Agenda item

Notice(s) of Motion

Please note that there is a total time limit of 30 minutes for this item – as set out in the Constitution, Chapter 2, paragraph 14.11.

 

The following Motions have been submitted:

 

1.Remote meetings - Allow elected members to attend online

 

Proposed by Cllr J Rest, seconded by Cllr A Fitch-Tillett

 

‘We have long called for the ability to be able to attend and vote on line. Whilst we will always want councillors to be able to meet in person, there needs to be the provision for some to be online, for example if they are vulnerable, have caring responsibilities or difficulties with transport. It is also in line with reducing carbon emissions to zero by 2030. Northern Ireland recently agreed in its parliament to allow councils to meet and vote remotely, Wales and Scotland already allow this. England is being left behind.
 
This Council mandates the Leader to write to the new Secretary of State, to call for parity across the UK and enable councillors in England to meet and vote on line as they see fit.
 
This Council re-investigates the feasibility of hosting hybrid meetings in one room, such as the Council Chamber.’

 

2. Reduction of sewage discharges

 

Proposed by Cllr N Lloyd, seconded by Cllr E Withington:

 

(For full background information, please see attached document)

 

This Council resolves to:

 

 

1)    Request the Leader of the Council write to the Chief Executive of Anglia Water and seek the following information:

 

a)    Report to the year-round figures for sewage discharges (including Combined sewage outfall) across the North Norfolk District Council area

b)    Explain how this information shared with the public to help them make informed decisions as to water safety for recreational use

c)     Explain what percentage of reporting of CSOs is live or from modelling?

d)    Complete the process of identifying and classifying the performance (from both daily events and through extreme weather conditions) of CSOs in order to focus remedial action and investment across the district

e)    Confirm which assets have been prioritised for investment and what plans are in place to reduce and prevent CSO events

f)      Report on Anglian Water targets for reducing CSO events in the short term and longer Term

g)    Report much money is being invested in infrastructure improvements in the area covered by North Norfolk District Council and what measures are being taking to ensure this infrastructure is climate resilient?

h)    Explain what additional measures are being taken to reduce sewage discharges or other pollution incidents in those parts of the North Norfolk river systems including its canal and the coastal waters that lie within the area covered by North Norfolk District Council?

 

2)    Request the Leader of the Council write to the Chair, Phillip Dunne MP, of the Parliamentary Environmental Audit Select Committee stating :

 

a)    This Council is in agreement with the Government U turn on supporting the amendment which will place a new legal duty directly on water companies to progressively reduce the adverse impacts of storm overflow discharges and provide enforcement of the duty by the secretary of state, or OFWAT (the Water Services Regulation Authority).

b)     This Council considers it vital that in addition to setting targets for CSO prevention, the government places a legal obligation on the water companies to classify CSO discharge outlets according to their condition and subsequent performance and produce action plans for infrastructure improvement since there is currently no legal obligation to do so.

 

3)    The Council Overview and Scrutiny committee consider including periodic review of sewage water discharge events in North Norfolk on their agenda’s by engaging with Anglia Water and asking them to report to NNDC on the progress and investments being made.

 

 

Minutes:

Two Notices of Motion had been received. The Chairman said that she would take them in order:

 

The following Notice of Motion was proposed by Cllr J Rest, seconded by Cllr A Fitch-Tillett:

 

1.    Remote meetings

 

‘We have long called for the ability to be able to attend and vote on line. Whilst we will always want councillors to be able to meet in person, there needs to be the provision for some to be online, for example if they are vulnerable, have caring responsibilities or difficulties with transport. It is also in line with reducing carbon emissions to zero by 2030. Northern Ireland recently agreed in its parliament to allow councils to meet and vote remotely, Wales and Scotland already allow this. England is being left behind.
 
This Council mandates the Leader to write to the new Secretary of State, to call for parity across the UK and enable councillors in England to meet and vote on line as they see fit.
 
This Council re-investigates the feasibility of hosting hybrid meetings in one room, such as the Council Chamber.’

