03-03-26 TC MINS
MINUTES OF THE EXRTA-ORDINARY MEETING OF LOUTH TOWN COUNCIL
HELD IN THE OLD COURT ROOM, THE SESSIONS HOUSE, LOUTH
ON TUESDAY 3rd MARCH 2026

The Mayor, Cllr. D. Hobson (DH) (in the chair).

Present Councillors: T. Ball (TB), Mrs. E. Ballard (Mrs. EB), J. Baskett (JB), J. Drake (JD), H. Filer (HF), G.E. Horton (GEH), Mrs. J. Makinson-Sanders (Mrs. JMS), D. Moore (DM), Mrs. K. Parsons (Mrs. KP), P. Starsmore (PS), H. Steer (HS)

Councillors Not Present: Mrs. P.F. Watson (Mrs. PFW), D.E. Wing (DEW).

Lincolnshire County Council (LCC) Cllr. T. Catton, East Lindsey District Council (ELDC) Cllr. R. Jackson, Mrs. E. Maddison of the Friends of Park Avenue Play Park (FPAPP) group, the Town Clerk, Mrs. L.M. Phillips and the Town Clerk’s Assistant, Mrs. S. Chitauro-Adlard and three others were also present.

Public Forum
• LCC Cllr. T. Catton confirmed that LCC’s portion of the precept would increase to 2.9% in 2026/27 and that allowances for LCC Cllrs. would be frozen. He imparted that LCC had recently created a £500,000 community fund for local councils, and whilst details had not yet been confirmed, he believed that each council would get around £3,000 to £4,000 to spend on local initiatives. Cllr. Catton also mentioned that, after being approached by several residents, he had applied for a Traffic Regulation Order at Newmarket, which was to be discussed at the later Planning Committee meeting.
• Mrs. E. Maddison of the FPAPP Group informed the Council that the group was now fully constituted and had recently received registered charity status. She said that ELDC had awarded the group a grant of £88,200 and the only condition left to be satisfied before releasing the funding was LTC’s confirmation to take responsibility for the land and its long-term management and maintenance and requested that LTC do so to remain committed to residents and deliver a space for children in the area. She reassured the Council that the FPAPP Group would not walk away from the project once the equipment had been installed, and would continue to support, advocate, run, maintain and fundraise. She finally implored the Council once more to write to ELDC to satisfy their last condition to release the funding.
• Cllr. Mrs. EB asked Mrs. Maddison about the condition of CCTV which had also been set by ELDC. Mrs. Maddison said that the park would have solar panel powered CCTV in compliance with data protection and that the FPAPP Group would ensure that the CCTV would have a dedicated safeguard lead and the individual managing it would be safeguarding trained. She informed Cllr. Mrs. EB that the group had enlisted the help of an individual from the Freemasons to carry out risk assessments for CCTV in accordance with legislation. After reviewing a document issued by Mrs. Maddison, Cllr. Mrs. EB felt that the quote of £420 plus VAT for installation of CCTV and a 128gb SD card would not be sufficient. Cllr. Mrs. EB went on to say that she had investigated further into the CCTV proposed by the FPAPP Group and that she felt that their proposals would cause issues with data protection as they would be recording data related to identifiable people. She asked whether people using the park would be aware that they were being recorded; would they be aware of who to contact should they want to exercise their legal right to check the accuracy and appropriateness of that data via a data protection subject access request; would the police know who to contact should they require access to the footage; would the footage be viewed by others when using phones to access the CCTV images; would there be auditable records of who has seen the images, what they saw and when they saw it and; would there be any checks in place to ensure that the usage was legitimate? She continued that these points needed to be carefully considered and controlled, particularly when young people were concerned. Cllr. Mrs. EB stated that placing a camera on private premises or a private device to oversee a public area could cause suspicions, allegations and potential investigations, and felt strongly that one person could not be in charge of the CCTV. Mrs. Maddison replied that she had discussed the matter with the Information Commissioner’s Office regarding data protection and clarified that the FPAPP Group had over 25 members, one of which was a police constable from the Louth station, and another was from the Fire and Rescue team. She disclosed that there would be signage in the park area, and said that she was knowledgeable about GDPR, data protection and cyber security. Cllr. Mrs. EB was of the opinion that it was not legal for an individual to use a mobile phone for CCTV purposes due to the issues with data protection. She shared that she had looked into alternative solutions, such as CCTV for the park being included in the current system used by the CCTV Partnership for the town from a shared control room in Boston, which was overseen by paid operatives, however the officer in charge of CCTV had informed her that he would not be able to provide a quotation for the installation and maintenance of the CCTV as the variables were huge and costs could be between £1,000 and £10,000. Cllr. Mrs. EB reiterated that she did not feel the arrangements made by the FPAPP Group were sufficient. Mrs. Maddison clarified that the CCTV would not be monitored and would only be accessed if there was an incident and said that she felt it would be extreme to include the parks CCTV within the CCTV Partnership system controlled in Boston.
• Cllr. R. Jackson clarified that funding granted to the FPAPP Group was issued from the East Lindsey Investment Fund (ELIF), which was funded from renewable business rates. She said that, whilst it was likely to continue into 2026/27, it was highly unlikely that the fund would continue after Local Government Reorganisation (LGR), as ELDC would probably dissolve. She felt that it was unusual to receive this funding and thought that it was unlikely that it would be offered again. Cllr. TB asked Cllr. Jackson as to why ELDC stipulated that LTC must take ownership of the land for the FPAPP Group to receive funding when no other park in the ELDC area was owned by a town or parish council. Cllr. Mrs. KP said that she had approached ELDC with the same question who disclosed that ELDC were now unable to take on assets due to LGR, therefore they requested LTC to take ownership of the land to ensure that it remains an asset to the town after LGR.
• The Town Clerk enquired as to why ELDC required the play park to have CCTV when no other play park in the area has it. Mrs. Maddison replied that it was to act as a deterrent and to protect the park. Cllr. R. Jackson said it was an unusual request for a play park, but if LTC found it was the only sticking point against the park, it was important for the Council to state that in their decision which was to be made in the meeting.
• Cllr. Mrs. JMS gave an update on the Diana Princess of Wales hospital in Grimsby.

