To consider the following Notice of Motion (05/26), submitted by Councillor Moore:
Replace the Climate Emergency Declaration with a Practical Environmental and Resilience Strategy
This Council notes that the Climate Emergency declared in 2021 has not delivered clear or practical outcomes for residents. The UK produces approximately 1% of global CO? emissions, and Kings Lynn and West Norfolk contribute a tiny fraction of that total. Reducing our limited share alone will not meaningfully alter global climate trends, but the costs of rapid transition policies are already placing significant strain on local households.
Many of the most vulnerable residents are facing rising energy bills, fuel poverty, and financial hardship linked to policies that increase the cost of heating, transport, and daily living. No local environmental strategy should make life harder for those already struggling or force people into choosing between heating and eating.
This Council believes that practical environmental action should focus on improving local resilience and protecting our area from real risks such as flooding, coastal erosion, drainage pressures, water scarcity, and loss of agricultural land and wildlife habitats. The planning system considers environmental issues on a case by case basis, but there is no dedicated local process that assesses the wider environmental pressures created by long term population growth, including increased demand for land, housing, energy, water, and infrastructure.
This Council resolves to:
Minutes:
Click here to view the recording of this item on You Tube.
Councillor Moore proposed the below Notice of Motion:
Replace the Climate Emergency Declaration with a Practical Environmental and Resilience Strategy.
This Council notes that the Climate Emergency declared in 2021 has not delivered clear or practical outcomes for residents. The UK produces approximately 1% of global CO? emissions, and Kings Lynn and West Norfolk contribute a tiny fraction of that total. Reducing our limited share alone will not meaningfully alter global climate trends, but the costs of rapid transition policies are already placing significant strain on local households.
Many of the most vulnerable residents are facing rising energy bills, fuel poverty, and financial hardship linked to policies that increase the cost of heating, transport, and daily living. No local environmental strategy should make life harder for those already struggling or force people into choosing between heating and eating.
This Council believes that practical environmental action should focus on improving local resilience and protecting our area from real risks such as flooding, coastal erosion, drainage pressures, water scarcity, and loss of agricultural land and wildlife habitats. The planning system considers environmental issues on a case by case basis, but there is no dedicated local process that assesses the wider environmental pressures created by long term population growth, including increased demand for land, housing, energy, water, and infrastructure.
This Council resolves to:
1. End the 2021 Climate Emergency declaration.
2. Replace it with a Practical Environmental and Resilience Strategy focused on flood defence, water management, land protection, and locally beneficial environmental measures.
3. Ensure future policies protect vulnerable residents from increased living costs.
4. Provide annual updates on measurable local resilience improvements rather than symbolic targets.
The Notice of Motion was seconded by Councillor Hodson, who reserved his right to speak.
The Leader of the Council welcomed debate on the motion but stated that he did not support it and urged Members to reject it. He noted the irony that the meeting had been deferred by one week due to extreme heat. He referred to this year having recorded the hottest June since records began and observed that the ten hottest years on record had all occurred since 1990. Drawing on his experience in farming and harvesting, he outlined the impact that climate change was having on the agricultural sector. He also referred to the heatwave of 1976, commenting that temperatures of that nature were now becoming increasingly commonplace. The Leader further highlighted increases in rainfall, warmer and wetter winters, and changing weather patterns, which he stated were consistent with the predictions made by climate scientists.
The Leader also referred to the action being taken by the Council, including the provision of grants, support for energy-efficient housing and other assistance available to residents. In addition, he highlighted the roles of the Environment Agency and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) as the lead agencies in relation to flooding matters.
Councillor Beales expressed disappointment with the motion. He suggested that, if Councillor Moore's concern related to Council expenditure, the motion should be withdrawn and the issue of Council spending referred to a scrutiny panel for further consideration.
Councillor de Whalley spoke against the motion, commenting that many households were facing financial pressures and that the Council had delivered clear and measurable benefits for residents through externally funded projects and investment.
He outlined the cost of the Council’s climate change mitigation work, stating that it amounted to approximately £3.38 per household per annum. He also referred to the Council Tax Relief Scheme, which provided support to the Borough’s most vulnerable residents.
