To receive Motions on Notice under Council Procedure Rule 12.

 

Proposed nuclear waste site at Theddlethorpe

 

With reference to the proposed nuclear waste site at Theddlethorpe, we request that the executive of this council responds to both proven, overwhelming democratic public opinion, and motions passed recently by the district's town and parish councils and declares support for both our residents and visitors to this district by calling for an immediate test of public support to take place within 12 months or withdrawal of this council from the geological disposal facility process.

 

Proposer: Robert Watson

Seconder: Travis Hesketh

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

 

Proposed nuclear waste site at Theddlethorpe

 

With reference to the proposed nuclear waste site at Theddlethorpe, we request that the executive of this council responds to both proven, overwhelming democratic public opinion, and motions passed recently by the district's town and parish councils and declares support for both our residents and visitors to this district by calling for an immediate test of public support to take place within 12 months or withdrawal of this council from the geological disposal facility process.

 

Proposer: Robert Watson

Seconder: Travis Hesketh

 

In his introduction, Councillor Watson highlighted that further to discussions with fellow Members, the common thread was to represent and do the best for communities and residents in the wards of Theddlethorpe, Withern and Mablethorpe.  Councillor Watson stressed that the Motion was not about the merits of a geological disposal facility for nuclear waste but how residents felt threatened by the proposal.  He referred to a local council in Holderness who had rejected a proposal for a nuclear waste site by withdrawing from the siting process after less than one month and queried why ELDC did not support its residents in the same way.

 

It was further highlighted that since the general election, the national perspective had changed on projects such as nuclear waste sites and pylons with the intention to bring in sweeping planning reforms that could fast track such projects.

 

Councillor Watson added that it was the view of the majority of residents in Theddlethorpe for the uncertainty to stop and for a referendum to be held in the next 12 months and asked that this community be given the democratic voice it was asking for, or to support them by withdrawing from the Community Partnership.

 

Councillor Watson strongly urged all Members to support the Motion.

 

Upon being put to the debate, Councillor Stef Bristow supported the Motion and considered that a change in national government meant that a test of public support or withdrawal needed to happen as soon as possible.

 

In response, the Leader of the Council stated that he fully understood the sentiment and rationale for the Motion and the role of Councillors representing their communities.  However, he stressed that the Council had a role to understand all of the issues that it faced, including deprivation, flood defence issues, the longevity of the economy and the ability to educate its residents so that it had a viable and thriving economy.

 

The Leader of the Council acknowledged that the Community Partnership and Nuclear Waste Services had not progressed the engagement as quickly and effectively as it should have done.  It was highlighted that the engagement process was initially going to be over a 10 to 15-year period, however further to engagement with Lincolnshire County Council it had been determined that it would be better to hold this by the end of 2027.  Since that time, due to a change in government the plans could change and technically a test of public support could not be initiated as following government guidance this could only happen after the host community site had been established.

 

The Leader of the Council stated that it was proposed to make a recommendation to Executive Board that after a 12-month period of engagement from NWS and the Community Partnership, that it would come to a conclusion after 12 months following pre-decision scrutiny by the Council.

 

He further stressed that it was necessary for information to be gathered and understood in determining what the potential benefits were so that residents could take an informed decision.  Members noted that the Leader had discussed with the local MP who advised that a letter had been sent to residents with regards to a referendum being held within 12 months.  It was however, highlighted that the referendum was outside of the NWS and Community Partnership process and whilst this could be undertaken, the view of the community was potentially already known and a judgement needed to be made on whether the information received was adequate enough for a test of public support.

 

Therefore, the Leader stated that he would recommend to Executive Board that the Council withdrew from the process due to the quality of engagement and also the fact that the GDF could be imposed.  However, information needed to be gathered to inform that judgement with pre-decision scrutiny planned.  The amendment to the Motion was as follows:

 

‘With reference to the proposed nuclear waste site at Theddlethorpe, we request that the executive of this council responds to both proven, overwhelming democratic public opinion, and motions passed recently by the district's town and parish councils and declares support for both our residents and visitors to this district by calling for an immediate test of public support once the Potential Host Community has been established and subject to any amendments made by national infrastructure policy. This to take place within 12 months or withdrawal of this council from the geological disposal facility process’.

