The following Motion was received in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12:

 

Motion 1

 

On 30^th January Nuclear Waste Services (NWS) announced that an area of open countryside and productive farmland in between Gayton le Marsh and Great Carlton had been identified as the location of a massive tunnel entrance leading to the coast. High level nuclear waste would be transported using these tunnels and dumped under the Lincolnshire Coastline

 

Motion

 

‘This council urges the Executive and Leader of East Lindsey District Council to issue a statement opposing the Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) for nuclear waste in Lincolnshire and urge Lincolnshire County Council to withdraw from the project’.

 

Proposer. Travis Hesketh

Seconder Robert Watson

 

In his introduction, Councillor Hesketh highlighted to Members that the process for the GDF began on 20 March 2020 when a meeting was held to discuss the possibility of siting a nuclear dump in Lincolnshire, following which people in this region were left in the dark until the news was broken on TV on 23 July 2021 that the 67-acre brownfield site of the former gas terminal had been selected as the intended site entrance for a GDF.  He stressed that the community had no say in this decision that would forever change their lives.  Residents’ minds were consumed by the fear of nuclear waste and their homes, security and futures had been thrown into uncertainty.  And since that day, Theddlethorpe had been blighted as every conversation, thought and decision was overshadowed by the nuclear dump proposal and residents had been fighting for their homes and way of life.

 

On 30 January 2025, NWS abandoned the brownfield former gas terminal site and instead identified 1000 acres of farmland between Gayton Le Marsh and Great Carlton and understandably the residents from these communities reeled in horror at the news.  NWS proceeded to host 8 specific public events where they brought along their scientists, geologists and engagement officers armed with expensive models and polished scripts.  Following which, Councillor Hesketh strongly urged Members to support the Motion.

 

Councillor Robert Watson seconded the Motion.

 

Speaking as Seconder to the Motion, Councillor Watson added that despite the polls, surveys and meetings there would never be a willing community for a nuclear waste dump in East Lindsey or other parts of the country and urged the Council to do everything within its power to stop the county becoming the bin emptier for the nuclear industry and the refuse collector for the most toxic waste known to mankind.  He stated that it was time to show strength and leadership in this matter and strongly urged Members to support the Motion.

 

Speaking to the Motion, the Leader of the Labour Group queried why Louth had not been properly consulted on the proposed GDF area, as Ludensians were as close to this site as Mablethorpe.  This equated to 17k plus residents who were going to be equally affected by this industrialisation of the countryside and it was highlighted that it had always been the Labour Group’s position to oppose the GDF.  She considered that it was important to support the Motion and also to urge Lincolnshire County Council to withdraw from the GDF project.

 

A Member stated that it was good to see the high level of public support against the GDF and was also pleased that the Leader of the Council had issued a statement of the Council’s intention to withdraw from the Community Partnership and urged Members who were also County Councillors to have their voices heard.

 

Speaking to the Motion, the Leader of the Council clarified that the decision to withdraw from the Community Partnership was for the Executive Board to make.  He thanked the members of the public for their attendance and acknowledged their concerns that had been at the forefront during the process, however highlighted that if LCC withdrew from the process it would potentially leave a vacuum of where public opinion actually was and referred to the specific timescales in relation to the test of public support.  He continued that LCC would either stay or withdraw as determined by its own voting process and stated that the Council needed to consider putting to LCC that once local opinion was determined by a ballot of residents in the search area, then that would be binding on LCC.  If the Council pushed LCC to leave the process without any record of public opinion for or against the proposal, it gave government no sounding board to understand how vocal residents were against it.

 

A Member disagreed with this statement and considered that if both ELDC and LCC withdrew now, the proposal for a GDF was over.  As none of the communities concerned were willing, it was considered that LCC should withdraw from the process immediately.

 

In response, the Leader of the Skegness Urban District Society (SUDS) Group queried why it had taken so long for a decision to be made to withdraw from the process, and was unhappy with the quick turnaround when the proposed site moved inland.  He fully supported the Motion to keep nuclear waste out of Lincolnshire.

 

Several Members concurred with the points made, acknowledging that process had to be followed but stressed that now was the time to fight on behalf of the residents.  It was queried why LCC was holding out for a test of public support when it was in fact, a test of public opinion.