Councillor de Whalley highlighted the work undertaken by the Internal Drainage Boards and referred to the ongoing Local Plan process. He commented that the Notice of Motion would make it more difficult for residents to access assistance and maintained that the cost of addressing climate change did not represent a significant financial burden, particularly when compared with the continuing costs associated with Brexit.
Councillor de Whalley also referred to the record temperatures experienced in June and the impact on elderly and vulnerable residents. He stated that the climate emergency was a genuine issue and that the Council was working towards science-based targets. He urged Members to reject the motion.
Councillor Sayers spoke against the motion and stated that the assertions contained within the Notice of Motion were incorrect. He objected to claims that the Council’s response to the Climate Change Emergency had failed to deliver benefits and referred to increases in energy and gas prices and argued that the Council’s investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency measures had helped to protect residents from rising costs. He concluded by stating that he did not support the motion.
Councillor Kunes referred to international agreements entered into by a number of countries to address climate change and noted that the United States had subsequently withdrawn from one such agreement. He also made comments regarding the relationship between the President of the United States and Nigel Farage. Councillor Kunes referred to scientific evidence concerning the impact of burning fossil fuels and stated that action was needed to protect the environment for future generations. He described the motion as a political gesture by Reform and urged Members to reject it.
Councillor Kemp spoke against the Notice of Motion, stating that climate change was a global emergency and that everyone had a responsibility to play their part in addressing it. She referred to rising sea levels and increasing temperatures and argued that, while there was still an opportunity to mitigate the effects of climate change, action was required now. Councillor Kemp referred to the 1987 international agreement to address the hole in the ozone layer and noted that the resulting global action had contributed to its recovery.
She emphasised the importance of all countries and regions playing their part in tackling environmental challenges.
Councillor Kemp stated that the Council’s declaration of a Climate Change Emergency had delivered benefits for residents through the promotion of energy-efficient housing developments incorporating measures such as solar panels, insulation, and air and ground source heat pumps. She also referred to the growth in the use of electric vehicles and the Council’s support for this through the installation of electric vehicle charging points, which had contributed to improved air quality.
In addition, she highlighted the importance of protecting green spaces and referred to initiatives including the Million Trees Project and Harding’s Pits. Councillor Kemp stated that the Council was improving the lives of residents and that local action was an important contribution to wider global efforts.
Councillor Osborne addressed the Council and stated that the Notice of Motion failed to acknowledge the risks posed by climate change. He stated that the impacts of climate change would continue to worsen unless action was taken to reduce emissions and protect residents. He referred to invest-to-save schemes and other work undertaken by the Council and highlighted the number of excess deaths associated with periods of extreme heat.
Councillor Osborne stated that the area had a responsibility to play its part in addressing climate change, both for local residents and the wider global community. He also referred to comments made by Councillor Beales regarding the impact of climate change on farming and agriculture, noting the significance of the sector to the local economy.
Councillor Osborne further referred to the increasing use of renewable energy and advances in battery technology.
He concluded that withdrawing from the Climate Change Emergency declaration would amount to ignoring an issue that could not be avoided and confirmed that he would vote against the Notice of Motion.
Councillor Rust referred to the support provided to the Borough’s most vulnerable residents and the positive impact this assistance had on partner organisations, including the NHS. She referred to the Marmot Principles and the contribution they could make to improving residents’ quality of life. Councillor Rust also highlighted a range of support initiatives available within the Borough, including Food for Thought, Five Dinners, the Beat Your Bills Roadshow, Care and Repair, and partnership working with other agencies.
Councillor Long referred to his previous role as Portfolio Holder for Environment and stated that work to support residents had been carried out prior to the declaration of a Climate Change Emergency. He outlined concerns raised by some residents regarding the ECO3 Scheme and sought assurance that public funds were being spent effectively. He also noted that initiatives relating to solar energy and photovoltaic technology had been pursued prior to the Climate Change Emergency declaration. Councillor Long referred to long-standing efforts to reduce emissions and noted that building regulations already required energy-efficient development. He stated that he would welcome the introduction of further practical measures and strategies.
Councillor Joyce agreed that there should be practical measures in place along with a resilience strategy in place to address climate change. He commented that mixed messages had been received regarding whether the declaration of a Climate Change Emergency had resulted in additional external funding.
