Motions on Notice:
- Meeting of Council, Wednesday, 13th December, 2023 2.00 pm (Item 76.)
- View the background to item 76.
To receive Motions on Notice under Council Procedure Rule 12.
Motion 1:
Proposed by Councillor Jill Makinson-Sanders
Seconded by Councillor Ru Yarsley
We propose that as a forward looking council with ambition, we should resolve to establish a small new department serving the Partnership to develop a road map to take advantage of all AI can offer to assist us in enhancing services and reducing costs.
Motion 2:
Proposed by Councillor Travis Hesketh
Seconded by Councillor Robert Watson
Development of the Theddlethorpe Gas Terminal Site
Theddlethorpe Gas Terminal (TGT) operated from 1972 to 2018. It consists of 70 Acres of industrialised land comprising hardstanding, public footpaths, roads and services which were occupied by ConocoPhillips and National Grid. The site is owned by National Grid. An extended area includes farmland, commercial and residential properties. The site has and is being cleared of industrial equipment and infrastructure. Remediation included in the decommissioning plan required restoration to agricultural land. It is directly adjacent to the Kings Nature Reserve, Seal sanctuary and holiday camps. It is served by the A1031.
Motion:
We strongly urge ELDC to take the following actions:
· Carry out a public consultation to shape the vision for the TGT site. To be completed within the next 6 months. The site is in the Withern and Theddlethorpe ward and directly adjacent to Mablethorpe. The consultation should, therefore, include these wards. This consultation is to gauge the sentiment of the local residents toward the uses for the site.
· Design and synchronise this consultation exercise to maximise public participation and minimise costs. Use multiple tactics to solicit input. This approach will ensure that as many residents as possible can have their voices heard on this critical matter.
· Present the consultation plan to the elected councillors.
· Analyse and provide raw data and a public report on the outcome. Commit to respecting the outcome of the consultation as an essential reflection of the community's wishes and sentiments.
· With a vision for the area confirmed ELDC will be able to turn the vision into detailed proposals prior to a further consultation.
By adopting this motion, East Lindsey District Council reaffirms its commitment to upholding the principles of democracy, transparency, and accountability, as well as its responsibility to protect the interests of its constituents and the efficient use of public resources.
References:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c52fd0740f0b6255dabf3e7/VDP2.pdf
https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/6874602
Planning requirement to return to agriculture
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10158587086739387&set=g.551685696182592
Motion 3:
Proposed by Councillor Travis Hesketh
Seconded by Councillor Robert Watson
Understanding if Withern and Theddlethorpe and Mablethorpe (the Search Area) Are Willing Participants in the GDF project.
Background:
This council acknowledges the potential impact that the proposed nuclear waste Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) has on the local communities of Withern, Theddlethorpe, and Mablethorpe. This impact extends beyond the local residents to businesses, tourism, East Lindsey District Council (ELDC), and Lincolnshire County Council (LCC) resources, as well as the financial burden on taxpayers.
Furthermore, this council appreciates the commitment of ELDC and LCC to establish a Test of Public Opinion in the Host Area by the end of 2027. 4+ years away.
This council recognises that as a member of the Community Partnership that “community consent is at the heart of the process” but this has never been tested.
This council recognises that a motion requesting a referendum to seek the views of the community have been judged unlawful. It leaves residents frustrated that they are unable to express a community view.
Motion:
As stewards of public funds and proponents of local democratic processes, we strongly urge ELDC to take the following actions:
· Carry out an public consultation independent of Nuclear Waste Services Ltd, within the next 6 months, in the “Search Area” encompassing Withern, Theddlethorpe, and Mablethorpe. This consultation is to gauge the sentiment of the local residents toward the continuation of the GDF.
· Design and synchronise this consultation exercise to maximise public participation and minimise costs. Use multiple tactics to solicit input. This approach will ensure that as many residents as possible can have their voices heard on this critical matter.
· Analyse and provide raw data and a public report on the outcome. Commit to respecting the outcome of the consultation as an essential reflection of the community's wishes and sentiments.
By adopting this motion, East Lindsey District Council reaffirms its commitment to upholding the principles of democracy, transparency, and accountability, as well as its responsibility to protect the interests of its constituents and the efficient use of public resources.