 

The Portfolio Holder for Coastal Economy considered that the essence of the Motion was correct and highlighted the need for parish, town, district and county councils to be united moving forward.  He agreed with the Leader’s comments with regards to LCC fully understanding public opinion by compiling data from a test of public support and stated that he would be happy to support the Motion if it made clear that LCC would withdraw from the project as soon as the vote had been taken.

 

The Leader of the East Lindsey Independent Group queried why the decision was to be made by Executive Board and not Full Council.  It was further highlighted that Louth would be affected by a GDF and would not benefit from any rewards should the proposal proceed.  Thanks were offered to Councillors Hesketh and Watson in particular, who had fought for their residents whose lives had been blighted for several years.

 

Following which, an amendment to the Motion was proposed by Councillor Graham Marsh, Deputy Leader of the Council as follows:

 

The addition of a sentence to be added to the end of the Motion ‘Once local opinion is determined by a formal ballot of residents in the search area, this is to happen as soon as possible’.

 

Councillor Craig Leyland seconded the Amendment.

 

Speaking to the Amendment, Councillor Marsh stated that he had also had people approach him that supported the GDF, therefore it was very important for a properly regulated ballot to be held as there was clearly an element of people in favour as well as those against the proposal and everyone should be allowed to have their fair say on the matter.

 

The Portfolio Holder for Coastal Economy highlighted the importance for the ballot to be undertaken strictly in line with government legislation.

 

In response, the Leader of the Council clarified that the Amendment did not affect the Council withdrawing from the process.

 

A Member strongly considered that the vote should be now, as residents had lived with uncertainty for 4 years and urged all Members to reject the Amendment.

 

A Member stated that he would not be supporting the Amendment due to the potential effect on Louth as a market town.

 

The Leader of the SUDS Group stated that he would not be supporting the Amendment and highlighted the detrimental affect the matter had on residents, including their mental health.  He did not consider that another vote was required and considered the reference to the ‘search area’ was ambiguous.

 

A number of Councillors concurred with the comments made and stated that they would not be supporting the Amendment.  It was highlighted in particular, that the wording in the Amendment ‘as soon as possible’ meant nothing.

 

In summing up, Councillor Hesketh stated that after 5 years there was no clarity on who should get a vote, if there would be a vote and no date had been set.  He added that LCC invited NWS into the county and had no mandate to do that and during this time there had been no effort to understand community sentiment.  He urged Members to stand up for the district and reject the amendment.

 

In response, the Leader of the Council stated that there was no diminishing of why people were so concerned about the GDF proposal and why they were seeking ELDC to urge LCC to withdraw from the process as soon as possible.  He clarified the points around the test of public support which happened in a timeline and reiterated that it was important for residents’ voices to be clearly heard to gain a true record of public opinion.  He further stated that this was not an attempt to undermine the position of residents and their concerns.

 

In response to the comments made, Councillor Marsh as Proposer of the Amendment highlighted that the Council had committed to withdrawing from the process by 2027 and that the Council had made it quite clear that the proposal would not get the support of the public.  He stated that it was important for a vote to be undertaken correctly and in a way that was robust and could not be rebutted.

 

No further comments on the Amendment were received.

 

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 18.5, Members requested that a recorded vote be taken on the Amendment to the Motion.  Upon being put to the vote, Members voted as follows:

 

For the Amendment:

 

Councillors: Ashton, Bowkett, Davie, Drury, Edginton, Foster, Jones, Sam Kemp, Tom Kemp, Kirk, James Knowles, Leyland, Macey and Graham Marsh. (14)

 

Against the Amendment:

 

Councillors: Aldridge, Arnold, Avison, Bristow, Danny Brookes, Jimmy Brookes, Campbell-Wardman, Cullen, Cunnington, Dannatt, Dawson, Devereux, Dickinson, Evans, Eyre, Fry, Gray, Alex Hall, David Hall, Hesketh, Hobson, Horton, Jackson, Terry Knowles, McNally, Makinson-Sanders, Marnoch, Ellie Marsh, Martin, Mossop, Simpson, Watson and Yarsley.  (33)

 

Abstentions:

 

None.

  

RESOLVED

 

That the Amendment to the Motion be not supported.

