by a central team to ensure a consistent approach for Unnecessary Obstruction, as that is a wider offence than purely breaching a parking regulation, and impacts the safety of other road users.
   
4. Have PCSOs been granted any additional powers or training as a result of the Covid-19 situation?
   Yes, PCSOs can issue FPNs in relation to COVID Regulation Breaches:
   • Contravene requirement of restriction on movement
   • Without reasonable excuse, obstruct person carrying out a function under restrictions
   • Without reasonable excuse, contravene a direction or fail to comply with instruction
   • Contravene requirement to not participate in a gathering in public of more than two people
   
5. As you can possibly gather from the previous questions, there are ongoing problems with cyclists (mostly teenagers) being anti-social in the Deepings. I wonder if there is any way to find specific data relating to this issue and whether you know of any proactive measures being taken by Lincs Police, LCC or anyone else to mitigate the problem?
   The local Inspector is Gary Stewart along with Sgt Emma Crisp and Beat Manager PC Claire Wilson are aware of the concerns raised by local residents about anti-social behaviour in the Deepings. I do not have data relating to the extent of the problem, but the neighbourhood team are working with the community to find the most effective solution to the issues.

Solutions to antisocial behaviour are always strongest when they come from the community and partners working together; enforcement is important, but often as part of a number of approaches, and rarely the first one to be used.

I encourage you to speak to your local Policing Team. The PCSOs are there to listen to the local community and help bring partners together to problem solve and ensure everyone plays their part in keeping the Deepings safe.

Yours sincerely

Chris Haward
Chief Constable

On Wednesday 17 February, the Regulator for Social Housing published the following notice with respect to South Kesteven District Council’s failings, over more than a decade, to comply with some quite fundamental health and safety legislation across its portfolio of Council Houses and sheltered housing schemes. The failings include lack of fire, electrical and asbestos checks as well as more general stock condition surveys.

Regulatory Notice – February 2021

Registered Provider:
South Kesteven District Council.

Regulatory Finding:

The regulator has concluded that:

a) South Kesteven DC has breached part 1.2 of the Home Standard; and

b) As a consequence of this breach, there was the potential for serious detriment to South Kesteven DC tenants.

The regulator will work with South Kesteven DC as it seeks to remedy this breach and will continue to consider what further action should be taken.

The Case

As a local authority registered provider, South Kesteven DC is required to comply with the consumer standards, including the Home standard. The Home standard requires registered providers to have a cost-effective repairs and maintenance service and to meet all applicable statutory requirements that provide for the health and safety of occupants in their homes.

Our assessment of the information received through a self-referral from South Kesteven DC is that the Council has failed to meet statutory health and safety requirements. Specifically, the requirements in relation to fire safety, the safety of heating appliances, electrical safety, and asbestos safety. In respect of fire safety, South Kesteven DC has a statutory duty to regularly assess the risk of fire and to take precautions to prevent the risk of fire. In this regard the regulator has learned that over a thousand remedial actions identified in fire risk assessments carried out in 2017 had not been completed. There have also been failings in ensuring that solid fuel heating appliances do not pose a risk to tenants. South Kesteven DC found annual inspections and cleaning of solid fuel heating appliances for a smaller number of properties had not been scheduled or completed in a timely way. With regard to electrical safety, South Kesteven DC is required to ensure that electrical installations are in working and safe condition both at the start of any tenancy and throughout that tenancy. South Kesteven DC has reported that none of the Council’s communal areas had an electrical inspection and just under half of all its properties had out of date inspections, some of which were more than ten years old. For asbestos safety, South Kesteven has reported that nearly three hundred surveys of communal areas were overdue and should have been completed in 2019. For these reasons, the regulator concluded that South Kesteven DC has breached the Home Standard, and as consequence, there was the potential for serious detriment to tenants. Since identifying these issues, South Kesteven DC has strengthened its senior capacity and is developing an action plan to address the underlying weaknesses in its systems. A programme of work has commenced, and we have been assured by South Kesteven DC that it has taken immediate and appropriate action to ensure the safety of tenants while the programmes being delivered.

The Regulator’s Findings

The regulator considered the case as a potential breach of part 1.2 of the Home standard and has concluded that South Kesteven DC did not have an effective system in place to allow it to meet its statutory health and safety responsibilities across a range of areas.

Complying with statutory health and safety requirements is a fundamental responsibility of all registered providers because of the potential for serious harm to tenants. South Kesteven DC has demonstrated to the regulator the progress it is making to ensure the required statutory checks, and relevant safety actions, are completed, and that appropriate mitigations are in place in the meantime. However, taking into account the seriousness of the issues, the durations for which tenants were potentially exposed to risk, and the number of tenants potentially affected, the regulator has concluded that it is proportionate to find that South Kesteven DC has breached the Home standard and that there was a risk of serious detriment to tenants during this period. Section 198A of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (as amended) states that the regulator’s regulatory and enforcement powers may be used if a registered provider has failed to meet a consumer standard. In order to use regulatory or enforcement powers, as well as the failure to meet the standard, there should also be reasonable grounds to suspect that the failure has resulted in a serious detriment to the provider’s tenants (or potential tenants) or that there is a significant risk that, if no action is taken by the regulator, the failure will result in a serious detriment to the provider’s tenants (or potential tenants). South Kesteven DC has put in place a programme to rectify these failures and the regulator will therefore not take statutory action at this stage, as it has assurance that the breach of the standard is being remedied. The regulator will work with the Council as it continues to address the issues which have led to this situation, including ongoing monitoring of how it delivers its programme.

This above text has been copied verbatim from the website of the Regulator for Social Housing.