Councillor Joyce also referred to reduced returns on some developments as a consequence of net zero requirements, while acknowledging that development also created employment opportunities.
He confirmed that he would vote against the motion.
Councillor Parish commented that climate change had progressed beyond being an emergency and was becoming a disaster. He stated that there was a moral responsibility to reduce environmental harm and welcomed practical measures aimed at improving resilience. However, he noted that the Council was not the lead authority for certain matters, including flooding.
Councillor Ratcliffe referred to the importance of partnership working with lead agencies on issues such as flooding and transport. She stated that the Notice of Motion appeared to oversimplify the range of partnerships, policies and strategies currently in place and commented that it did not provide sufficient detail as to how its objectives would be achieved.
Councillor Squire stated that the reality of climate change was supported by scientific evidence and could not be ignored. She commented that councillors, as community leaders, had a moral responsibility to help ensure a sustainable future for future generations.
Councillor Squire referred to the impact of rising energy costs on residents and the need to reduce reliance on fossil fuels. She highlighted the benefits of cleaner air and lower emissions and expressed concern that the Notice of Motion failed to recognise the work being undertaken by officers and councillors to support residents. She also referred to the Council’s work with a range of partner organisations to protect local communities and concluded by stating that, in her view, the Notice of Motion was politically motivated.
Councillor Hodson, as seconder of the motion, addressed the Council and stated that the proposal sought to promote a sensible approach to decision-making and the allocation of resources. He emphasised that the motion did not propose the removal of all existing policies and measures, but instead called for a more practical approach.
In summing up, Councillor Moore, as proposer of the motion, thanked Members for their contributions. He advised that he had submitted the motion to the Leader of the Council in advance for comment but had not received any feedback. Councillor Moore also referred to the 250-word limit applicable to Notices of Motion, which he stated had limited the amount of detail he was able to include.
Councillor Moore commented that the motion supported the principle of resilience and argued that further work should be undertaken to strengthen this. He stated that it was important to protect the environment and act in the best interests of residents, whilst recognising the need to manage finite resources and budgets. He explained that the purpose of the motion was to ensure that resources were used effectively and delivered the greatest possible benefit for the residents of West Norfolk. He concluded by urging Members to support the motion.
Councillor Colwell proposed a recorded vote on the Motion and this was supported by the requisite amount of Members.
The results of the recorded vote are below.
|
Councillor |
For |
Against |
Abstain |
|
Anota |
|
ü |
|
|
Ayres |
|
ü |
|
|
Beales |
|
ü |
|
|
Bearshaw |
|
ü |
|
|
Bland |
|
ü |
|
|
Blunt |
|
ü |
|
|
Bubb |
|
ü |
|
|
Bullen |
|
ü |
|
|
Coates |
|
|
ü |
|
Collingham |
|
ü |
|
|
Collop |
|
ü |
|
|
Colwell |
|
ü |
|
|
Crofts |
|
ü |
|
|
Dickinson |
|
ü |
|
|
Everett |
|
ü |
|
|
Fry |
ü |
|
|
|
Heneghan |
|
ü |
|
|
Hodson |
ü |
|
|
|
Jones |
|
ü |
|
|
Joyce |
|
ü |
|
|
Kemp |
|
ü |
|
|
Kunes |
|
ü |
|
|
Lawrence |
|
ü |
|
|
Long |
|
|
ü |
|
Lowe |
ü |
|
|
|
Moore |
ü |
|
|
|
Morley |
|
ü |
|
|
Nash |
ü |
|
|
|
Osborne |
|
ü |
|
|
Parish |
|
ü |
|
|
Pidcock |
ü |
|
|
|
Ratcliffe |
|
ü |
|
|
Rose |
|
ü |
|
|
Rust |
|
ü |
|
|
Ryves |
ü |
|
|
|
Sandell |
|
ü |
|
|
Sayers |
|
ü |
|
|
Spikings |
|
ü |
|
|
Squire |
|
ü |
|
|
Storey |
|
ü |
|
|
Ware |
|
ü |
|
|
de Whalley |
|
ü |
|
|
TOTAL |
7 |
33 |
2 |
RESOLVED: The Motion was lost.