 

Following which a vote was taken on the Substantive Motion

 

For the Motion:

 

Councillors:  Aldridge, Arnold, Avison, Bristow, Danny Brookes, Jimmy Brookes, Campbell-Wardman, Cullen, Cunnington, Dannatt, Dawson, Devereux, Dickinson, Drury, Evans, Eyre, Foster, Fry, Gray, Alex Hall, David Hall, Hesketh, Hobson, Horton, Jackson, Jones, Sam Kemp, Tom Kemp, Kirk, James Knowles, Terry Knowles, Leyland, McNally, Makinson-Sanders, Marnoch, Ellie Marsh, Graham Marsh, Martin, Mossop, Simpson, Watson and Yarsley. (42)

 

Against the Motion:

 

None.

 

Abstentions:

 

Councillors:  Ashton, Bowkett, Davie, Edginton, Macey. (5)

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the Motion be supported.

 

Motion 2

 

ELDC intends to withdraw from the GDF project. On Page 34 of the document “Community Guidance How we will work with communities in England” it states 

 

“Relevant principal local authorities will receive financial support to participate in the process, so that local taxpayers do not incur any additional financial burden.”

 

Motion

 

This council urges the Executive to generate a claim against NWS for all costs that the Council has incurred in participating in the GDF project. 

 

The money claimed should be split as follows:

 

50% to mitigation of risk for the flood defence report. 

50% to be split evenly between the parishes in the search area.

 

Proposer Travis Hesketh

Seconder Robert Watson

 

In his introduction, Councillor Hesketh stated that as the Council withdrew from the GDF project, its involvement in the process required significant time, financial resources and effort.  One of the fundamental principles was that no local authority should be financially disadvantaged for participating in the process.  Therefore, he urged the Council to commission a professional project manager with expertise in contractual claims to formally qualify and submit a claim for reimbursement.  Taking all costs into consideration, he considered that a justifiable and necessary claim could be circa £25m.  Funds could be re-invested into critical local projects, for example coastal sea defences to protect the communities.  Furthermore, this would fairly compensate Mablethorpe and Theddlethorpe for enduring the disruption caused by the unwanted project.  Members were urged to support the Motion and take swift and decisive action to recover the costs from NWS.

 

Councillor Robert Watson seconded the Motion.

 

Speaking to the Motion, the Leader of the Council stated that he was fully aware of the potentials of submitting a claim for reimbursement and had directed the Chief Executive to look into this in detail.  He added that the Council had not engaged in consultancy work at the current time as it needed to undertake research work for the process and get an understanding of what was involved.

 

The Leader added that he was happy to support the Motion, however considered that it was important to broaden the potential spend of any claim further than that as set out in the Motion as there were some existing community pots of money that could be supplemented by a successful claim.

 

The Leader further advised that if LCC remained in the process, NWS would in effect be the developer of the site and the Council would have a role and responsibility as a local planning authority.

 

A Member stated that she was happy to support the Motion and that the cost to residents’ lives over the last 4 years needed to be considered.

 

The Leader of the SUDS Group stated that the was happy to support the Motion, however did not agree that a percentage of the money could be split between the villages or parishes as the search area had not been defined.

 

A Member stated that she was happy to support the Motion, however proposed an amendment that the money claimed be put to a politically balanced committee and a decision deferred on where such reclaimed funds would be allocated until such time.

 

The proposed amendment was put to the Proposer and Seconder who stated that they were both happy to accept the change.  Following which, consent from Council was received.

 

Debate on the Motion continued and a Member stated that consideration should be given to paying the Council Tax of those communities who had endured mental health issues and stress over the last 4 years, rather than spending on general projects.

 

Several Members concurred with the points made and supported that any monies from a claim be used towards flood defences and the affected communities.

 

Following which, an amendment to the Motion was proposed by Councillor Steve Kirk, Portfolio Holder for Coastal Economy, Deputy Leader of the Council as follows:

 

The second point to be ‘50% to be split evenly between parishes affected by the GDF projects that include parishes of old and parishes of new’.

 

The Amendment was not seconded.

 

A Member stated that she would like to see community facilities, for example a visitor centre benefit from any monies received.

 

In conclusion, Councillor Watson as Seconder to the Motion commented that it was clear to all present that the Council would be failing in its duty not to generate a claim against NWS for all costs incurred and urged Members to support the Motion.

 

Upon being put to the vote, the Chairman advised Members that they were voting on the amended wording to the Motion as follows:

 

‘That the money claimed be put to a politically balanced committee and a decision deferred on where such reclaimed funds would be allocated until such time’.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the Motion be supported.