 

Cllr Rest began by saying that during the last six months there had been several occasions when, if hybrid meetings could have been held, members who were unable to attend in person could have taken part in the debate and voted. He referred to the Chairman and at least one other member who were not in attendance at Full Council as they were isolating due to Covid. He went onto say that over the last 18 months, members had all mastered how to participate effectively in remote meetings and Democratic Services had records to show that attendance had increased considerably at such meetings. He said that training courses had also been extremely well attended when held remotely. Cllr Rest said that with the future of local government services at a critical juncture, it was not the time to go back to old ways. Members needed to retain the ability to make quick decisions, which was the trademark of local authorities during the pandemic.

 

Cllr A Fitch-Tillett, seconded the motion. She said that allowing members to attend meetings remotely supported the Council’s ambition of become carbon neutral by 2030. It also reduced claims for travel expenses. Some members had to travel long distances to get to the Council offices and this took time that could be better used by joining meetings remotely from home.

 

Cllr E Seward said that he supported the motion. More flexibility was needed around the holding of meetings. Hybrid meetings could take place in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales but not in England. He referred to a Cabinet member who was able to participate fully in a pre-Cabinet meeting yesterday but who could not attend the Council meeting to answer question or take part in the debate because she was isolating due to Covid.

 

Cllr J Toye said he was supportive because it greatly increased the engagement of elected members and the public.

 

Cllr E Spagnola said that as a mother of two disabled children, being able to attend remotely had made a huge difference as she did not have to find childcare, which could be challenging.

 

Cllr N Dixon acknowledged that the motion had many merits but unless it was bounded by specific grounds on why people weren’t attending, it could be the ‘thin end of the wedge’ which could undermine the value of face to face meetings. He suggested that the Constitution Working Party should develop the proposals further and then bring them back to Full Council at a later date.

 

Cllr V FitzPatrick said that there was a lot in favour of online meetings but hybrid were different. They didn’t fall into the category of remote or face to face and he had found that during hybrid meetings, those attending remotely were often ignored during discussions and less engaged. He felt that hybrid meetings were worse than both face to face and online meetings.

 

Cllr R Kershaw said that he supported the motion. He didn’t agree with Cllr FitzPatrick. There had been some very successful hybrid meetings held in the Council Chamber recently. If they hadn’t been hybrid then some of the attendees would have had to travel a long way to attend in person.

 

Cllr S Penfold said that he supported the motion and wanted to reassure Cllr Dixon that the second recommendation proposed ‘reinvestigating the feasibility’ which implied further exploratory work would be undertaken.

 

The Monitoring Officer advised members that the proposal to refer the matter to the Constitution Working Party was not feasible at the current time as there needed to be a change in the law to allow remote and hybrid meetings.

 

The Chief Executive reminded members that the Council could not lawfully hold meetings in the Chamber but the technology was in place to facilitate hybrid meetings.

 

Cllr Rest said that it was the issue of members debating and voting in a hybrid meeting that was the issue – not the technical set up. In response to Cllr Dixon’s concerns about non-attendance, he said that the onus was on the Group Leaders to address such matters.

 

It was proposed by Cllr J Rest, seconded by Cllr A Fitch-Tillett and

 

RESOLVED that

 

This Council mandates the Leader to write to the new Secretary of State, to call for parity across the UK and enable councillors in England to meet and vote on line as they see fit.
 
This Council re-investigates the feasibility of hosting hybrid meetings in one room, such as the Council Chamber

 

9 members abstained.

 

2.    Reduction of Sewage Discharges

 

The following motion was proposed by Cllr N Lloyd, seconded by Cllr E Withington:

 

The Council resolves to:

 

1.    Request the Leader of the Council write to the Chief Executive of Anglia Water and seek the following information:

 

a)    Report to the year-round figures for sewage discharges (including Combined sewage outfall) across the North Norfolk District Council area

b)    Explain how this information shared with the public to help them make informed decisions as to water safety for recreational use

c)    Explain what percentage of reporting of CSOs is live or from modelling?

d)    Complete the process of identifying and classifying the performance (from both daily events and through extreme weather conditions) of CSOs in order to focus remedial action and investment across the district

e)    Confirm which assets have been prioritised for investment and what plans are in place to reduce and prevent CSO events

f)     Report on Anglian Water targets for reducing CSO events in the short term and longer Term

g)    Report much money is being invested in infrastructure improvements in the area covered by North Norfolk District Council and what measures are being taking to ensure this infrastructure is climate resilient?

h)    Explain what additional measures are being taken to reduce sewage discharges or other pollution incidents in those parts of the North Norfolk river systems including its canal and the coastal waters that lie within the area covered by North Norfolk District Council?

