Agenda item

 

 

The following Notice of Motion has been proposed by Cllr A Varley, seconded by Cllr L Withington:

 

Motion: Safer Seals - A SEAL of APPROVAL

 

North Norfolk District Council agrees to support a campaign to increase awareness of the dangers to seals from Flying Rings, encourage businesses to not sell these items in coastal regions and develop the SEAL of APPROVAL Scheme for those businesses supporting SAFER SEALS

 

Coastal members will be asked to:

·         Support the development, implementation and ongoing focus of the Seal of Approval Scheme.

 

Coastal businesses will be asked to:

·         Engage with, support and implement the Seal of Approval Scheme

 

Officers will be asked to:

·         Liaise with relevant partners and create promotional materials for the scheme to operate, raise awareness and add to our online presence.

 

 

The following Notice of Motion had been proposed by Cllr A Varley, seconded by Cllr L Withington:

 

Motion: Safer Seals - A SEAL of APPROVAL

 

North Norfolk District Council agrees to support a campaign to increase awareness of the dangers to seals from Flying Rings, encourage businesses to not sell these items in coastal regions and develop the SEAL of APPROVAL Scheme for those businesses supporting SAFER SEALS

 

Coastal members will be asked to:

·       Support the development, implementation and ongoing focus of the Seal of Approval Scheme.

 

Coastal businesses will be asked to:

·       Engage with, support and implement the Seal of Approval Scheme

 

Officers will be asked to:

·       Liaise with relevant partners and create promotional materials for the scheme to operate, raise awareness and add to our online presence.

 

Before the proposer of the motion, Cllr A Varley, opened the debate, Cllr C Cushing said that he wished to propose an amendment. The Chairman said that Cllr Varley would present the motion, then she would ask Cllr Cushing to propose the amendment.

 

Cllr Varley began by thanking everyone involved in local campaigns to protect seals from the terrible injuries caused by flying rings. The Council had supported this work for several years now with the ‘Safer Seals’ campaign. He said that this was a cross-party, non-political campaign that had been very effective in raising awareness of the issue. He referred to the Opposition’s motion in December 2022, which proposed that flying rings were banned on the district’s beaches and promenades, however the lack of enforcement powers meant that it was not supported. Cllr Varley said that the new motion was aimed at strengthening the previous motion’s ambitions with a new ‘Seal of Approval’ campaign. It was not intended to replace the Safer Seals campaign but to build on it and focussed on trying to prevent the sale of flying rings. He concluded by saying that the Council’s Communications team were supportive of the proposals.

 

Cllr L Withington, seconder of the motion, confirmed that she wished to reserve her right to speak.

 

The Chairman then asked Cllr Cushing to introduce the amendment. Cllr Cushing referred to bullet point 3 in the motion and proposed that the following amendment: ‘to develop and deploy signage with a form of wording effectively banning the use and presence of flying rings on the district’s beaches and coastal car parks, stopping short of stating that it was a legally enforceable order.’

 

Cllr N Dixon seconded the amendment.

 

Cllr Cushing added that his group would support the substantive motion. He reminded members that the motion brought forward in December was following a motion supported by Kings Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Council, which effectively banned flying rings from their beaches. He therefore still believed that this was an effective approach. If people saw a sign essentially stating that flying rings could not be taken onto beaches, then that was likely to be an effective deterrent.

 

The Chairman invited members to speak on the amendment:

 

Cllr N Housden said that he had abstained on the previous motion on a number of grounds. He said that seals were not an endangered species and there was a minimum of 157k grey seals around the British coast and about 55k common seals. He said that pollution was the main damaging factor for seals, along with fishing nets and tourist disturbance and pressure. He referred to the recent discussion on the district’s housing situation and said that he would not like to see any significant amount of officer time and resource put towards the protection of seals. He said that Cllr Fitch-Tillett had worked had to ensure that the Council signed up to the ‘Motion for the Ocean’ which was specifically aimed at hitting plastic pollution. It might be beneficial to ask shops to restrict the sale of flying rings but there were no plans to restrict the sale of plastic buckets, flip flops and disposable barbecues. He concluded by saying that although he would support the motion, it was far more important for the Council to understand the wider pollution implications and the continued focus on protecting seals should not take up a huge amount of time or cost money that the Council could not afford.

 

Cllr H Blathwayt, Portfolio Holder for Coast, said that the Motion for the Ocean was passed over a year ago, subject to a review after 12 months, However, the district council elections had delayed this so an update would be coming to Full Council soon, setting out the Council’s progress in meeting the ambitions of the ‘Motion for the Ocean’. He added that he had no objection to additional signage if it discouraged people from using flying rings.

 

Cllr S Penfold said that he agreed with Cllr Housden’s view that it was a bigger issue than just flying rings but added just because something wasn’t endangered at present, that it wasn’t worth protecting or cherishing. He said that he was supportive of the amendment and that any strongly worded signage was to be encouraged.

 

Cllr A Brown said that he was concerned about the consequences and the reputational risk of effectively introducing a ban that wasn’t enforceable. He said that it needed to be a bye-law or the Council could be put at risk if anyone tested it. He asked the Monitoring Office to clarify the situation. She confirmed that the Council did not have any enforcement powers if such a sign was erected and people then continued to use flying rings.

 

Cllr L Shires said she was going to raise concerns about needing to employ more officers to enforce any breaches but the Monitoring Officer had just confirmed that the matter could not be enforced.

 

Cllr T Adams said that he would like to see a ban on flying rings but there was no means of doing so and he would be concerned about putting up signs that were not enforceable and could be open to challenge. Ideally, in the long term he would like to see signs that would discourage the use of all plastic items on the district’s beaches but these should be legally enforceable.