Reference Documents:
UK Government - Working with Communities December 2018
UK Government /NWS - Community Guidance (not dated)
NWS - Introduction to Geological Disposal
NWS - How We Evaluate Sites in England
UK Government - Public attitudes to the revised Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) Siting Process (2014)
Page 13 -
“Many participants felt there should be two clear demonstrations of support. They wanted one at the start of the focusing stage to see whether there was community support for a GDF (and if not prevent resources being wasted in the focusing stage); as well as a further demonstration towards the end of the focusing phase, this would be the final demonstration once the community had a better understanding of the proposed site and its impacts.”
Theddlethorpe Community Partnership
https://theddlethorpe.workinginpartnership.org.uk/.
Guardians of The East Coast (GOTEC)
https://www.gotec.org.uk/general-5
Minutes:
The following Motions were received in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12:
Motion 1
Using Artificial Intelligence (AI) in relation to enhancing services and reducing costs
‘We propose that as a forward-looking council with ambition, we should resolve to establish a small new department serving the Partnership to develop a road map to take advantage of all AI can offer to assist us in enhancing services and reducing costs’.
Proposer: Cllr Jill Makinson-Sanders
Seconder: Cllr Ru Yarsley
In her introduction, Councillor Makinson-Sanders explained that she had since spoken to the Leader of the Council who had suggested that meetings be held across the Partnership in early 2024 to look at what benefits AI could provide, with a view to looking to take this forward.
In response, the Leader stated that AI was a subject that needed to be understood fully and that it needed to be considered across the Partnership.
RESOLVED
That the Motion be withdrawn.
Motion 2
Development of the Theddlethorpe Gas Terminal Site
‘Theddlethorpe Gas Terminal (TGT) operated from 1972 to 2018. It consists of 70 Acres of industrialised land comprising hardstanding, public footpaths, roads and services which were occupied by ConocoPhillips and National Grid. The site is owned by National Grid. An extended area includes farmland, commercial and residential properties. The site has and is being cleared of industrial equipment and infrastructure. Remediation included in the decommissioning plan required restoration to agricultural land. It is directly adjacent to the Kings Nature Reserve, Seal sanctuary and holiday camps. It is served by the A1031.
We strongly urge ELDC to take the following actions:
· Carry out a public consultation to shape the vision for the TGT site. To be completed within the next 6 months. The site is in the Withern and Theddlethorpe ward and directly adjacent to Mablethorpe. The consultation should, therefore, include these wards. This consultation is to gauge the sentiment of the local residents toward the uses for the site.
· Design and synchronise this consultation exercise to maximise public participation and minimise costs. Use multiple tactics to solicit input. This approach will ensure that as many residents as possible can have their voices heard on this critical matter.
· Present the consultation plan to the elected councillors.
· Analyse and provide raw data and a public report on the outcome. Commit to respecting the outcome of the consultation as an essential reflection of the community's wishes and sentiments.
· With a vision for the area confirmed ELDC will be able to turn the vision into detailed proposals prior to a further consultation.
By adopting this motion, East Lindsey District Council reaffirms its commitment to upholding the principles of democracy, transparency, and accountability, as well as its responsibility to protect the interests of its constituents and the efficient use of public resources’.
Proposer: Cllr Travis Hesketh
Seconder: Cllr Robert Watson
In his introduction, Councillor Hesketh explained that further to advice from the Legal Manager, he wished to make two changes to the Motion as follows:
· In relation to the wording, to replace ‘ELDC’ with ‘ELDC’s Executive’ to make it clear who was taking the decision;
· In bullet point 4, to delete the line ‘Commit to respecting the outcome of the consultation as an essential reflection of the community's wishes and sentiments’.
The Council gave its consent to these changes.
Following which, the Motion was Proposed and Seconded.
Councillor Claire Arnold stated that she supported the Motion in principle, however due to the legal flaws that had been shared amongst Members proposed a further amendment to the Motion.
‘That the Executive Committee:
1) Carries out a consultation with the constituents of the search area that allows the public to give their views on the future of the Theddlethorpe site;
2) Forward the results of the consultation to Executive Board to inform its decision making and the timing of the test of public support’.
Councillor Arnold highlighted that there was a desire for the residents of the search area that their views should be ascertained and shared with everybody involved and it was vital for the process to be followed within the legal framework so that the constituents could be reassured that their voices were being heard. The Labour Party had always opposed the Theddlethorpe site as the potential site for the GDF and would continue to fight for a constructive alternative use of the site in collaboration with all stakeholders. It was stressed that this was not a business decision but would have the greatest impact on all individuals of the local community.