 

Councillor Graham Marsh seconded the proposed amendment.

 

Councillor Danny Brookes stated that he had no trust in NWS and was not in support of the proposed amendment in relation to the establishment of the host community and was concerned that NWS was trying to dilute the area.  He considered that Theddlethorpe was the host site and that the community needed to have the vote.

 

In response, the Leader of the Council highlighted that the process was laid out in government policy which the Council had followed.  Members were advised that all the terminology regarding host communities and the right of withdrawal were sequential and in date, however the Council was testing this in terms of shortening timescales.  The policy was being followed, therefore the amendment to the Motion was picking up the policy process, whereby the Council needed to recognise that a test of public support could not happen until the potential host community had been established.

 

Councillor Claire Arnold advised Members that she was a member of the Community Partnership and shared the frustrations that this was not working.  Councillor Arnold added that the voluntary membership on this group were finding it difficult to fulfil their role through liaison and being the pathway between the residents and NWS and now believed that NWS should be held to account.  It was further highlighted that by supporting the amendment the Executive Board could also be held to account.

 

In response and also as a member of the Community Partnership, the Leader of the Council acknowledged the frustration that existed, however considered that there was the energy and will to make the Community Partnership work and the potential for this to be delivered and moved on.

 

Councillor Bristow asked for clarification of the additional wording ‘once the Potential Host Community has been established and subject to any amendments made by national infrastructure policy’.

 

In response, the Leader of the Council confirmed that he was responding to whether the host community site had not been established within 12 months and stated that he could not pre-determine the decision that Executive Board would be making at that time.  However, the Council had to recognise that the test of public support could not happen until the host community had been identified. 

 

Councillor Travis Hesketh raised a concern with regards to the approach that had been put forward as he considered that it had no definition about what information the Council would be provided with to make a decision in the future. He considered that a principle issue in terms of the decision was whether a geological disposal facility works would be putting high level nuclear waste underneath the linkage of coastline and by dragging in other issues, for example poverty, flooding and longevity of the economy, although well-meaning these should already be addressed by LCC and ELDC.  Councillor Hesketh highlighted that the Council was very successful at bidding for funding and delivering on projects and considered that the focus should be on the tourist and rural economies, the agricultural economy and the small and specialist industries.

 

In conclusion, Councillor Hesketh stated that NWS had not delivered and concerns had been raised relating to competence in how it was operating.  Therefore, a call for a test of public support to the Community Partnership to make a decision on the host area should be sought and a vote by referendum as put forward by the local MP.  If that did not happen then the Council should withdraw immediately from the geological disposal facility process.

 

In response, the Leader of the Council stated that there were a lot of issues that had not yet been fully established and determined in the process so far which would not survive any scrutiny if undertaken at this stage.  One key area that had not been raised or addressed was safety aspects and highlighted that it would be remiss of the Council if all of these issues were not considered before a decision to withdraw was made and stressed that time was limited to do this.

 

The Leader further highlighted that it was not just about money involved, should a GDF site go ahead, but dealing with fundamental challenges.  For example, environmental and coastal challenges that had been an issue for many years, most of which had fallen due to lack of funding and emphasised that the Council had to be realistic about what challenges had to be faced financially.

 

Councillor Tom Ashton, Portfolio Holder for Planning advised that he was happy to support the amendment and acknowledged that NWS needed to step up and engage in a cooperative and constructive way with the community and with the Council of its plans to move forward.  He also acknowledged that the Council had a duty of leadership and asked Members to consider potential benefits that a GDF may bring.  Councillor Ashton highlighted that Councillors not only represented their communities but had a duty to inform and understand and help residents to understand all aspects of the proposal and not to pick out specific areas for discussion.  It was for NWS to set out a case in such a way that the community and the Council could make an informed decision.

