Agenda item

Motions on Notice

A period of up to one hour is allocated to consider the motions on notice. This may only be extended with the agreement of the Council.

Minutes:

Playing our part in stopping climate change

Before commencement of proceedings, Councillors P. McDonald, A. Kent and S. Baxter indicated that they wished to put forward an amendment to the Motion.

The Chairman reminded Members that it was important that this matter was debated properly and that Members concentrated on the facts and evidence based discussions.

Members considered the following Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor S. Hughes:

“Climate change is already causing serious damage to our community in Bromsgrove and communities around the world. The Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2018 Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5?C calls for urgent action within 12 years to protect people from the consequences of irreversible climate change. All governments: national, regional, and local have a duty to act.

Council declares a climate emergency that requires urgent action. Bromsgrove Council Cabinet will therefore commit to doing the following:

· Work with our partner authorities to review and update the Worcestershire County Climate Change Strategy, which is about to expire, ensuring ambitious targets for improvement.

· Establish a working group to engage with the community, develop an action plan and report regularly on actions taken.

· Explore areas where our services can be delivered in a way that reduces the Council’s carbon emissions and look at ways in which the Council’s energy supplies can be from 100% renewable sources.

· Set an aspiration for Bromsgrove to become carbon neutral.”

The Motion was proposed by Councillor Hughes and seconded by Councillor R. Hunter.

In proposing the Motion Councillor Hughes explained that it was an area which impacted on everyone and something which people came across every day, whether it be through air pollution from excess traffic or the impact of single use plastics, which had been well documented. Councillor Hughes highlighted to Members that, should no action be taken, then the damage caused by global warming would become irreversible in 12 years’ time. The work that was already being done was recognised but it was imperative that it be acknowledged that much more needed to be done at a faster pace. Direct action needed to be taken to ensure that everyone played their part in making those necessary changes. The importance of educating the young was also highlighted. A working group would be able to co-ordinate and evaluate the best way forward and engage with local partners and other groups to ensure that Bromsgrove played its part in this global issue. There were already over 90 other local authorities who had signed up to such an agreement and it was felt that Bromsgrove must also take action as a matter of urgency.

Councillor A. Kent proposed some small amendments to the motion, which were seconded by Councillor K. May and accepted by Councillor Hughes.

The amended Motion is detailed below:

Council declares a climate emergency. Bromsgrove Council will look to do the following:

· Work with our partner authorities to review and update the Worcestershire County Climate Change Strategy, which is about to expire, ensuring ambitious targets for improvement.

· Establish a cross party working group to develop an action plan, report regularly on actions taken and engage with local communities.

· Explore areas where our services can be delivered in a way that reduces the Council’s carbon emissions and look at ways in which the Council’s energy supplies can be from 100% renewable sources.

· Set an aspiration for Bromsgrove to become carbon neutral and charge officers with working up relevant business cases and the financial impact of this on this Council and its Residents.

Councillor P. McDonald proposed an amendment “set an aspiration for Bromsgrove to become carbon neutral by 2025”, this had been put forward at other local authorities and showed that the Council was committed in taking this matter forward and showed that the Council had a goal to work towards. The amendment was seconded by Councillor M. Thompson.

The Leader responded that the Council needed to set realistic targets, by setting a date the Council was committing to something with financial implications that it did not have the full details of and therefore as she had a responsibility to the tax payers she would need to see a full business case before she could make that commitment. The Council was not in a position to make such a commitment in the current economic climate as there may be budget implications, which could impact on services the Council provided.

Members discussed the merits of the motion and Councillor McDonald’s amendment at length and in particular referred to the following areas:

· The need for a detailed business plan before any decision could be made as the cost would be significant in some areas.

· The Council was committed to making changes where possible and would consider all options available to it.

· The District had a better opportunity than the County Council, in some respects because it was smaller; to make changes and influence is residents.

· The urgent need to address the air pollution and traffic congestion in the district and its impact on residents.

· There were a number of areas where the changes needed were relatively small but had a wider impact.

· Whether there was a need for a specific post to be created in order for the right skills to be available to formulate a policy to move the Council forward. It was important that the Council got this right with the policy being delivered and managed properly.

· It was important that action was taken whether the date was aspirational or not.

· If an aspirational date was included then it would give the Council a goal to aim towards, otherwise it would be open ended and would dilute the importance of the matter.

· It was important to establish the message the Council wanted to give out to its residents and to show that their concerns were being listened to and actioned.

