2026 Parish Council Resolved Minutes

Minutes of Sibsey Parish Council Meeting held Tuesday 14th April 2026 at Northlands Village Hall, Northlands, Sibsey commencing at 7.00pm

PRESENT:    Cllr I Watts presiding as Chairman 
Cllr G Limb        Cllr J Ladds        Cllr A Heath
Cllr J Adiotomre     (arrived at 7.22pm)        
                 
ELDC Cllr T Ashton (left at 8.17pm)
Arboricultural Officer for South & East Lincolnshire Councils Partnership Mr A Hudson (left at 7.50pm)
Clerk – S Knowles

PUBLIC FORUM
There were no members of the public present to ask any questions or make short statements to the Parish Council during the time allocated

1.    APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND REASONS GIVEN
Prior to the start of the meeting Cllrs Adiotomre had notified the clerk that he would be late to the meeting. Cllr Barker had forwarded his apologies for absence of which the Parish Councillors were aware of the reason of which it was resolved to accept this reason.

2.    TO RECEIVE ANY DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LOCALISM ACT 2011, AND TO CONSIDER ANY APPLICATIONS FOR DISPENSATIONS IN RELATION TO DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTERESTS
No declarations of interest were received.

3.    NOTES OF THE PARISH COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 3rd MARCH 2026 TO BE APPROVED AS THE MINUTES
It was proposed by Cllr Limb, seconded by Cllr Heath and resolved to accept these notes as a true and accurate record and thereby signed by the Chairman.

4.    OUTSIDE BODIES REPORT
Arboricultural Officer for South & East Lincolnshire Councils Partnership Mr A Hudson gave his report of which can be seen in Appendix A of the minutes

ELDC Cllr Jones had sent his apologies due to having to attend another meeting and forwarded a report for the Parish Council’s information.

ELDC Cllr Ashton reported the following:
•    Firstly, apologised for not being able to attend previous meetings
•    No official  information to relay regarding Local Government reorganisation
•    Central Government have asked that all Local Government devise a new Local Plan which does not deem viable due to the Local Government reorganisation, though explained various aspects associated with it which included mentioning the Environment Agency (of which Cllr Watts asked that it be minuted that he thereby declares an interest due to being an employee of EA)
Cllr Watts relayed that he would appreciate Cllr Ashton’s support along with Cllr Jones offer in aiding in getting SPEC Cameras in the parish.

Clarification was asked relating to on an item brought up from the Parish Council’s solicitor regarding the adoption of land from ELDC.

Additionally, Cllr Watts asked about Planning Application 00301/26/RVC – Section 73 application to vary condition 1 (approved plans) previously approved under planning permission ref. no. S/152/00023/23 for the erection of 49 no. dwellings – Millers Walk, Development Site, Main Road, Sibsey. Cllr Ashton asked what they are trying to vary of which the reply was that there are too many little things that they wish to vary. Clarification was asked to the Planning Officer but the applicant had not provided a list in their enclosing letter of what the verifications are other than it was related to the layout thereby the Planning Officer stipulated that most of these changes are fairly minor

According to Police.UK website:
During February 2026 nine incidents were reported
1 x Violence and Sexual Offences on or near to Northlands Lane
2 x Violence and Sexual Offences on or near to Page Close
1 x Violence and Sexual Offences on or near to Main Road (A16)
1 x Violence and Sexual Offences on or near to Dorothy Close
1 x Violence and Sexual Offences on or near to Church Walk
1 x Anti-social behaviour on or near to Sargeants Close
2 x Violence and Sexual Offences on or near to Station Road

5.    CLERK’S REPORT
•    Notification has been received from LCC Highways relating to future works by The Chevron Group at Station Road railway crossing between 9pm and 7am on 2nd and 3rd May 2026 for Rail depth inspection and LC ancillary maintenance.
•    Notification has been received from LCC Highways relating to future works by Anglian Water at Northlands near to Westhouses and Northlands Lane between 5th May and 14th August 2026 for Water Main renewal 
•    Notification has been received from LCC Highways relating to future works by Anglian Water at Chapel Lane between 14th and 15th May 2026 for Water Main repairs

6.    FINANCIAL MATTERS
a.    Financial Report
Since the last meeting £374.31 has been credited to the Community Account (£325 in association with Burial Ground Fees and £49.31 in regard to reimbursement for ink from Clerk’s other Parish Councils).
In addition, £1200 (which includes VAT) has been paid to Roythorne’s Solicitors in relation to Land at Northlands regarding other parties’ costs as agreed.

b.    To approve payments

It was proposed by Cllr Limb, seconded by Cllr Adiotomre and resolved that these payments should be made.

