8
Before the consideration of motions several Councillors declared they were members of different organisations which might require them to declare an interest before discussing the motion, these included Greenpeace and groups which oppose the development of Sizewell and nuclear energy.
The Monitoring Officer advised that membership of the groups mentioned were Other Registerable Interests.
Councillor Gandy enquired whether she had a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest through her partner’s employment. The Monitoring Officer advised that her partner’s employment was a Pecuniary Interest she needed to register but only one she needed to declare if the interest directly related to the motion.
The Chair reported that 2 Notices of Motion were accepted prior to the meeting.
A) Motion submitted by Councillor Tom Daly
The Chair invited Councillor Daly to read out his motion.
"That this Council believes:
That truly renewable energy, such as offshore and onshore wind, solar, community energy schemes and micro generation, alongside the reduction of energy use and better design provide a better long term answer to the energy security of and carbon reduction future of the UK rather than Sizewell C.
That offshore options for connecting offshore renewables into an existing brownfield location have not been sufficiently investigated and provide a better long-term more cost effective and sustainable solution to the UK's energy supply and security challenges.
That the Council resolves:
(a) that should the construction at Sizewell C proceed, we will strongly represent our East Suffolk communities to maximise the benefits and minimise the impacts and that development should only commence once long-term solutions to the issues below have been identified by Sizewell C Ltd in conjunction with all stakeholders.
- Water supply;
- Sea defences, coastal dynamics;
- Long term local storage of highly radioactive spent fuel;
- Marine biosphere impacts;
- Satisfactory confirmation of the size of the development site with associated impacts on Minsmere and other precious habitats.
(b) To write to the SoS with these views and ask government :
- To carry out a full cost-benefit analysis of options for connecting all electricity generation to users in the UK rather than the current piecemeal approach
- To mandate a direct community compensation scheme for those directly impacted by hosting the energy infrastructure as a matter of urgency as per their recent consultation in addition to provisions in the DCO process."
Councillor Daly summarised the motion and stated that the idea was to bring debate all these issues, which are important to the community. After approval has been given for the Development Consent Orders (DCOs) these cannot be revoked. The previous administration took a neutral position. The new administration would have taken a different position.
With regard to strategic planning work, members of the GLI group will engage with their duties and conduct constructive engagement whilst remaining explicit in opposition to the development of Sizewell C. The group will do their upmost to promote best possible communication and rapid responses with the Sizewell C team. This will not be an approval of the Sizewell C and offshore wind work.
There was promise of community benefits and jobs opportunities which the group will continue to monitor with the understanding these benefits in no way negate the risks associated with the project.
Councillor Daly outlined the concerns of the council in regard to the unresolved issues in the development programme of Sizewell C, including sea defences, water supply and marine biosphere impacts.
With regard to the Friston connection programme substantial work has not yet started and there are mechanisms where Scottish Power could be incentivised to embrace change.
Councillor Daly moved the Motion and encouraged Members to vote unanimously on the motion and send a message to national government, that East Suffolk Council will not be silenced on the discussed.
The motion was seconded by Councillor Whitelock who spoke to the motion as a resident and councillor for Aldeburgh and Leiston ward.
Councillor Whitelock was first asked to look into the Friston Energy Mega hub in 2020 and Sizewell C in 2021 as a voluntary committee member for the Local Business Association. Councillor Whitelock stated that she had felt misled by Scottish Power in the information provided.
The project would not generate one single long-term job. Councillor Whitelock outlined the development challenges on Hinkley Point, being two years behind schedule and over budget with expected costs at 26 billion pounds compared to the originally projected 18 billion pounds.
UK Government is expected to be the majority shareholder if Sizewell C by the end of 2023. 1 billion pounds has already been spent. Councillor Whitelock questioned how many solar panels and heat pumps could have been purchased for residents in comparison.
Councillor Whitelock stated that Sizewell C would be worse compared to Hinkley Point as the site is smaller, with less water supply, inadequate road networks and protected wildlife.