The Amendment was duly seconded.
· In response to the amendment, a Member considered that the principle was the same, and further requested that a recorded vote be taken. A Member agreed and asked that Members proceed to the vote.
· The Leader of the Labour Group considered that the amendment simplified the system of consultation and was a broader and attainable approach and it was important for people to have the opportunity to say what was happening in their area.
· The Leader of the East Lindsey Independent Group stated that it was clear to see the strength of feeling by both Members and also members of the public in attendance at the meeting, however stated that it was important to keep this issue independent of politics. In response, Councillor Arnold stated that the amendment was put forward so that residents could have their voice heard and considered that it should remain personal and strongly disagreed with the inference that her Group was making the issue political. Councillor Arnold advised that, following discussions, Members were assured that Executive Board would work with this in a timely fashion and this was why a timescale had not been added to the amendment.
· The Leader of the SUDS Group highlighted his concern that there was no timescale attached to the amendment and considered it important to add one so that money did not get wasted.
Councillor Hesketh highlighted to Members that the intent of the Motion was to make a plan for the site with a test of public support. This plan would stand on its own as a backup should the GDF project not go ahead and the site would be available for alternative uses.
Further to a Member’s query relating to the validity of the amendment, the Monitoring Officer clarified to Members that the Constitution allowed words to be inserted/deleted to a Motion with no limitation on the amount, however the Motion must remain around the original topic put forward.
No further comments to the amendment were received.
Upon being put to the vote, the Amendment was declared lost.
Vote: 6 for, 36 against, 1 abstention.
Debate returned to the original Motion.
· A Member commented that Theddlethorpe had undertaken both a parish poll and a private survey which received a 50% return that indicated by 100% that there was no support for the GDF. Further work had also been undertaken in relation to a parish plan, the results of that survey indicating that if the land was not returned to agriculture, a solar farm and/or a national nature reserve visitor centre to celebrate the King’s coronation be considered. It was highlighted that a recent leakage at the Sellafield site had been reported and grave concerns were raised that if radioactivity could not be contained above ground after less than 50 years, how it would be contained under the North Sea.
· With regards to the site, a Member queried whether anyone had applied for an asset of community value or had talks with the National Grid with regards to buying the site or having it gifted, for example. Whilst recognising that consultations and surveys was not a new concept, it was important to ask residents what they would like to see on the site, however it was highlighted that this needed to be done locally in terms of the Local Plan or a neighbourhood development plan.
· In response to the Motion, the Leader stated that this was simply a vision for the future of the site and considered both Motions put forward to be over wordy, confusing and not clear. He added that the letter sent by Councillor Hesketh to all Members for supporting the two Motions had confused the matter as nowhere in the Motion referred to the GDF. It was confirmed that the Theddlethorpe site was in private ownership and the opportunity was there for local communities to consider undertaking a neighbourhood development plan.
· Furthermore, it was highlighted that any Executive consideration would be non-binding and Members were reminded that pre-decision scrutiny had been undertaken through Overview Committee, the result of which was that Council would engage in this process with the Working Group set up by Nuclear Waste Services (NWS) and together with government’s proposals would be part of the Community Partnership. The Leader stressed that it was important that the Council did not leave the process and considered that much more information needed to be garnered before a test of public support was undertaken. In conclusion, the Leader stated that he would not be supporting the Motion, however made it clear that this did not prevent the community engaging in a vision for that site.
· A Member agreed that the Motion had become confusing and also that Theddlethorpe residents should be asked whether they wanted nuclear waste on their doorstep. It was considered outrageous to want to bring nuclear waste to Lincolnshire and it was most important to have a ‘Plan B’ for the future should the GDF proposal fail.
· A Member stated that he was not supportive of the Motion and notwithstanding previous points raised, considered that there were several avenues for residents to be supported and urged consideration for an informed and meaningful consultation for what the community would like to see developed on the site.
· A Member stressed that the Council must take a positive lead on this as Theddlethorpe had endured two years of uncertainty and stress. The Motion presented an opportunity for the Council to take a lead and enhance its reputation of supporting the communities that it represented. It also showed that the Council maintained transparency and accountability to those that it represented, and would enable the Council to speak with authority and effectiveness in any future negotiations about the site.
· A Member strongly considered that there was a ‘not in my back yard’ consensus amongst some Members and stressed the importance of supporting the Motion as people’s lives in the community were affected.