7.    PARISH MATTERS 
a.    Pymoor Lane
It was relayed that the Committee prior to this meeting had not forwarded the Structural Engineers report. In addition, ELDC Building Regulations had been contacted regarding the unauthorised building work of which it was relayed from the Building Inspector “Based on what we have observed, the structure is not considered dangerous, however based on its size, it is a structure that requires formal building regulations approval.” Therefore, as there was a deadline enforced the Committee where to be contacted to stipulate that this regularisation application needed to be completed as soon as possible with a copy also forwarded to the Parish Council as proof.

b.    Burial Ground
A bespoke memorial application had been received asking for permission to be sited in front of an existing headstone. Following discussion, it was agreed by the Parish Councillors due to the reasoning to be excepted on this occasion.

c.    Village Maintenance
i)    Maintenance areas and ownership update for LCC assets
Waiting to discuss this further with LCC Cllr Matthews deferred until next meeting.

ii)    Tidy up around Christmas Tree
With the stones from the roundabout being swept onto the road it was becoming a mess that needed addressing. Suggestions were made of either resin or to replace it with bark of which it was thought best to get quotes from landscapers with their views on what would be suitable.

d.    Play Areas
A quote had been received from Vere Bros in regard to installation of new goal posts in Amos Way. Following a proposal by Cllr Limb, seconded by Cllr Ladds it was resolved to accept the quote and to go ahead with the purchase of the new goal posts that had been previously agreed.

Cllr Limb relayed that the roundabout in Amos Way does not go round effectively and believes requires some maintenance.

e.    Adoption of land in Amos Way from ELDC to Parish Council
Various documents had been received by the Parish Council’s solicitor of which had been circulated the Councillors along with other information and advice of which required confirmation of acceptance. The Parish Councillors agreed the relevant information etc on the advice received from the solicitor.

f.    Land for Play Area at Northlands
The Parish Council’s solicitor had sent the relevant response to searches etc obtained of which had been previously circulated to the Parish Councillors and asked if they were happy to move forward with the sale of which it was discussed and confirmed to continue.

g.    Parish Council Projects and Commitment Review 
The following items were discussed :
•    Garden of Tranquillity
•    Due to vandalised equipment in the Community Park, it was decided to completely remove this item and look to see if there was anything suitable that could be installed in its place.

h.    Correspondence received
The following correspondence has been received:
•    LALC e-news 6th & 20th March and 10th April 2026 
•    PRESS RELEASE - A GREATER LINCOLNSHIRE FOR ALL: Boston Borough Council, East Lindsey District Council and South Holland District Council submit detailed consultation responses to Local Government Reorganisation proposals in Greater Lincolnshire 
•    Ossian Transmission Infrastructure Project Update - March 2026 
•    LCC Town and parish council newsletter March 2026 
•    Eastern Green Link 3 (EGL 3) and Eastern Green Link 4 (EGL 4) –  Targeted Statutory Consultation under Section 42 of the Planning Act 2008 
•    ELDC Town and Parish news - updates from East Lindsey District Council 

8.    PLANNING
a.    Discuss all planning applications currently being reviewed for consultation
Since the last meeting one planning applications has been received and circulated to the Planning Forum for their observations.
•    00301/26/RVC – Section 73 application to vary condition 1 (approved plans) previously approved under planning permission ref. no. S/152/00023/23 for the erection of 49 no. dwellings – Millers Walk, Development Site, Main Road, Sibsey
This agenda item was discussed earlier in the meeting with ELDC Cllr Ashton

b.    Discuss other planning matters
There are no other planning matters to discuss

c.    Report on any information received associated with Planning 
•    Planning application 00092/26/FUL – Erection of a detached garden room – Kidon, Northlands, Sibsey has been approved.

9.    HIGHWAYS 
a.    SPEC Cameras
It was agreed that this agenda item needs to be discussed with LCC Cllr Matthews.
    
10.    ANY OTHER MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION BY LEAVE OF CHAIRMAN
The following matters were discussed:
•    Dog Bins in previous agreed locations
•    Drain has collapsed on the A16 

11.    DATE OF THE NEXT PARISH COUNCIL MEETING
As previously scheduled the next meeting will be Tuesday 5th May 2026 at Northlands Village Hall which will be the Annual Parish Council Meeting

At 9.07pm it was resolved to go into close session to discuss the next agenda item

12.    Community Award
Various names were added to the list of which it was agreed to contact the member of the community to invite them to the next Annual Parish Meeting on Wednesday 20th May 2026 to receive the award.

There being no further business the meeting finished at 9.11pm.