The Chair therefore proposed that the Motion be discussed this evening, which was seconded and upon being put to the vote the proposal was CARRIED.
Councillor Rivett began the debate and outlined that the project was examined by the Examining Authority that took evidence from experts and other interested parties. Regarding sea defences and coastal dynamics it was concluded that there were no matters which would weight for or against the order being made. Long term storage has been carried out for decades with Sizewell B. With regard to sea life it was concluded there were no matters weighing for or against the order.
Councillor Rivett stated that to replace Sizewell C with offshore wind it would require 90,000 hectares, compared to Sizewell C which requires 33 hectares.
Councillor Byatt outlined his amendment to the motion which was provided on screen for members to view. The amendment was as follows (changes indicated in bold):
"That this Council believes:
That truly renewable energy, such as offshore and onshore wind, solar, community energy schemes and micro generation, alongside the reduction of energy use and better design have the potential to provide a better long term answer to the energy security of and carbon reduction future of the UK rather than Sizewell C.
However we recognise that there are concerns about the time-scale of developing off-shore wind-farms, given the recent problems with a complete lack of bidding for new areas for development in the North Sea, the failure of the Vattenfall Project, the increasing cost of construction of new turbines , the availability of land for on-shore wind and solar farms and a recent report into issues related to sub-sea cabling failures.
In addition, there are still ongoing concerns related to the plans for connecting offshore renewables into an existing brownfield location. We believe that these have not been sufficiently investigated and alternatives could provide a better long-term, more cost effective and sustainable solution to the UK's energy supply and security challenges.
That the Council resolves:
(a) that should the construction at Sizewell C proceed, we will strongly represent our East Suffolk communities to maximise the benefits and minimise the impacts and that development should only commence once long-term solutions to the issues below have been identified by Sizewell C Ltd in conjunction with all stakeholders.
- water supply;
- sea defences, coastal dynamics;
- long term local storage of highly radioactive spent fuel;
- marine biosphere impacts;
- satisfactory confirmation of the size of the development site with associated impacts on Minsmere and other precious habitats.
(b) To write to the SoS with these views and ask government:
- To intervene to bring long-term stability and security for future plans for all off and on-shore energy generation
- To carry out a full cost-benefit analysis of options for connecting all electricity generation to users in the UK rather than the current piecemeal approach
- To mandate a direct community compensation scheme for those directly impacted by hosting the energy infrastructure as a matter of urgency as per their recent consultation in addition to provisions in the DCO process."
Councillor Byatt stated that he recognised that the majority see renewables as the way forward in the longer-term future. There were concerns about the ability to provide the wind farms as desired. There have been 5 wind farm areas not bid on and a recent commercial project lost.
Councillor Byatt stated that the issues identified with underwater caballing need to be resolved and there needed to be 100% confidence in the cables being fit for purpose. Councillor Byatt stated his opposition to the Friston site. He welcomed the spirit of the motion, but remained concerned about the speed in which wind farms can be developed.
Councillor Byatt outlined that there needed to be a back-up, which might be Sizewell C or smaller nuclear reactors and that the motion seemed to dismiss Sizewell C out of hand.
The amendment was seconded by Councillor Pitchers who reserved his right to speak.
Councillor Rivett thanked Councillor Byatt for his amendment which he felt attempted to make sense of the motion brought before Full Council. He stated that the amendment was a step in the right direction, however a better motion should be formed.
Councillor Pitchers stated he was in favour of renewables and felt that unfortunately Sizewell C is the way forward. He supported the amendment put forward.
Councillor Byatt stated that his intention with the amendment was to make it so there is some common ground and respected what the administration was attempting to do.
At the conclusion of the debate The Chair asked Members to vote upon the amendment. Upon being put to the vote it was NOT CARRIED.
The debate continued regarding the original motion put forward:
Councillor Beavan stated that he was not completely against nuclear energy however he believed that the Sizewell C proposal was wrong regarding many factors, including economic technical and environmental.
