To receive Motions on Notice under Council Procedure Rule 12.

Motion: Understanding the Impact of a GDF

This council acknowledges the significance of the October 2024 report by Guardians of The East Coast (GOTEC), titled 'The Nuclear Option – Radioactive Waste Disposal on the Lincolnshire Coast,' as an important piece of evidence regarding the potential effects of a Geological Disposal Facility on the visitor economy.  (Document attached).

Proposed by: Travis Hesketh

Seconded by: Robert Watson

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

Understanding the Impact of a GDF

This council acknowledges the significance of the October 2024 report by Guardians of The East Coast (GOTEC), titled 'The Nuclear Option – Radioactive Waste Disposal on the Lincolnshire Coast,' as an important piece of evidence regarding the potential effects of a Geological Disposal Facility on the visitor economy.

Proposed Cllr Travis Hesketh

Seconded Cllr Robert Watson

In his introduction, Councillor Hesketh stated that it was really important that the right level of evidence was available to understand what the impact of a geological disposal facility would be on the area in terms of the economy, the tourist industry and visitor economy.

There had been a number of times Nuclear Waste Services (NWS) and the NWS Community Partnership had been asked to undertake an impact study.  As this had not been forthcoming, Councillor Hesketh referred to the report created and produced by GOTEC, a grassroots organisation whose interest was committed to preserving the natural beauty and quality of life on the Lincolnshire coastline.  GOTEC had undertaken this study on a voluntary basis and it was carried out by researchers who were pro and against a nuclear dump and who had no vested interests.  Councillor Hesketh advised Members that the report looked at the radioactive waste disposal and the impact on the Lincolnshire coast and provided Members with pertinent facts and figures contained within the report.

Councillor Hesketh commended the report to Council and asked that Members supported the Motion for Council to acknowledge the significance of this report as an important piece of evidence regarding the potential effects of a Geological Disposal Facility on the visitor economy.

Councillor Robert Watson seconded the Motion.

Speaking to the Motion, the Leader of the Council advised Members that Councillor Hesketh was a member of GOTEC and had previously made his views clear on the GDF at Council.  The Leader stated that he would not support the Motion to recognise the report as a significant piece of evidence as the report had not been created by an independent group as GOTEC was an advocacy group whose social media posts were clearly against the GDF or its potential.

The Leader of the Council continued that ELDC fully understood the value of tourism to the district and had undertaken much work to grow that industry.  He highlighted that the report did not consider the impacts of COVID and the increase in business for the Council in 2022 and 2023 and there was no reference in the report to various documents in relation to tourism, consultation, funding and investment to the coast and was concerned over some glaring inaccuracies in terms of some of the wording and misleading descriptors.

The Deputy Leader of the Council added that he had spoken to people who were both for and against the proposal of a GDF.  He highlighted those people that were in support of the proposal, was for the benefits that this could create for the future of younger people by bringing forward employment.  He considered at this stage it was an opportunity to look at what was possible and see what advantages this could bring to the area.

An Independent Member stated that she was happy to support the Motion for the reason she had not seen an independent study on the proposed GDF over the last 3 ½ years since this had been in the public domain.  Of the various studies she had read, the Member considered that the GOTEC report had been the most comprehensive.

The Leader of the Labour Group thanked the contributors to the report and was pleased to see the depth of its content and stated that based on the overall weight of evidence provided to date, the Labour Group remained opposed to a GDF.

The Leader of the SUDS Group stated that he liked the report and was happy to support the Motion.  He highlighted that it was important to consider both sides of the argument.

The Leader of the East Lindsey Independent Group considered that a scrutiny should inform any Executive Board decision on the matter.

A Member warned against the potential of costs falling upon the Council should the community vote for a Test of Community Support and the Planning Inspectorate found against the Council for presenting evidence for a major application that was not impartial in its evidence gathering.  Therefore, he would not be supporting the Motion.

A Member stated that he was in support of the Motion and was surprised by those Members who wished to discard the report.  He was content that the evidence had been independently statistically verified, and he challenged the Leader of the Council to set up a survey which measured up to his own quality mark using the Community Partnership.  He added that he had attended a consultation meeting at Theddlethorpe Village Hall and was disappointed to see only two members of the Community Partnership Group were in attendance.  He reiterated what had been previously highlighted that the benefits of a GDF would be for future generations and that the Motion was for the Council to acknowledge the significance of GOTEC’s report and the contribution that it made to understanding the effect of nuclear waste on the coastal economy of Lincolnshire.

A Member highlighted that the proposer and seconder of the Motion were both part of GOTEC who produced the report and asked for clarification on the legality of this.  He further stated that he supported an independent report and survey being undertaken.

In response, the Monitoring Officer advised that in terms of the Motion itself, this was not contrary to the Council Constitution which was why it had been brought forward to the meeting.  In terms of a Member’s interest, that was a matter for each individual Member to consider and would be dependent on the level of involvement that Members may have had in the production of that particular report.  The Monitoring Officer clarified that the Motion was to acknowledge the significance of the report and not for it to be adopted as a piece of evidence, therefore moving forward it would not bind the Executive in terms of its role with the Test of Public Support or withdrawal, nor affect the response that the Council may in future submit as part of a response to a planning application should that come forward in due course.

A Member raised his concern of an independent report and considered that the outcome of any such report would only reflect the briefing provided when the report was commissioned.

As a Point of Order, the Leader of the Council clarified that the Council would submit a detailed independent study of the impacts of a GDF on the wider economy, including tourism and this would be submitted to the Community Partnership in order that it could weigh the pieces of evidence up as to when it went forward for a test of public support.

The Portfolio Holder for Planning stated that the Council had a duty both collectively and individually to be entirely objective in decision making and would not support the Motion for the Council to endorse the report as he considered that there was a clear potential conflict of interest between its proposer and the organisation.  He further considered that the GOTEC report made a lot of assumptions in certain sections which betrayed a fundamental lack of objectivity behind the conclusions it had reached.

No further comments were received.

In summing up, Councillor Hesketh reiterated that the GOTEC report included people who were both for and against the proposed GDF and highlighted that evidence provided by NWS and the Community Partnership was not impartial.  He stressed that the Motion was for the Council to acknowledge the report and urged Members to support this.

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: Aldridge, Bristow, Billy Brookes, Danny Brookes, Jimmy Brookes, Cullen, Dawson, Dickinson, Eyre, David Hall, Hesketh, Hobson, Horton, Jackson, Terry Knowles, Lyons, McNally, Makinson-Sanders, Marnoch, Ellie Marsh, Mossop, Simpson, Watson and Yarsley (24)

Against the Motion:

Councillors: Ashton, Avison, Bowkett, Campbell-Wardman, Davie, Devereux, Evans, Foster, Fry, Gray, Alex Hall, Leyland, Macey, Graham Marsh, Rickett and Taylor (16)

Abstentions:

None

RESOLVED

That the Motion be supported.