T142. Apologies for Absence
Apologies for absence were received from Cllrs. Mrs. PFW, DEW and HF, who would be leaving the meeting early.

T143. Declarations of Interest / Dispensations
The following declarations of interest were made:
a. Cllr. DH – Item 3 as a member of ELDC.
b. Cllr. GEH – Item 3 as a member of ELDC.
c. Cllr. Mrs. JMS – Item 3 as a member of ELDC.
d. Cllr. TB – Item 3 as a member of Louth Freemasons.

T144. Park Avenue Play Park

a. Council received a report from Cllr. DM of the Park Avenue Play Park Working Group (PAPPWG) who unanimously voted against taking responsibility for the running and management of the land, as per the conditions imposed by ELDC for the release of the ELIF funding, feeling that several conditions of the criteria for the FPAPP Group to receive the funding had not been met. Cllr. DM voiced the PAPPWG’s concerns regarding the issue of CCTV who felt that, whilst the FPAPP Group were insistent on running the park, there was no income generation scheme to support the maintenance of the park and therefore, LTC would ultimately be responsible for the site and all funding towards it beyond the ELIF grant, which was not something the PAPPWG were prepared to commit to. Cllr. DM said that, whilst the Working Group supported the play park in principle, the outstanding issues were of importance to LTC, as were the implications of LGR as LTC did not know what responsibilities they would potentially be presented with in the near future. Subsequently, the PAPPWG voted unanimously against LTC taking ownership of the land and recommended a review of this decision in two years’ time.

The floor was then opened to the Council. Cllr. Mrs. KP shared that the Working Group spoke to members of the PAPP Group who made it clear that they were expecting to manage and maintain the park once established, contrary to LTC’s initial beliefs. She said that the FPAPP Group were hoping to fund the project through fundraising, grants and any other means. Cllr. Mrs. KP went on to explain that they also spoke about public liability insurance and said that the FPAPP Group understood that they needed their own insurance and public liability insurance. Cllr. Mrs. KP then said that she had spoken to Mr. Saul Farrell, Senior Program Manager for Local Growth and Grant Funding, South and East Lincolnshire Councils Partnership, questioning as to why ELDC required LTC to assume responsibility for the ‘running and management’ of the land, to which he responded that ELDC were unable to take on any more assets due to the impending LGR. She also asked Mr. Farrell as to what would satisfy the condition, as LTC did not intend to take responsibility for the day-to-day management and maintenance of the site and it appeared that the FPAPP Group did not want this to be the case either. Mr. Farrell informed Cllr. Mrs. KP that there were three ways in which LTC could comply with the condition imposed by ELDC: 1) LTC could take full ownership of the land from Gleesons, the current landowners, establish a play park on the land, and assume full responsibility for its management, maintenance and upkeep; 2) LTC could take ownership of the land and lease to the FPAPP Group on a peppercorn rent for the establishment of a play park, with the group managing and maintaining the site thereafter or; 3) the FPAPP Group take direct ownership of the land from Gleesons which LTC could then underwrite so that it would revert to LTC’s assets if the group were to dissolve so that the land was not lost.