· A Member agreed that a formal consultation should be undertaken so options could be identified for the site to see whether they were deliverable at the earliest possible opportunity.
· A Member highlighted that the site was a former Gas Terminal, and as there was no evidence as to what would be going on the site it could potentially cost billions to clear, therefore would like to see the risks marked out and would not be supporting the Motion.
· A Member commented that he understood the sentiment, however would not be supporting the Motion as he did not consider that it asked for anything or that it could deliver. It was further highlighted that as the site was not in the residents’ or Council’s ownership the Motion carried no weight, however he supported the idea of creating a neighbourhood development plan.
N.B. Councillor Terry Knowles left the Meeting at 4.54pm.
In response to the comments made, Councillor Hesketh stated that he was disappointed that a number of Members supported pushing the onus onto parish councils when the Council should show leadership and a bold ambition on what could be delivered on the site.
In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 18.5, Members asked for a recorded vote to be taken on the Motion, upon being put to the vote, Members voted as follows:
For the Motion
Councillors: Terry Aldridge, Claire Arnold, Stef Bristow, Danny Brookes, Graham Cullen, Richard Cunnington, Roger Dawson, Carleen Dickinson, Stephen Eyre, David Hall, Travis Hesketh, George Horton, Ros Jackson, Steve McMillan, Jill Makinson-Sanders, Kate Marnoch, Edward Mossop, Daniel Simpson and Robert Watson.
Against the Motion
Councillors: Tom Ashton, Richard Avison, Wendy Bowkett, Sandra Campbell-Wardman, Colin Davie, Sid Dennis, Sarah Devereux, Dick Edginton, Stephen Evans, Martin Foster, Richard Fry, William Gray, Alex Hall, Neil Jones, Sam Kemp, Tom Kemp, Steve Kirk, Craig Leyland, Daniel McNally, Carl Macey, Graham Marsh, Fiona Martin and Terry Taylor.
Abstention
None.
Where upon the Motion was declared lost, 19 Members in favour and 23 against.
RESOLVED
The Motion be not supported.
N.B. Councillors Claire Arnold, Roger Dawson and George Horton left the Meeting at 5.02pm.
Motion 3
Understanding if Withern and Theddlethorpe and Mablethorpe (the Search Area) Are Willing Participants in the GDF project.
‘As stewards of public funds and proponents of local democratic processes, we strongly urge ELDC to take the following actions:
· Carry out a public consultation independent of Nuclear Waste Services Ltd, within the next 6 months, in the “Search Area” encompassing Withern, Theddlethorpe, and Mablethorpe. This consultation is to gauge the sentiment of the local residents toward the continuation of the GDF.
· Design and synchronise this consultation exercise to maximise public participation and minimise costs. Use multiple tactics to solicit input. This approach will ensure that as many residents as possible can have their voices heard on this critical matter.
· Analyse and provide raw data and a public report on the outcome. Commit to respecting the outcome of the consultation as an essential reflection of the community's wishes and sentiments.
By adopting this motion, East Lindsey District Council reaffirms its commitment to upholding the principles of democracy, transparency, and accountability, as well as its responsibility to protect the interests of its constituents and the efficient use of public resources’.
Proposer: Cllr Travis Hesketh
Seconder: Cllr Robert Watson
In his introduction, Councillor Hesketh explained that further to advice from the Legal Manager, he wished to make two changes to the Motion as follows:
· In relation to the wording, to replace ‘ELDC’ with ‘ELDC’s Executive’ to make it clear who was taking the decision;
· In bullet point 3, to delete the line ‘Commit to respecting the outcome of the consultation as an essential reflection of the community's wishes and sentiments’.
The Council gave its consent to these changes.
Following which, the Motion was Proposed and Seconded.
During his summing up of the Motion, Councillor Hesketh stated that Lincolnshire County Council (LCC) had compromised its impartiality by accepting Nuclear Waste Services’ (NWS) money to hire staff. As a Point of Order, Councillor Colin Davie asked that Councillor Hesketh withdraw that comment as LCC’s position was neutral on the matter and it would be for the community to decide through the public vote when it came. In response, Councillor Hesketh stated that he withdrew the comment.
Debate opened on the Motion.
· A Member reiterated that the residents of Theddlethorpe had already stated that they did not want nuclear waste bringing to their village and was disgusted that a number of Councillors found it so easy to railroad a community of 500 voters. It was further considered that the process of bringing nuclear waste to Theddlethorpe lacked transparency.