 

2.    Request the Leader of the Council write to the Chair, Phillip Dunne MP, of the Parliamentary Environmental Audit Select Committee stating :

 

a)    This Council is in agreement with the Government U turn on supporting the amendment which will place a new legal duty directly on water companies to progressively reduce the adverse impacts of storm overflow discharges and provide enforcement of the duty by the secretary of state, or OFWAT (the Water Services Regulation Authority).

b)     This Council considers it vital that in addition to setting targets for CSO prevention, the government places a legal obligation on the water companies to classify CSO discharge outlets according to their condition and subsequent performance and produce action plans for infrastructure improvement since there is currently no legal obligation to do so.

 

3.    The Council Overview and Scrutiny committee consider including periodic review of sewage water discharge events in North Norfolk on their agenda’s by engaging with Anglia Water and asking them to report to NNDC on the progress and investments being made.

 

Cllr Lloyd introduced the motion. He explained that national news reports had recently revealed the shocking levels of sewage pollution that plagued England’s rivers and coastal areas.  Public outrage was growing as they saw pollution events occurring in many ecologically important areas many of which sustained high levels of biodiversity whilst also being important in terms of recreation, well-being and tourism.

In September this year the Government told wastewater plants in England they may be able to discharge effluent that had not been fully treated because of disruption caused by “supply chain failure”. When he had tried to find data regarding the amount of sewage discharge, there was none available on the Anglian Water website. The Rivers Trust, however, had collected information and published it. Cllr Lloyd said that all he was looking for was greater transparency from the water companies. The Government did not place enough emphasis on the water companies to take responsibility for reporting or for cleaning up such discharges. This was despite them making £500bn since privatisation was introduced. He said it was not about being political it was about cleaning up the local area and protecting the blue flag beaches and chalk streams.

 

Cllr E Withington reserved to her right to speak.

 

Cllr C Cushing said that he wished to propose an amendment. He said that his group wanted to support it. He asked that words ‘U turn’ were removed from recommendation 2a and that recommendation 3 was amended as follows:

 

‘Request that the Environmental Health Department engages with Anglian Water to ensure that sewerage water discharge events, affecting North Norfolk, are reported to NNDC, as they occur, together with details of action being taken to reduce and ultimately stop such events. This information is to be reported to Members at least annually to Full Council or to another forum or at a different frequency as appropriate.’

 

Cllr Lloyd replied that he was willing to remove ‘u turn’ but that he felt that it was the responsibility of the whole Council to embrace the issue not just the Environmental Health team and the vehicle for doing this was via Overview & Scrutiny Committee. He felt the amendment watered down the original proposition.

 

Cllr N Dixon, Chairman of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee said that he did not agree with Cllr Lloyd’s comments. This was an executive function not a scrutiny issue. This should happen by dint of relationships at officer level and that the amendment went much further than the one proposed in the substantive motion. He said that the Council should be informed when such events occurred as there may be actions, in terms of mitigation, that should be taken. It wasn’t effective to simply ask for periodic reviews of discharge events, this seemed too weak an approach. It was the role of Overview & Scrutiny Committee to ensure that the relationship between officers and an external agency was working effectively. He said that in principle there was cross-party support for the motion, it was just a question of how the reporting and work relating to it was undertaken.

 

The Chief Executive read out the terms of reference of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee to members. He said that the amendment and Cllr Dixon’s subsequent comments, raised a question regarding previous reports to Overview & Scrutiny Committee regarding reporting from external partners and agencies – such as the East of England Ambulance Service and their response times. He felt it was a similar situation.

 

Cllr H Blathwayt said that he believed that the Overview & Scrutiny Committee was the right vehicle for this. These were not one-off events but regular, sometimes continuous discharge. He referred to Hoveton Great Broad and Knacker’s Wood in Horning which had both been subject to foul water discharge. It was such an important issue that it could only be dealt with by the Overview & Scrutiny Committee on a regular basis.