Councillor Beavan reported that another problem was the LionlInk proposal which will have cables, trenches inland, the Friston development and pylons which would lead to London.
He also believed this will be the start of bigger issue, as each windfarm will have to land its own cable to shore, impacting on the issue of coastal erosion, countryside and habitats.
It was further debated that the cables could be run straight to London where the electricity was needed. The recent auction of windfarm sites was not successful with the government’s contract for difference price not reflecting inflation.
Councillor Beavan concluded that some windfarms are queuing to join the national grid and an offshore grid was needed to connect them to London. He urged Members to support the motion.
Councillor Lynch stated he could not support the motion. Whilst he utilised green and renewable energy as much as possible there was a need to have other sources of power.
He outlined concerns regarding underground seabed cabling. There have been issues locally when cables have been damaged by fishing activity causing power outages.
Councillor Gooch added to the debate that there was a need to go further in considering lifestyle changes, flying less, looking at the working week, long service leave and other options taken by other countries. Councillor Gooch recognised the sentiments of the motion and returned to early points of nuclear energy not being clean, green or sustainable.
Councillor Topping added that the group were intending for everyone in East Suffolk Council to feel involved and supported by the administration. This was why the motion had been brought to Full Council and decisions had not taken behind closed doors. Councillor Topping stated that there was understanding there were things that cannot be changed, however there was a desire to protect the local environment and community.
Councillor Jepson echoed the point raised earlier that had every if Councillor had voted against the proposal 2 years ago it would have gone ahead anyway. The previous administration had tried to introduce a number of green policies during their time. Being Conservatives does not mean that individuals are not supportive of being ‘green’. It was projected that 1/3 UK energy will be transported through the district. Councillor Jepson stated he would have liked to have seen information regarding cost included in the motion.
Councillor Jepson stated that the motion was about writing a letter and lots of debate on this issue has taken place already and he did not believe it needed to come to Full Council and Councillor Daly did not need a vote in Full Council to write a letter.
Councillor Jepson embraced the principle of the motion, however stated that he was not sure that Full Council was the place to bring the debate.
Councillor Byatt stated that Sizewell C will continue to be a contentious issue and suggested that without the amendment being agreed then it would be difficult to vote in favour as the motion concedes that Sizewell C could go ahead. Therefore, those who were wholeheartedly against could not vote in favour.
Councillor Ninnmey stated there were a number of areas which have been lost to the sea. He raised concern regarding sea defences and the impact of the development. Councillor Ninnmey’s ward being situated some distance from Sizewell C still impacts the community. Another issue which had not been worked out or realised was that East Anglia was one of the driest parts of the country and requires its own water supply. It was understood there would be a need for tankers travelling through inadequate roads frequently until suitable infrastructure was completed.
Councillor Ninnmey spoke to Councillor Rivett’s earlier speech regarding a presentation attended last winter at Holbrook School. This was delivered by Conservative MPs. They were surprised to know there was a proposal to run lines of pylons from Norfolk through Suffolk and Essex. There was ongoing discussion to move this to a sea route. It was noted that he had a presentation and would be happy to share.
In the 1970’s Councillor Ninnmey recalled his mother-in-law was told she resided just outside the area of where iodine tablets would be delivered to residents. Councillor Ninnmey concluded that the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority had previously said that Sizewell A would not be touched until around 2096 and would cost £1 billion to the tax payer as the money set aside was used elsewhere.
Councillor Ninnmey stated he supported the motion.
Councillor Graham stated that it was a pivotal moment and there should be an aim to reach an outcome of least destruction to the environment and communities. The priority should be to reduce energy and improve energy efficiency. This should then be followed by moving away from fossil fuels. Most people support the need for a move away from fossil fuels.
It was stated there are other ways to reach the ambitions of being net zero that are cheaper less resource intensive and more humane. Regarding energy efficiency Councillor Graham highlighted that that 1/3 of energy is lost through building leakage with higher bills for people to pay.