Appendix A

Arboricultural Officer for South & East Lincolnshire Councils Partnership Mr A Hudson Report
Andrew Hudson introduced himself as the Arboricultural Officer for South & East Lincolnshire Councils Partnership of which he had been appointed the position in August 2025 after taking over from Colin Horton.

Cllr Watts thanked Mr Hudson for his attendance at the meeting which was much appreciated and relayed that it seemed that previously that any TPOs in the parish where irrelevant especially through previous experience with former officer, especially associated with former Horse Chestnuts and more recently the Wellingtonia, with the belief that ELDC were threatened with extensive costs if this was not allowed to be felled of which it is thought that they should have requested more information associated with tree especially to its historical connection to Sibsey and that this was planted way before the property was ever built near to it., especially as the property has been vacant for several years and that there is no vehicular access to it. Cllr Watts conveyed that residents within the vicinity of the property had received threatening letters from Insurance Company who had requested that the tree be felled.

Mr Hudson replied that he had looked into the case associated with the Wellingtonia and noted that he had gone through all the evidence and no stone had been unturned relating to the investigation. He asked the Parish Council if this was a discussion associated with subsidence or TPOs in general.

Cllr Watts replied that reason for the Wellingtonia being felled seemed very mysterious to the Parish Council and that there was a particular reason for a tree being removed.

Cllr Ladds relayed that there has since been another application of similar structure regarding subsidence stipulating that if not felled that ELDC may be liable for.

Mr Horton then relayed the following information:
What is meant by subsidence? 
In simple terms, is the downward movement of the ground under the building.

In the UK, one of the most common natural causes of subsidence is the shrinkage of clay soil during dry periods. Certain tree species can contribute to this by drawing moisture from the soil. However, it is very important that trees are only one possible cause of subsidence. Other causes my include leakage of drains, water pipes, poor foundations or construction defects, soil composition, ground conditions, historic movement unrelated to vegetation.

So, when a TPO application is submitted, on the ground of subsidence, the first question is tree actually the cause of the damage being claimed. The role of the authority, when a protected tree is implicated in subsequent damage, the local Planning Authority is not deciding who is financially liable for the damage, the authority is making a planning decision whether works of the tree are justified under the TPO legislation. That distinction is important.
 
The decision is about tree management and immunity and not insurance liability. However, the consequences of that decision can still be significant. The property owners and insurers, which is why the process must be robust and defensible.

Who brings these applications? 
So, subsidence claims are more often are not made by the homeowner alone. They are usually submitted or supported by Insurance companies, loss adjusters, structural engineers and Borough Cultural Consultants. These parties will typically act in coordination and they will present technical evidence to support their claim that a tree is causing damage. 

What evidence is expected? 
Because tree removing is serious and an irreversible action, the evidence threshold in subsidence cases is deliberately high. That is quite important, because compared to other tree applications or a 211 notice, the local authority will normally expect culmination of the following structural evidence:
•    Reports from structural engineer
•    Monitoring of the movement over time. 
•    Measurements showing progression of damage
•    Ground and soil evidence
•    Soil analysis confirming shrinkage of clay
•    Evidence of moisture deficit
•    Seasonal movement patterns
•    Cultural evidence which will include the species, age, the physiological condition, water damage characteristics, proximity to the effective structures, root influence assessment were available.
•    Exclusion of other causes – drainage services, utility jets and assessment of building defects.

The key principle in this is that causation must be demonstrated and not assumed. 

The decision-making process 
Once all evidence is submitted to the local planning authority the LPA must weigh up several competing considerations. These include:
•    Whether there is sufficient evidence that the tree is causing or contributed
•    Whether the damage is ongoing, historical or stabilised
•    The importance of the tree in terms of amenity
•    The availability of alternative solutions

Importantly the authority is expected to avoid unnecessary loss of trees where alternative measures could manage the risk. Tree removal is not automatic; it is a default solution in subsidence cases. In many situations, alternatives may be considered such as ground  reduction to reduce water demand, long term monitoring of movement, installation of root barriers, engineering repairs to the building and drainage improvements.

Possible outcomes
After considering the evidence the LPA may reach one of serval outcomes:
•    Refusal of consent if the evidence is insufficient or inconclusive or if the tree is not considered a significant contributing factor
•    Conditional consent i.e. phasing, pruning or reduction o works combined with monitoring
•    Full consent where evidence strongly supports the causation and no reasonable alternatives exist. Where trees removed, replacement planting is often required.

