Notices of Motion
i) To consider the following Notice of Motion (2/23), submitted by Councillor T Parish (Resuming of adjourned part heard on 26 January 2023):
‘This Council receives a full briefing on the County ‘devolution’ Deal currently being considered by NCC and, in particular, the impact and ramifications it is likely to have on this Borough Council and its’ inhabitants. The briefing to be shared with officers and employees of the authority.’
ii) To consider the following Notice of Motion (1/23), submitted by Councillor T Parish:
This Council recognises that a very significant commercial campaign to create a barrier across The Wash, for diverse purposes, has been launched and clearly states that the Council’s view on the matter is neutral until sufficient information is available, from all appropriate sources, and that this has been considered fully and impartially.
Further, this Council will act as a receptacle and conduit for local comments and opinion about the proposal and provide help and support to local organisations to enable them to make their case for support or rebuttal. The Council will do this via a Task Group set up well prior to the May elections with the brief to determine the framework for such actions and support so that a new administration can easily pick up and continue the work.
iii) To consider the following Notice of Motion (3/23), submitted by Councillor A Kemp:
The Borough Council and the Government's Devolution Deal
In 2016, this Council voted against the Government's Devolution Deal for an Elected Mayor for Norfolk and Suffolk, and an extra tier of Local Government.
Now Govt has offered a new Devolution Deal with an Elected Mayor for Norfolk, but none of the £600 million funding offered over 30 years for infrastructure or the new powers, would come to this Council or the Districts, but would all go to the County Council.
The Elected Mayor would become the County Council Leader and would have extensive Housing powers, Rights of Compulsory Purchase and Land Assembly for development, and could set up a "Mayoral Development Area" in any part of Norfolk, and a "Mayoral Development Corporation".
But Housing is the function of the Local Planning Authority.
The Devolution Deal would take away powers and funding from the District Council and centralise too much power in the hands of the County Council.
This Council will write to the Secretary of State for Communities and Levelling Up to make its views clear that it does not agree with the Deal.
Minutes:
Click here to view the recording of this item on You Tube
i) Notice of Motion (2/23), submitted by Councillor T Parish (Resuming of adjourned part heard on 26 January 2023):
‘This Council receives a full briefing on the County ‘devolution’ Deal currently being considered by NCC and, in particular, the impact and ramifications it is likely to have on this Borough Council and its’ inhabitants. The briefing to be shared with officers and employees of the authority.’
Councillor Parish moved a procedural motion to withdraw the Motion as in the interim period he and Councillor Dark had agreed a further motion which would be submitted to the 30 March 2023 meeting. Councillor Morley seconded the proposal which was agreed by Council.
RESOLVED: That the Motion be withdrawn.
Click here to view the recording of this item on You Tube
ii) Councillor T Parish proposed the following Notice of Motion (1/23) and spoke in support of it. This was seconded by Councillor de Whalley:
“This Council recognises that a very significant commercial campaign to create a barrier across The Wash, for diverse purposes, has been launched and clearly states that the Council’s view on the matter is neutral until sufficient information is available, from all appropriate sources, and that this has been considered fully and impartially.
Further, this Council will act as a receptacle and conduit for local comments and opinion about the proposal and provide help and support to local organisations to enable them to make their case for support or rebuttal. The Council will do this via a Task Group set up well prior to the May elections with the brief to determine the framework for such actions and support so that a new administration can easily pick up and continue the work.”
Councillor Morley proposed an amendment to delete the word “well” in the last sentence of the motion. This was seconded by Councillor Rust. Councillor Parish accepted the amendment which was then the substantive Motion.
Council debated the Motion, Councillor Bullen spoke in support of the Motion citing the issues such a barrier could cause. Councillor Long drew attention to the Wash and Marine Partnership which he sat on as a County Councillor which consisted of all major organisations involved with the Wash, he confirmed he would remain neutral until the Environmental Impact Assessment had been carried out and considered to show there would be no detriment to the wash.
Councillor Dark expressed the view that he took a neutral stance at this stage in the proceedings until the detail and the Environmental Impact Assessment was submitted when advice from experts would be sought. He considered spending money and officer time on it at this stage would be premature and wrong.
Councillor Joyce commented that he felt a task group would prepare the ground for the future Council.
Councillor Kemp spoke in support, urging the council to look at the impact on the Wash.
Councillor Middleton acknowledged Councillor Bullen’s knowledge of the subject, but also stated that he considered it too early to be looking in detail at the proposals and he felt the Council should stay neutral at this stage.
Councillor Sampson commented that he felt the project would have a huge effect but acknowledged the Council should stay neutral until all the information was produced.
Councillor Morley considered that there should be a public statement by the Council to remind the organisation the council was here but wasn’t able to voice an opinion at this stage.
Councillor de Whalley welcomed the motion and drew attention to the wider support the scheme was receiving. He urged the council to be proactive and not reactive to the scheme. He stated that the industries potentially affected by the scheme needed to be identified and the council’s position and explored and budgeted for.
In summing up Councillor Parish drew attention to their presentation to Parliament, consider that more than the potential environmental impact needed to be considered, such as where it was planned to join the coast and the impact of that join on the area. He considered that there should be somewhere local people or organisation could pass their comments at this stage before it was built.
As a point of order Councillor Long drew attention to the statutory obligation to uphold the requirements listed in Acts on the Wash. He suggested the Council remain neutral at this stage as the impacts weren’t yet known until the responses from Wash partners to the information was known.