 

In response, the Leader of the Council thanked Councillor Ashton for his comments and support.

 

Councillor Jill Makinson-Sanders stated that it was clear that NWS had not been following procedure correctly and queried whether a judicial review by LCC and ELDC might create positive benefits.

 

In response, the Leader of the Council stated that if the Council did not provide the opportunity for a consultation to take place and withdrew without any understanding of the issues that had been raised it could itself be up for a judicial review.  This was a process open to people and whilst being informed that the majority of residents were concerned over the GDF proposal there may be voices out there that had not yet been heard.

 

In summing up, the Leader of the Council referred back to the Proposer of the Motion who highlighted Holderness Council had rejected a proposal for a nuclear waste site by withdrawing from the siting process after less than one month.  In response, the Leader clarified that it was a charity that had invited NWS in and not a government body, therefore was able to dismiss this so quickly and move on.

 

In response to the Amendment, Councillor Robert Watson thanked the Leader of the Council for his engagement with the Motion, however he strongly disagreed with the arguments for the amendment to allow a further 12 months and stressed that residents directly affected needed a voice now to express their views.  Councillor Watson urged Members to reject the amendment and resort to immediate action to resolve this.

 

Before proceeding with the vote on the amendment, the Chief Executive read out the amendment as follows:

 

‘With reference to the proposed nuclear waste site at Theddlethorpe, we request that the executive of this council responds to both proven, overwhelming democratic public opinion, and motions passed recently by the district's town and parish councils and declares support for both our residents and visitors to this district by calling for an immediate test of public support once the Potential Host Community has been established and subject to any amendments made by national infrastructure policy. This to take place within 12 months or withdrawal of this council from the geological disposal facility process’.

 

Upon being put to the vote, the Amended Motion was carried.

 

Speaking to the substantive Motion, Councillor Steve Kirk, Portfolio Holder for Coastal Economy stated that the process sat uncomfortably with him and he was strongly opposed to nuclear power.  Furthermore, he did not see how any of the proposed benefits would be a boost to tourism or agriculture.  He stated that he was disappointed that he had not got the facts and figures, however he was happy to listen to the argument if he received full information before he made a decision.

 

Councillor Danny Brookes considered it may take up to 3 years to establish a host community site and did not see the position changing in 12 months’ time.  Councillor Brookes also highlighted his concern that if an incident took place with nuclear waste stored at Theddlethorpe it would affect Skegness.  Therefore, he was not supportive of a GDF that could potentially deter people from visiting the town and was in support of the original Motion.

 

Councillor Claire Arnold added that she wished to provide reassurance to Members that every voluntary member on the Community Partnership wanted to get this right for its community, by ensuring NSW delivered or by holding them to account.

 

In his summary to the original Motion, Councillor Travis Hesketh stated that he had listened carefully to NWS and the Community Partnership over the last 12 months, however had not detected a single piece of new information regarding nuclear waste storage and handling.  He highlighted several examples of poorly run sessions run by NWS and inaccurate information gathering that misrepresented the community, which had since been discredited.  NWS had produced a vague plan to the GDF that set no milestones and no deliverables and had failed.  It was also clear that NWS was reluctant to publish any form of information release schedule to indicate when the new significant element of information would be brought forward.  He therefore considered it was time to call for the process to end.

 

Councillor Hesketh urged Members to support a withdrawal from the GDF process.

 

Councillor Robert Watson stated that it was a simple matter of democracy to give the long-suffering residents of Theddlethorpe, Mablethorpe and Withern a voice to be heard.

 

Following which, it was

 

RESOLVED

 

That the Amended Motion be supported.

 

N.B.  Councillor Paul Rickett left the Meeting at 8.12pm and re-joined the Meeting at 8.17pm.

 

N.B.  Councillor Colin Davie left the Meeting at 8.12pm and re-joined the Meeting at 8.14pm.

 

N.B.  Councillor Fiona Martin left the Meeting at 8.13pm and re-joined the Meeting at 8.17pm.