Councillor Graham highlighted the need for the council to be part of the growing movement for sharing energy efficiency information and community engagement.
Councillor Smith-Lyte responded to Councillor Lynch’s earlier point and thanked the councillor for his words. Councillor Smith-Lyte stated that it was surprising there were any fish left around the coastline and it would be wonderful to ban trawling in the local area.
Councillor Daly stated that the purpose of the motion was not to write a letter but to open up the debate for all; the public, campaign groups and members to talk openly. Coordination starts now and looks at the real efficiencies and when in consultation with companies be forthcoming about wanting positive change. Councillor Daly believes there was flexibility in the system to make changes.
Councillor Daly stated he was surprised that some members did not vote to debate and urged those to ‘come on board’ with the new council and work together to do the best for the local community.
Councillor Ninnmey requested a recorded vote, this was seconded by Councillor Grey and upon being put to the vote, there were more than 7 members in agreement.
The Chair invited the Monitoring Officer to undertake the Recorded Vote for this item. Upon being put to a Recorded Vote, the Motion was CARRIED.
The results of the Recorded Vote are shown below:
For the Motion:
Councillors Ashton, Beavan, Bennett, Byatt, Candy, Clery, Craig, Daly, Deacon, Ewart, Fisher, Gooch, Graham, Green, Grey, Hammond, Keys-Holloway, King, Langdon-Morris, Molyneux, Ninnmey, Noble, Packard, Pitchers, Plummer, Reeves, Rumble, Smith-Lyte, Smithson, Speca, Thompson, Topping, Wakeling, Whitelock, Wilson, Yule.
Against the Motion:
Councillors Ashdown, Back, Ceresa, Gee, Hedgley, Jepson, Lawson, Lynch, Mallinder, Patience, Rivett, Scrancher, Starling.
Abstained from voting about the Motion:
Councillor Gandy.
B) Motion submitted by Councillor Peter Byatt
The Chair invited Councillor Byatt to read out his motion.
"This Council recognises that there has been concern for some time about the generally shabby state of some parts of East Suffolk.
This is the culmination of factors that includes frequent fly-tipping (on public and private land); littering in public spaces (streets and parks); dog-fouling; weeds growing out of every possible crevice; overgrown shrubbery ; potholes of every size and shape; dirty, unreadable road signs and gull excrement etc. Together, these have created a general feeling of untidiness and a lack of care in a significant number of areas in the District.
This is unacceptable as East Suffolk should be clean and inviting for all.
Although we welcome the formation of East Suffolk Services Ltd (ESSL) with its new Strategic Waste and Contract Management Team, we believe improved liaison is required with other tiers of Council and interested bodies to achieve a satisfactory outcome of acceptable standards of cleanliness for our residents and visitors alike.
Improvement in our surroundings cannot be achieved by East Suffolk Council alone. This has to involve those other bodies and requires closer, more formal partnership working with them.
To achieve this, this Council will establish a time-limited Task and Finish Group that will:
Facilitate a more effective working partnership with all organisations concerned with our public spaces
Create a plan of action to deal with this embarrassing situation and
Ensure East Suffolk never reaches this state of dilapidation again."
Councillor Byatt summarised the motion and stated it spoke for itself. Photographs were circulated prior to the meeting by email, these highlighted the issues being raised in the community. Several of the images were taken within 100 metres of the Councillor's home address. Councillor Byatt talked to each image. These included poorly repaired paving, overflowing public waste bins, broken highway signage and overgrown areas of the highway / covering hydrants.
Councillor Byatt highlighted that this work might require the public to become involved in a planned way with a view to a Spring Clean in 2024 and moved the motion.
Councillor Deacon seconded the motion and reserved his right to speak.
The Chair therefore proposed that the Motion be discussed this evening, which was seconded and upon being put to the vote the proposal was CARRIED.