With the required number of supporters a recorded vote was taken:
|
For |
Against |
Abstain |
|
Beal |
Ayres |
Devereux |
|
Bhondi |
Bambridge |
Hudson |
|
Bone |
Blunt |
|
|
Bullen |
Bower |
|
|
Collop |
Bubb |
|
|
Holmes |
Collingham |
|
|
Howland |
Crofts |
|
|
Jones |
Dark |
|
|
Joyce |
Dickinson |
|
|
Kemp |
Howard |
|
|
Lowe |
Humphrey |
|
|
Morley |
Kirk |
|
|
Parish |
Kunes |
|
|
Ratcliff |
Lawrence |
|
|
Rust |
Long |
|
|
A Tyler |
Middleton |
|
|
Ware |
Nockolds |
|
|
De Whalley |
Rose |
|
|
|
Sampson |
|
|
|
Sandell |
|
|
|
Spikings |
|
|
|
Storey |
|
|
|
D Tyler |
|
|
|
D Whitby |
|
|
18 |
24 |
2 |
RESOLVED: The Motion was lost.
Click here to view the recording of this item on You Tube
iii) Councillor A Kemp proposed the following Notice of Motion (3/23), seconded by Councillor de Whalley. Councillor Kemp spoke in favour of the motion which she considered involved a loss of control and funding for the Borough Council.
“The Borough Council and the Government's Devolution Deal
In 2016, this Council voted against the Government's Devolution Deal for an Elected Mayor for Norfolk and Suffolk, and an extra tier of Local Government.
Now Govt has offered a new Devolution Deal with an Elected Mayor for Norfolk, but none of the £600 million funding offered over 30 years for infrastructure or the new powers, would come to this Council or the Districts, but would all go to the County Council.
The Elected Mayor would become the County Council Leader and would have extensive Housing powers, Rights of Compulsory Purchase and Land Assembly for development, and could set up a "Mayoral Development Area" in any part of Norfolk, and a "Mayoral Development Corporation".
But Housing is the function of the Local Planning Authority.
The Devolution Deal would take away powers and funding from the District Council and centralise too much power in the hands of the County Council.
This Council will write to the Secretary of State for Communities
and Levelling Up to make its views clear that it does not agree
with the Deal.”
Councillor Dark spoke against the Motion and commented that he felt the Council should reserve its position, as the public was being consulted on the County Deal, and a decision would not be taken by them until December. He explained that he had received assurance that the Borough’s sovereignty was not impacted, and the priorities and funding was being examined. He considered this was not the appropriate time for such a decision.
Councillor Long commented that if the proposal and that it was not known what the County Council Constitution would end up as, he felt that if the deal wasn’t right he wouldn’t be voting for it.. As a point of clarification Councillor Kemp confirmed that all decision making powers would be carried out by the elected Mayor.
Councillor Morley confirmed that he had no objection to highlighting concerns, he agreed that it was important that any proposal was right for the area.
Councillor Joyce reminded members that this Council had stood against an elected mayor previously and should take a defensive stand.
Councillor Middleton reminded members that the decision was not the Borough’s to take, and also commented that taking a hard line with the County Council would not help the long term relationship with them.
Councillor Rust supported the Motion and commented that Norwich was bound to get the lion’s share of funding.
Councillor Lord Howard expressed sympathy for the motion but explained that this was not the right time to oppose the County Deal, as the Bill was uncertain with large numbers of amendments for consideration, it was better to wait until it was clearer, and the Bill was finalised.
Councillor Parish drew attention to the proposed Notice of Motion to the 30 March meeting, but also supported some of the points raised by Councillor Kemp that it was an Elected Mayor in all but name, and they would be harder to remove than a Leader of the Council.
Councillor de Whalley drew attention to the Devolution fight of 2016 and the current legal challenges to the proposal. He considered an election Leader as less representative and concentrating power in a single person whereas the current arrangement allowed for greater scrutiny and transparency. He felt the council should stand with those other authorities challenging the proposal.
With the required number of supports a recorded vote was taken.
|
For |
Against |
Abstain |
|
Bhondi |
Ayres |
Parish |
|
Bone |
Bambridge |
|
|
Bullen |
Beal |
|
|
Howland |
Blunt |
|
|
Jones |
Bower |
|
|
Joyce |
Bubb |
|
|
Kemp |
Collingham |
|
|
Lowe |
Collop |
|
|
Morley |
Crofts |
|
|
Rust |
Dark |
|
|
A Tyler |
Devereux |
|
|
De Whalley |
Dickinson |
|
|
|
Holmes |
|
|
|
Howard |
|
|
|
Hudson |
|
|
|
Humphrey |
|
|
|
Kirk |
|
|
|
Kunes |
|
|
|
Lawrence |
|
|
|
Long |
|
|
|
Middleton |
|
|
|
Nockolds |
|
|
|
Ratcliff |
|
|
|
Rose |
|
|
|
Sampson |
|
|
|
Sandell |
|
|
|
Spikings |
|
|
|
Storey |
|
|
|
D Tyler |
|
|
|
Ware |
|
|
|
Whitby |
|
|
12 |
31 |
1 |
RESOLVED: The Motion was lost.
At this 3 hour point in the meeting Councillor de Whalley proposed that Council continue to sit, this was seconded by Councillor Rust. On being put to the vote the proposal was lost and the meeting closed.