 

The Chairman said that other Council’s placed recycling bins on their promenades and piers for buckets and spades, to discourage people from just discarding them. It would also help families during the cost of living crisis.

 

Cllr J Toye sought clarification on the banning of dogs from beaches and queried why signs were permitted for this. Cllr T Adams replied that the current regime was aimed at protecting people but not animals. For dogs, public space protection orders could be used to protect people from the impact of fouling.

 

Cllr M Taylor said that he wanted to remind members of the wording ‘develop and deploy signage’. He said that it was acknowledged that it was not legally enforceable but a simple sign stating ‘no flying rings’ with a picture of a seal with a ring around its neck, would deter people from using them.

 

Cllr C Ringer said that what was being proposed in the amendment was effectively an educational campaign. He said that he had no issues with using signage but it was just one element and so much more could be done. He would be supportive of taking a broader approach that could also reference wider plastic pollution.

 

Cllr A Varley thanked Cllr Cushing for bringing forward the amendment and indicating their support for the substantive motion. He said, however, that it didn’t strengthen the overall concept of the proposed campaign. Signage was just one aspect of this.

 

Cllr P Heinrich said that he was supportive of signage if it was advisory and educational. He added that tourists left a huge amount of detritus on beaches and across the countryside and this should not be overlooked.

 

Cllr M Batey said that he had seen strongly worded signage at Horsey over the weekend and it may be worth exploring something similar as an option.

 

Cllr G Bull said that he supported the amendment. He did a lot of sea fishing and a lot of tourists did not have any understanding of the risks and dangers of the sea or the consequences of using flying rings. They were not acting maliciously but signage would give useful guidance and that was to be welcomed.

 

Cllr L Withington said that she appreciated the engagement from the Opposition on this matter. She said that she understood their frustration as Sheringham Town Council had tried to introduce a ban on flying rings but were not able to as they were advised it was not enforceable. Cllr Withington said that she wanted to remind members of the substantive motion and its intention. It was not about the Safer Seals campaign – this would continue and the current advisory signage which was in all of the resorts would be refreshed soon with more graphic images. This motion was about trying to stop flying rings which were being sold in local shops getting onto the beach. If people could not purchase them then they could not be taken onto the beach. By giving local business the opportunity to be part of a wider campaign which would publicly allow them to demonstrate their commitment through a charter mark scheme, then the key message about reducing the impact on wildlife, would start to grow and expand. It was about bringing the community on board and encouraging businesses to take responsibility for items that they sold. She urged members not to get distracted by other matters but to focus on the wider issues.

 

The Chairman invited Cllr N Dixon, seconded of the amendment, to speak. Cllr Dixon said that members were making heavy weather of the proposals. He said that the amendment was simply to add ‘teeth’ to the substantive motion for the sake of seals and other wildlife.

 

Cllr A Varley, as proposer of the substantive motion was invited to speak. He said he welcomed engagement from the Opposition but was concerned that the amendment was not something that was enforceable and he felt that the Communications Team were already preparing a full campaign to raise awareness about the impact of flying rings and this would include signage. For this reason, he said that he did not support the amendment.

 

The Chairman said that a vote would now be taken on the amendment. It was supported with 27 members voting in favour, 7 against and 1 abstention. The Monitoring Officer advised that the amendment would now form the substantive motion.

 

Cllr L Shires sought clarification on whether the Council had approved something that was not legal. The Monitoring Officer replied that the amendment proposed that any wording on signage should stop short of stating that a ban was legally enforceable.

 

Cllr Cushing read out the wording of the amendment again at the request of the Chairman.

 

Cllr T FitzPatrick said that he wished to pick up on Cllr Housden’s point about seals not being legally protected and although this was true, they were an important part of the district’s wildlife and the public would still expect to see them treated well and protected where possible. He reminded members that when a motion on this subject had been brought debated just 6 months ago, the Administration had proposed an amendment which was supported, which included the following:  

-        The Leader meets and discusses the issues with North Norfolk's MPs in conjunction with the Friends of Horsey Seals and the RSPCA, if they wish to join us, to press for the need for additional powers for local government to ban the ring frisbees on our beaches.

-        Engage with retailers in North Norfolk about the issues with ring frisbees.

-        Post further general communication messages from the spring onwards across social media platforms.

-        Consider the benefits of advisory signage on our beaches and Promenades asking that the rings are not used. 

 

Cllr FitzPatrick said none of this had been mentioned tonight and there had been no update to members as to whether these actions had been undertaken. It was now Summer and nothing seemed to have been done on the actions agreed at the previous motion.

 

The Chairman advised members that the debate had now run out of time and she would now take a vote on the substantive, amended motion.

 

It was proposed by Cllr A Varley, seconded by Cllr L Withington and

 

RESOLVED to

 

Support a campaign to increase awareness of the dangers to seals from Flying Rings, encourage businesses to not sell these items in coastal regions and develop the SEAL of APPROVAL Scheme for those businesses supporting SAFER SEALS

 

Coastal members will be asked to:

·       Support the development, implementation and ongoing focus of the Seal of Approval Scheme.

 

Coastal businesses will be asked to:

·       Engage with, support and implement the Seal of Approval Scheme

 

Officers will be asked to:

·       Liaise with relevant partners and create promotional materials for the scheme to operate, raise awareness and add to our online presence.

·       to develop and deploy signage with a form of wording effectively banning the use and presence of flying rings on the district’s beaches and coastal car parks, stopping short of stating that it was a legally enforceable order

 

One member abstained.