Councillor Beavan offered his support to the motion.
Councillor Mallinder stated that civic pride was important, and the previous administration had supported and introduced several carbon footprint reduction initiatives. Working in partnership with other areas to manage bins, there was the Love East Suffolk annual litter pick, encouraging residents to take ownership along with several projects supporting the bee population which now has over 100 sites where grass is cut less. There was a lot of landscaping working around the Melton offices including insect houses, tree planting and wildflowers outside the offices. Councillor Mallinder stated his disappointment in the current condition of the wildflower landscaping.
Councillor Mallinder offered his support for the inclusive motion and encouraged everyone to do the same.
Councillor King advised that that many residents have made contact and most of their concerns were regarding the maintenance of their local area. It was not ideal when they were advised to report it to the other authority. East Suffolk should be a beacon for progress on this matter.
Councillor Patience stated he believed that the issues have become worse under the new administration. Councillor Topping offered and accepted an invite to go and have a look at the areas of concern. He stated that two residents recently cleaned a local car park which he did not believe was their job to do. Councillor Patience raised an issue of getting industrial bins removed.
Councillor Topping thanked Councillor Byatt for the photos. 3 weeks ago there was a walk around Beccles with East Suffolk Services Ltd and Suffolk County Council Highways officers. During this visit there was discussion around who holds responsibility for which parts of the highway in context of weeds and overgrown areas.
Councillor Topping added East Suffolk Services Ltd, which came into operation in July 2023 is currently working their way around the district. It was recognised that this needed to be addressed and they were also working with Suffolk Council. Community engagement was also a part of the bigger picture, asking people to clear outside their own property and place of work would help matters. Suffolk County Council offer a Community Self Help Initiative, which Councillor Topping can provide further information on.
Councillor Topping supported the motion and she would be asking Councillor Paul Ashton to chair the proposed group.
Councillor Pitchers reported a no right turn sign issue in Lowestoft, where vegetation was covering the sign which motorists cannot clearly see.
Councillor Jepson wished to welcome the motion and discussed the ‘Broken Window effect’ research from New York. There was a need to work strategically with partners to make a difference.
Councillor Ashton agreed with Councillor Jepson’s comments and the importance of a strategic approach. Councillor Ashton discussed an issue with a Suffolk County Council road sign in Wangford which has rusted, fallen off and had been propped up at the base. When reported with images the feedback was that remedial action was not required.
Councillor Ashton also stated that customer service was very important and a plan for improvements in this area was underway. Councillor Ashton looked forward to working on this going forward.
Councillor Gooch agreed this subject could be debated all evening and highlighted there was a wider national problem, when compared to countries such as Australia and Canada, where civic pride appeared to be so much higher than here. It was stated a small number of people cause issues and everyone needs to step forward to challenge littering behaviour. Over 40 years this had not been adequately addressed and we need to look at education, action and engagement.
Councillor Gooch noted the issue where strimmers were used across highways. Litter gets get caught in the strimmer and then shredded and spread across the highway.
Councillor Hedgley offered support to the motion and the points raised by Councillor Gooch. Councillor Hedgley took issue with it being said it was the job of other people to have civic pride and urged Members to consider if they were doing their part in their local areas.
Councillor Deacon read out a constituent’s email detailing how they love Felixstowe but feel the authority does not. The roads need clearing of weeds, the drains were blocked and comments were received regarding the state of pavements. Pride was needed in local communities. There was a question about public cleaning roads, which could be dangerous.
It was stated this was a legacy problem and Felixstowe was mirrored across the district. There were some improvements thanks to local efforts. However, surface water flooding from blocked gutters cannot be solved by this council alone. He encouraged everyone to support the motion.
Councillor Byatt summarised the motion and that people look to us to solve a problem. There needed to be a time limited task group and this work should be implemented soon so when people come to this beautiful part of the country, we want to be welcoming.
There being no further debate, the motion was put to the vote and it was unanimously CARRIED.