 

Cllr N Pearce said that he believed that the amendment strengthened the original proposition by strengthening the interplay between officers and external partners.

 

The Leader, Cllr S Butikofer, said that she prided herself on working cross-party. She said that she would like to propose the following alternative wording that might resolve the issue:

 

‘This Council requests that all sewage water discharge events are immediately reported to the Council’s Environmental Health department and then consolidated into periodic reviews to be undertaken by the Overview & Scrutiny Committee. These reports should include a full review of all sewage water discharge events in North Norfolk and should require the Council and the Overview & Scrutiny to engage with Anglian Water and for them to report on the progress and investments being made.’

 

Cllr Cushing agreed to withdraw his amendment and for it to be replaced by Cllr Butikofer’s amendment.

 

The amendment was proposed by Cllr Butikofer, seconded by Cllr Cushing and when put to the vote was supported unanimously.

 

The Chairman informed members that debate of the substantive motion would now commence.

 

Cllr E Withington, seconder of the motion, then spoke in support of it. She referred to the Duke of Wellington’s amendment to the Environment Bill, which was supported by the water companies as they wanted the duty to reduce sewage discharge into the blue environment and that they wanted the target levels to be achieved and specific timescales to be set. So, rather than direct responsibility being placed on the water companies there was an indirect duty to mitigate the adverse impact of discharges. There was an enforcement system that had lost a lot of its capacity to inspect yet alone enforce. So, to request that Anglian Water engages with the Council and reports regularly to it, was a key step forward. She said that data on combined sewage outflow (CSO) for all year round was not currently available from Anglian Water and working with them on sharing this was crucial. Transparent, real time, all year round data was needed. Anglian Water was working towards this but it was the Council’s responsibility to hold them to account. She concluded by saying that Anglian Water welcomed the motion and the opportunity to engage with the Council and provide ongoing accountability. They accepted that the Council needed to be confident about sewage outflow data and this motion was a key step in achieving this.

 

Cllr Lloyd, as proposer of the motion, spoke last. He said he was pleased to see that members had found middle ground on the issue.

 

It was proposed by Cllr C Cushing, seconded by Cllr E Withington and

 

RESOLVED unanimously

 

1.    Request the Leader of the Council write to the Chief Executive of Anglia Water and seek the following information:

 

b)    Report to the year-round figures for sewage discharges (including Combined sewage outfall) across the North Norfolk District Council area

c)    Explain how this information shared with the public to help them make informed decisions as to water safety for recreational use

d)    Explain what percentage of reporting of CSOs is live or from modelling?

e)    Complete the process of identifying and classifying the performance (from both daily events and through extreme weather conditions) of CSOs in order to focus remedial action and investment across the district

f)     Confirm which assets have been prioritised for investment and what plans are in place to reduce and prevent CSO events

g)    Report on Anglian Water targets for reducing CSO events in the short term and longer Term

h)    Report much money is being invested in infrastructure improvements in the area covered by North Norfolk District Council and what measures are being taking to ensure this infrastructure is climate resilient?

i)      Explain what additional measures are being taken to reduce sewage discharges or other pollution incidents in those parts of the North Norfolk river systems including its canal and the coastal waters that lie within the area covered by North Norfolk District Council?

 

2.    Request the Leader of the Council write to the Chair, Phillip Dunne MP, of the Parliamentary Environmental Audit Select Committee stating :

 

a)    This Council is in agreement with the Government U turn on supporting the amendment which will place a new legal duty directly on water companies to progressively reduce the adverse impacts of storm overflow discharges and provide enforcement of the duty by the secretary of state, or OFWAT (the Water Services Regulation Authority).

b)     This Council considers it vital that in addition to setting targets for CSO prevention, the government places a legal obligation on the water companies to classify CSO discharge outlets according to their condition and subsequent performance and produce action plans for infrastructure improvement since there is currently no legal obligation to do so.

 

3.    This Council requests that all sewage water discharge events are immediately reported to the Council’s Environmental Health department and then consolidated into periodic reviews to be undertaken by the Overview & Scrutiny Committee. These reports should include a full review of all sewage water discharge events in North Norfolk and should require the Council and the Overview & Scrutiny to engage with Anglian Water and for them to report on the progress and investments being made

 

Supporting documents: