Agenda item

1.     Motion 580 (Councillor B Warren – 9 October 2022)

 

The Council has before it a MOTION submitted for the first time:

 

To ensure that motions are recorded in the minutes of meetings in the exact form they are voted upon across all Committees of the Council, the relevant procedure rules shall be revised to extend this specific requirement to Cabinet, Committees and Sub-Committees. This would ensure that the permanent recordings of all meetings comprehensively record the items being voted upon and would strengthen the integrity of the public record, thus being in accordance with the Nolan Principles of Public Life. Therefore:

 

This Council RESOLVES that the Constitution Part 4 Section 1 Rule 26 (Application to Committees and Sub-Committees) of the Council Rules of Procedure is amended forthwith so as to apply rules 20.1 and 20.2 to meetings of the Cabinet, Committees and Sub-Committees.

 

In accordance with Procedure Rule 14.4, the Chairman of the Council has decided that this Motion (if moved and seconded) be dealt with at this meeting.

 

2.     Motion 582 (Councillor A Wilce – 10 October 2022)

 

The Council has before it a MOTION submitted for the first time:

 

The High Court has found that meetings held under the Local Government Act 1972:

 

“involves participants gathering to meet face-to-face at a designated physical location and “attending” a meeting involves physically going to that location, a requirement that this meeting is to be “open to the public” or “held in public” means that members of public must be admitted in person to the place where the meeting is being held…”

 

“As we have said, requirements that meetings be "open to the public" or "held in public" are imposed by several different statutory provisions, but they all deal with the same subject matter and may therefore be described as in pari materia. They are therefore "to be taken together as forming one system, and as interpreting and enforcing each other"…”

 

“But such broadcasting or live-streaming does not, on its own, satisfy the requirement for the meeting to be "open to the public" or "held in public" …”

 

[2021] EWHC 1145 (Admin)

 

This approach was supported by the Lawyers in Local Government, Local Government Association and Association of Democratic Services Officers

 

In addition, the Secretary of State for HC&LG stated that he considers that:

 

 “the legislative scheme should be interpreted consistently”, and that:

 

“references to a meeting being "open to the public" or "held in public" should equally be interpreted as referring to physical attendance by the public."

 

This Council RESOLVES that the Standards Committee is tasked to

 

1 Review the Remote Meetings Protocol, and also consider whether or not it should form part of the Constitution; and

 

2 Consider whether any formal proceedings of the Council should be held

online:

 

• that are required to be ‘open to the public’ or ‘held in public’; or,

• where members are required to ‘attend’ or be ‘present’; or,

• where any notice that is required to be given that must specify the ‘place’

where those proceedings are to be conducted;

 

and to make recommendations to Council, accordingly

 

In accordance with Procedure Rule 14.4, the Chairman of the Council has decided that this Motion (if moved and seconded) be dealt with at this meeting.

 

3.     Motion 583 (Councillor E Lloyd – 13 October 2022)

 

This Council resolves to: 

 

1. Recognise this Council’s obligation to protect its rivers and seas, including from the cumulative impacts of pollution, in line with its local strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework and working with other agencies to do so.

 

2. Recognise that deterioration of water quality occurs due to cumulative impact of multiple sewage discharge events, or "sewage overload".

 

3. Compile an evidence base that assesses the cumulative impact of wastewater / sewage discharge on local rivers, wildlife and the health of residents, and factor this into decisions made in new iterations of the local plan, including the overall level of future development. 

 

4. Ask the Scrutiny committee, or other appropriate committee, to invite a senior representative of South West Water, the Environment Agency and Natural England, to attend a meeting to answer questions on the current levels of sewage discharge. 

 

5. If it does not already do so, ask South West Water in its planning consultation responses for major development, to clarify which treatment works will be managing the sewage and whether they have capacity to do so; and whether it has the information available to assess the impact on the number or duration of sewage discharges into local rivers or seas. If it does have this information, make a request to share it.

 

6. Request that officers update members with a report on: 

 

a) what they do to maintain flood defences and channels that fall under the responsibility of MDDC,

 

b) what they do to protect main rivers and private water courses (and how often inspection/enforcement is undertaken by MDDC or the Environment Agency),

 

c) the information currently required in reports relating to the impact of large developments on local watercourses (e.g. the impact of sewage outflow into watercourses),

 

d) whether any large developments have been recently approved (or are under consideration) without suitable sustainable drainage systems in place and reasons why,

 

e) the tools currently available to MDDC to protect local rivers, and what other tools, policy or resources they’d like to see that would help MDDC fulfil its obligation to protect rivers and seas

 

Background

 

Residents are concerned about water quality and the impact of regular wastewater discharge, which includes untreated sewage, into our local rivers and seas and the impact on wildlife and on human health. The UK has the dirtiest rivers in Europe. Here in Mid Devon, in 2021, South West Water discharged sewage into local rivers and seas over 2,068 times, totalling over 20,853 hours of sewage discharge in just one year (monitoring was carried out on 53 of the 93 storm overflows). The map below shows where the sewerage network discharged treated sewage and overflows of untreated sewage and storm water into rivers in England & Wales in 2021. (Source: Rivers Trust Map at https://theriverstrust.org/key-issues/sewage-in-rivers)

 

 

Key:

• Brown circles: Storm overflows with Event Duration Monitoring
• Clear circles: Storm overflows without Event Duration Monitoring
• Yellow squares: where treated sewage is discharged into rivers (this can also pose a risk to public health. In some cases, harmful bacteria levels in treated sewage can be many times higher than the minimum public health standards for bathing waters)

 

Releasing sewage into rivers no longer occurs only as a result of severe storms but is an everyday occurrence even in ‘normal’ rainfall. The amount of rainfall will increase as the climate changes. There is cumulative overload on the sewage and wastewater system. Whilst there are long term commitments, there are no plans in place which will address the immediate unacceptable situation either locally by South West Water or by national government. Both the local strategy and national planning policy requires a robust approach to both water quality and pollution. As far as we’re aware, it is not practice to ask water companies to report on cumulative impact i.e. whether or not development may lead to any potential increase in ‘emergency’ discharge into rivers and seas.

 

In accordance with Procedure Rule 14.4, the Chairman of the Council has decided that this Motion (if moved and seconded) be dealt with at this meeting.

 

(1) MOTION 580 – (COUNCILLOR B WARREN – 9 OCTOBER 2022)

 

The Council had before it a MOTION submitted for the first time.

 

To ensure that motions are recorded in the minutes of meetings in the exact form they are voted upon across all Committees of the Council, the relevant procedure rules shall be revised to extend this specific requirement to Cabinet, Committees and Sub-Committees. This would ensure that the permanent recordings of all meetings comprehensively record the items being voted upon and would strengthen the integrity of the public record, thus being in accordance with the Nolan Principles of Public Life.

 

Therefore: This Council RESOLVES that the Constitution Part 4 Section 1 Rule 26 (Application to Committees and Sub-Committees) of the Council Rules of Procedure is amended forthwith so as to apply rules 20.1 and 20.2 to meetings of the Cabinet, Committees and Sub-Committees

 

It was added that the motion included that proposals be recorded as well as motions.

 

The MOTION was MOVED by Councillor B Warren and seconded by Councillor A Wilce.

 

In accordance with Procedure Rule 14.4, the Chairman of the Council had ruled that the matter be discussed at this meeting. Discussion took place regarding:

 

• The importance of accuracy was expressed.

 

Upon a vote being taken the MOTION was declared to have been CARRIED.

 

(2) MOTION 582 – (COUNCILLOR A WILCE – 10 OCTOBER 2022)

 

The Council had before it a MOTION submitted for the first time.

 

The High Court has found that meetings held under the Local Government Act 1972:

 

“involves participants gathering to meet face-to-face at a designated physical location and “attending” a meeting involves physically going to that location, a requirement that this meeting is to be “open to the public” or “held in public” means that members of public must be admitted in person to the place where the meeting is being held…”

 

“As we have said, requirements that meetings be "open to the public" or "held in public" are imposed by several different statutory provisions, but they all deal with the same subject matter and may therefore be described as in pari materia. They are therefore "to be taken together as forming one system, and as interpreting and enforcing each other"…”

 

“But such broadcasting or live-streaming does not, on its own, satisfy the requirement for the meeting to be "open to the public" or "held in public" …”

 

[2021] EWHC 1145 (Admin) This approach was supported by the Lawyers in Local Government, Local Government Association and Association of Democratic Services Officers. In addition, the Secretary of State for HC&LG stated that he considers that:

 

“The legislative scheme should be interpreted consistently”, and that:

 

“references to a meeting being "open to the public" or "held in public" should equally be interpreted as referring to physical attendance by the public."

 

This Council RESOLVES that the Standards Committee is tasked to

 

1.             Review the Remote Meetings Protocol, and also consider whether or not it should form part of the Constitution; and

 

2.            Consider whether any formal proceedings of the Council should be held online:

 

•      that are required to be ‘open to the public’ or ‘held in public’; or, • where members are required to ‘attend’ or be ‘present’; or,

•      where any notice that is required to be given that must specify the ‘place’ where those proceedings are to be conducted;

•      and to make recommendations to Council, accordingly

 

The MOTION was MOVED by Councillor A Wilce and seconded by Councillor Mrs N Woollatt.

 

In accordance with Procedure Rule 14.4, the Chairman of the Council had ruled that the matter be discussed at this meeting. Discussion took place regarding:

 

·         That this protocol was introduced at the start of the pandemic and that remote meetings still had a place and that this motion enabled Councillors to review the protocol to ensure it remained fit for purpose.

 

·         The District Solicitor and Monitoring Officer advised that the remote meetings protocol had not been used since May 2021 when the coronavirus regulations were lifted and that licensing meetings used the hybrid meeting protocol as these meetings fell under a separate piece of legislation. Therefore, it was advised that this motion should not go ahead as it would be illegal for remote meetings to be held with the exception of licencing as explained. 

 

·         It was expressed that there was a need for in person meetings in an effort for normality to be restored.

 

·         That this motion was for the protocol to be reviewed by the Standards Committee.

 

The Motion was amended so that it read ‘hybrid meeting protocol’ in place of ‘remote meeting protocol’.

 

Upon a vote being taken the MOTION was declared to have been CARRIED.

 

 

(3) MOTION 583 – (COUNCILLOR E Lloyd – 13 OCTOBER 2022)

 

The Council had before it a MOTION submitted for the first time.

 

1.    Recognise this Council’s obligation to protect its rivers and seas, including from the cumulative impacts of pollution, in line with its local strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework and working with other agencies to do so.

 

2.    Recognise that deterioration of water quality occurs due to cumulative impact of multiple sewage discharge events, or "sewage overload".

 

3.    Compile an evidence base that assesses the cumulative impact of wastewater / sewage discharge on local rivers, wildlife and the health of residents, and factor this into decisions made in new iterations of the local plan, including the overall level of future development.

 

4.    Ask the Scrutiny committee, or other appropriate committee, to invite a senior representative of South West Water, the Environment Agency and Natural England, to attend a meeting to answer questions on the current levels of sewage discharge.

 

5.    If it does not already do so, ask South West Water in its planning consultation responses for major development, to clarify which treatment works will be managing the sewage and whether they have capacity to do so; and whether it has the information available to assess the impact on the number or duration of sewage discharges into local rivers or seas. If it does have this information, make a request to share it.

 

6.    Request that officers update members with a report on: a) what they do to maintain flood defences and channels that fall under the responsibility of MDDC, b) what they do to protect main rivers and private water courses (and how often inspection/enforcement is undertaken by MDDC or the Environment Agency), c) the information currently required in reports relating to the impact of large developments on local watercourses (e.g. the impact of sewage outflow into watercourses), d) whether any large developments have been recently approved (or are under consideration) without suitable sustainable drainage systems in place and reasons why, e) the tools currently available to MDDC to protect local rivers, and what other tools, policy or resources they’d like to see that would help MDDC fulfil its obligation to protect rivers and seas

 

The MOTION was MOVED by Councillor Mrs E Lloyd and seconded by Councillor L Taylor.

 

In accordance with Procedure Rule 14.4, the Chairman of the Council had ruled that the matter be discussed at this meeting. Discussion took place regarding:

 

·         This motion had been prompted after talks with residents as well as national issues and for the issue to be better understood at a local level.

·         There was a need for rivers in our local area to be better protected. 

·         That the motion was not specific to Mid Devon and that there was a plan with South West Water. In addition, the Scrutiny Committee had the ability to invite key officers from organisations to speak without the need of a motion.

·         There was concern over increased officer workload.

·         The council had a duty to do what they could on this matter and asking for a report to be compiled would allow for information to be in one place and support informed decisions.

·         It was raised that the agricultural industry had to meet regulations on water pollution and that a lot had been done for this to be improved.

·         That this was a relevant issue and Mid Devon was affected.

·         That South West Water charged the highest for bills in the country and yet their environmental rating was only rated with 1 star. South West Water needed to improve their performance in this area.  In addition, soil erosion as well as farming were also key polluters to rivers. 

·         That the motion had not specified a deadline for the requested report to be produced.

·         It was raised that Mid Devon District Council did not own any rivers or seas but instead should support their improvement.

·         There was concern over future housing developments and the increased sewage from these. 

·         South West Water and other organisations needed to do better and there was a need for the council to show they care.

·         It was felt that the work asked of officers was achievable and would allow a dialogue to be opened between the Council and South West Water.

·         The past year there had not been as much rain and more pollution in our rivers and that South West Water should be invited to speak at Scrutiny Committee

 

It was amended that the motion be changed in point 1 so that ‘its rivers and seas’ changed to ‘the rivers and seas’. 

 

Upon a vote being taken the MOTION was declared to have been CARRIED.