· A Member considered that the method of a test of public support as laid down in legislation was an absurd method of delivering potentially a critical national infrastructure in where it was sited, not least because it put the entire weight of the decision and judgement on small communities and community boundaries. That said, it was right and proper that the community made an informed decision to weigh up the pros and cons and evaluate before it came to its conclusion and it was right that the Council had made a decision to take a neutral position.
· A Member strongly considered that a decision should not be made on the basis that if Theddlethorpe was agreed to be a GDF it would for example, receive better sea defences and was concerned about the ‘carrots being dangled’. It was further highlighted that the move to potentially store nuclear waste had been known for four years, although this had only been in the public domain for just over two years, therefore in comparison to a government term for four years and the potential change of elected Members during this period of time, this highlighted a need for information to be disseminated quickly.
· A Member queried how Hartlepool, one of the areas on the list for possible GDF sites had the proposal thrown out so quickly and how they achieved this. In response, the Leader informed Members that it was his understanding that Hartlepool Council withdrew, but would check and provide detail to Members.
In summing up the Council’s position, the Leader stated that the Motion sought a public consultation on the continuation or otherwise of the GDF process and highlighted that the Council was already engaged in a consultative process via the government policy framework for ground disposal facilities. The Community Partnership was the vehicle for that discussion and consultation and the Council decided to be part of the process following an Executive Board decision following pre-decision scrutiny by the Overview Committee. In response to the comment with regards to sea defences, Members were advised that the Community Partnership was engaged in information gathering to establish how the potential siting of a GDF would affect future funding for flood defences.
As part of the process, the Council was invited to be part of the working group and gave it serious consideration along with County Council colleagues to remain neutral in the process so that information could be gathered for residents and interested parties about what the potentials of this could be.
Therefore, the Leader stated that he would not be supporting the Motion as the Council was already engaged in the process and it was committed to making sure that the future of the Theddlethorpe Gas Terminal was decided by a test of public support.
In response, Councillor Hesketh thanked the Leader for referring to the Working with Communities document and stated that the critical part of this was that the Council needed an ongoing understanding of the view of the community which was currently lacking. He highlighted a survey of local residents in Mablethorpe that had been carried out by the Community Partnership/NWS whereby the PowerPoint presentation showed a reasonably balanced view, however the raw data showed a very different picture, that it was not a survey understanding residents views, but lobbying and bias by NWS.
In conclusion, Councillor Hesketh added that he was keen to get a place on the Community Partnership and would be an active and supportive member. However, it was vital that the role of the Council was fair and representative and important for it to undertake a consultation within the next six months which was nonbinding and did not prevent a test of public support further down the line.
As a Point of Order, Councillor Makinson-Sanders stated that LCC hosted the employment for NWS and queried whether Members who were also County Councillors should remain in the Chambers to vote. In response, the Monitoring Officer clarified that in terms of interests, Councillors followed the Council’s Code of Conduct. The Motion before Members related to whether Executive Board would support holding a consultation on the matter contained within the Motion and did not relate to employment of members of staff at LCC, therefore did not consider that there was any declared interest that needed to come from that.
In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 18.5, Members asked for a recorded vote to be taken on the Motion, upon being put to the vote, Members voted as follows:
For the Motion
Councillors: Terry Aldridge, Stef Bristow, Danny Brookes, Graham Cullen, Richard Cunnington, Carleen Dickinson, Stephen Eyre, David Hall, Travis Hesketh, Ros Jackson, Steve McMillan, Daniel McNally, Jill Makinson-Sanders, Kate Marnoch, Edward Mossop, Daniel Simpson and Robert Watson.
Against the Motion
Councillors: Tom Ashton, Richard Avison, Wendy Bowkett, Sandra Campbell-Wardman, Colin Davie, Sid Dennis, Sarah Devereux, Dick Edginton, Stephen Evans, Martin Foster, Richard Fry, William Gray, Alex Hall, Neil Jones, Sam Kemp, Tom Kemp, Steve Kirk, Craig Leyland, Carl Macey, Graham Marsh, Fiona Martin and Terry Taylor.
Abstention
None.
Where upon the Motion was declared lost, 17 Members in favour and 22 against.
RESOLVED
The Motion be not supported.
N.B. Councillors Sandra Campbell-Wardman, Tom Kemp, Richard Fry, Kate Marnoch and Graham Cullen left the Meeting at 5.36pm.