Cllr. Mrs. JMS asked whether the inclusion of the land on LTC’s asset and risk register would affect LTC’s insurance and whether LTC would need a legal agreement with the PAPP Group. The Town Clerk replied that LTC would be required to produce a legal agreement and lease, as the document would need to be written to ensure it met LTC’s needs. She went on to say that it could make a slight difference to LTC’s insurance, but if what Cllr. Mrs. KP said was correct and LTC were to commit to the second option as described by Mr. Farrell, the land would still be considered LTC’s asset and under LTC’s insurance, however the group would still require their own insurance which would be paid out as required if the group ran into any issues.

Cllr. JD expressed that he was very much in favour of LTC fulfilling option two, but was not against the first option wherein LTC would be responsible for the land and park in its entirety.

Cllr. GEH believed that the majority of Councillors were in favour of the project but felt it would be difficult for LTC to commit to due to the uncertainty of LGR, disclosing that he thought it would be wrong of LTC to take on a new asset without knowing what the future may hold.

Cllr. JB remarked that he was in favour of the play park but had some reservations due to his knowledge from previous experience with play parks. Cllr. JB said that he was aware that, for a park to run properly and effectively, it needed regular maintenance and checks to be undertaken by qualified staff, which LTC did not have. He thought that option two was the right option for the Council but recommended that the FPAPP Group moved slower with their plans for installing a play park.

Cllr. Mrs. EB was firmly against LTC choosing option one and felt strongly that LTC should not be held liable for any CCTV issues should LTC choose option two.

Cllr. HF said that LTC should be helping the FPAPP Group and acknowledged the group’s growth. She disagreed with the suggestion that the Group should go slower with their plans.

Cllr. DM was insistent that a tree and land survey be undertaken on the land, which would not be a quick process. He believed that all Councillors supported the project and recognised that Louth was in need of more play areas, but said that plans needed to be executed properly and practically.

Cllr. Mrs. JMS asked whether the grant would pay for the associated legal fees, to which Mrs. Maddison confirmed that £500.00 of the grant had been allocated for the fees towards the transfer of land.

Cllr. HF, who had been absent at recent meetings, asked whether Gleesons had attended the Town Council meeting held 10th February 2026 after it was resolved to invite them on the 20th January 2026. The Town Clerk responded that Gleesons were unable to attend the meeting on 10th February but did confirm that they were not able to retrospectively install a play park on the land and ask current residents to pay for it as the current residents had had no knowledge of the play park when they initially bought their houses. The Town Clerk continued that Gleesons were able to introduce LTC to the management company who could run a play park on LTC’s behalf if desired, but this would come at a cost. She also confirmed that LTC would incur legal fees, as heads of terms would need to be drafted by a solicitor who would then negotiate with Gleesons. A lease would also need to be written to suit both LTC and the other parties, which would incur further fees.

Several Cllrs. once again aired their concerns regarding CCTV, to which Cllr. PS reminded them that CCTV was a stipulation of ELDC’s funding and not an LTC issue.

The Town Clerk said that there appeared to be a misunderstanding at previous meetings, with LTC under the impression that the FPAPP Group expected LTC to fund, maintain and manage the park, whereas after discussion, it appeared that the group were willing to take full responsibility for the maintenance and management of the park, and although the park would fall under LTC’s insurance as a backstop, that would be the extent of LTC’s involvement in the running of the park at this point.

Cllr. TB was of the view that LTC did not need to take CCTV into further consideration, stating that Cllr. Mrs. EB had given the FPAPP Group advice and it was their choice whether to take it. He felt strongly that LTC needed to be specific in their wording of their response to ELDC, ensuring it was made clear that LTC was not assuming responsibility for the maintenance and upkeep of the land.

Cllr. HF suggested that LTC consider awarding grant funding to the group to use towards the project in future.

After careful consideration, it was proposed, seconded and RESOLVED that LTC would take ownership of the land in question at Park Avenue, Louth, from Gleesons and would lease it back to the Friends of Park Avenue Play Park Charity who would assume all responsibility from that point, subject to agreement of Heads of Terms and Lease Terms. Should, in the future, the Charity dissolve, Louth Town Council would automatically assume responsibility again, for the land only.

b. Council considered adding Cllr. TB to the membership of the Park Avenue Play Park Working Group, as one of the Councillors for the ward in which the park would be located. It was proposed, seconded and RESOLVE to include him as a member of the working group.

T145. Next Meeting
It was noted that the date of the next scheduled Town Council meeting was 24th March 2026.

The Meeting Closed at 7.56pm.

 

Signed_______________________ (Chairman) Dated_________________________