Implications of decisions
These decisions are significant for several reasons. 
•    From a practical perspective, allowing removal can permanently alter the permanent local landscape in review to amenity value.
•    Refusing works may require continued monitoring and ongoing management at risk.
•    From a legal and procedural perspective, decisions must be carefully justified with reference to evidence and planning policy. Poorly reasoned decisions may be open to challenge through formal legal roots such as judicial review. Therefore, authorities relay heavily on expert reports and clear reasoning to ensure decisions are defensible. 

So, the emphasis is always on balance, evidence base decision making. 

Common misunderstandings
There are a few reoccurring misunderstandings 
•    In subsidence cases that the presence of damage automatically means that the tree should be removed
•    The insurers determine the outcome of the TPO application
•    The Local Planning Authority roll is to resolve insurers disputes

In reality, the authorities roll is to solely to decide whether the works are justified under Tree Preservation legislation

Cllr Ladds asked following Mr Hudson’s report that does he actually have this evidence such as the tree had been monitored, the property reviewed of which Mr Hudson replied that this was a decision made before he had been appointed to the role. Cllr Ladds then asked as a Parish Council are we informed beforehand if a tree in our parish is going to be removed, so that we have knowledge from the beginning not from just when the tree is taken down.

Mr Hudson said that as a Parish Council you would have been informed of which the reply was though the Parish Council were consulted on, no information was given in relation to the decision etc. He said that there must have been a breakdown in communication, however there is no statutory requirement for the Parish Council to be informed. 

Cllr Watts relayed that though we are not statutory consultees we do have an agreement with ELDC of notification of such things. Mr Hudson agreed but relayed even if the Parish Council were told of the decision the Parish Council would not have been able to challenge the outcome, the process is to be notified as you would a planning application and relay back to ELDC the views of which will be considered but in regards to a subsidence case they will be looking at the evidence base that supports that application.

Cllr Ladds asked Mr Hudson if he always does site visits? He replied that he would of which he was informed that the Parish Council believed that there was no site visit associated with the Wellingtonia. Mr Hudson then continued to say however, this would be based on information such as if you had a tree of high amenity value you are going to want to do a site visit. But if you have a tree that is at a level that is considered poor quality, you will look on Google Street View and decide from there.

Cllr Limb asked because there were two trees, does that then mean that the other one was not causing any effect as they are not that far apart. Mr Hudson thought that there was evidence suggested at the time that the other one would be removed.

Cllr Watts relayed that he had personally looked at the bungalow and there was no external evidence of any cracking. Mr Hudson said therefore, this would have been based on independent reports. Cllr Watts relayed that Arboricultural report received was the most childlike report he had seen in his life, it was written in ballpoint pen and was unbelievable basic and did not fulfil any of the criteria. The only evidence that the Parish Council were aware of was the solicitor’s letter that was not backed up by any engineering report.

Cllr Limb relayed that the tree cannot be put back but moving forward what will be done to ensure everything is in place? Mr Hudson relayed that he would evaluate all information received and knows what should be in place for any review and will ask for anything that is missing before making a formal decision especially associated with subsidence as would not validate anything without the correct evidence base and reason.

Cllr Ladds asked therefore the Parish Council should not have to go through the same scenario again in being left out the loop. Mr Hudson replied that he is hoping that the line of communication will be better. Cllr Watts conveyed that this would have been useful previously as the clerk found in difficult to find the information associated with the Wellingtonia of which Mr Hudson relayed that a lot of application decisions are not freely available online though you can ask for this information to be sent but believes that TPOs should be able to be seen as easy as planning applications can and therefore requested an upgrade to the system that is currently in use.

Cllr Ladds asked is the applicant liable to plant another tree. Cllr Watts informed that there was a condition stipulating it. Mr Hudson replied that this is down to the landowner to do. Cllr Watts asked what happens if this is not done? Mr Hudson relayed that this is enforceable of which the size and species will be laid down in the conditions of the decision notice. 

Cllr Watts asked about development sites with landscaping schemes and what protection there is with this. Mr Hudson relayed that this all depends on the wording of the conditions of the planning application. Personally, he would prefer to be consulted first as they can put anything on paper to look pretty however, in practice is it practical to be achieved. So, in regard to Planning Policy all streets should be treelined (that’s National not just Local), that sounds great on paper but in practicality when it comes down to being implemented you can’t do it because of a street light or underground services that wasn’t thought of in the beginning thereby leaving no space for street trees. Therefore, the conditions need to be worded correctly so that they are then enforceable. 

Cllr Heath asked if there was a hope of getting a TPO on an Ash Tree to preserve them and would he be involved? This would normally be categorised low as they do not usually have a life expectancy of 20 years, it would need to have no signs of disease, be a really nice tree and a good species to be considered.