· The need to take account of residents’ views.

· The need to set a timeline, some targets and re-prioritise budgets in order to achieve those targets.

· The areas which a cross party working group could look at , including carbon neutral buses and transport links to villages, new buildings for life, tree planting, food waste and recycling for example.

Councillor Hunter commented that the key word was aspirational which was what the motion was based on, there was a need for any actions or plan put in place to be credible and for the Council to think careful about target setting and what it was able to achieve.

In summing up his amendment Councillor McDonald stated that by setting a date it would be something to work towards and ensure that the Council set an example. It should be made easy for residents to be able to go to any charging point and encourage them to have electric vehicles.

On being put to the vote Councillor McDonald’s amendment was lost.

Councillor S. Baxter proposed an amendment “set an aspiration for Bromsgrove to become carbon neutral by 2030”, as she believed that 2030 was a more realistic date, she also confirmed that she was happy with the amendments proposed by Councillor Kent. She felt that it was key for the Council to set some realistic goals to work towards. Councillor Baxter provided some examples of the direct impact of climate change, for example the recent floods in Wythall which showed that it had a really effect on residents. It was therefore important that the Council set itself some challenging milestones, when it put forward the suggested business cases and it was also important that the local communities were involved and engaged in the process, with a positive message being given from the Council. Councillor Baxter’s amendment was seconded by Councillor S. Colella.

On being put to the vote Councillor Baxter’s amendment was lost.

Councillor Thompson suggested that it needed to be made clear that it was the Council’s aim to become carbon neutral by 2025 which would show its commitment to residents by leading by example. It had a small fleet of vehicles and the potential to include solar panels on buildings and therefore he believed that this was achievable. He therefore suggested a further amendment to this effect – “set an aspiration for Bromsgrove District Council to become carbon neutral by 2025.” This amendment was seconded by Councillor McDonald.

In supporting the amendment Councillor McDonald stated that urgent action needed to be taken and there was the potential for the Council to begin to address the issues, in particular air quality and the immediate impact on residents. There were already a number of Air Quality Management Areas in the District and there was a need for air quality to be measured, whilst it may be within the legal limits this did not deter from the fact that the quality was poor and impacted on the health of the young and old in particular.

Members discussed a number of areas and suggested alternative wordings to the motion and clarified whether they were referring to the Council or to the district. The Council was only able to make the changes to its own vehicles and buildings and was not able to impose anything on its residents in this respect.

On being put to the vote Councillor Thompson’s amendment was lost.

Following the detailed discussions, Councillor Hughes’ briefly summed up her motion, and confirmed her acceptance of the amendments put forward by Councillor Kent.

On being put to the vote the amended motion was carried.

Before moving on to the remaining motions the Chairman advised Members that the one hour allocated to this item had been exceeded. He was however, minded to suggest that the meeting be extended by twenty minutes to allow the remaining motions to be considered.

Trees

Members considered the following Notice of motion submitted by Councillor M. Thompson:

“Council notes the importance on logging trees felled – and re-planting – in the combat against producing a carbon-neutral world. Council resolves to make a log of every tree it cuts down and, to compensate, to plant six new trees to replace them.”

The Motion was proposed by Councillor Thompson and seconded by Councillor P. McDonald.

In proposing the Motion Councillor Thompson said he would keep his presentation of the motion brief, but suffice to say that as the Council did not fell a significant number of trees then the impact of the proposal was nominal. He appreciated that where trees were felled it was for a legitimate reason, for example if a tree was unsafe. He was suggesting that the Council plant 6 trees in place of very tree which was felled.

In speaking in support of the motion Councillor McDonald also highlighted the positive impact that trees had on the environment and the reversal of greenhouse gases. It was important to highlight the value of trees and the replacement of those felled for future generations. A clear example of where such a policy worked was in Scotland and Councillor McDonald provided statistical information which showed that replacements trees planted there were helping to regenerate the forest cover.

Councillor Thompson was asked how the figure of six trees had been chosen and he confirmed that this was a figure provided by the Forestry Commission.

Councillor Kent advised that it was difficult to support such a motion without having the relevant business case to support any costs to the Council. After speaking to the relevant officers he believed that the only trees which had been felled recently in the District were in the Bromsgrove Cemetery and this had been for safety reasons. He was therefore happy to put the matter to the Climate Change Working Group, which would be set up following the motion of Climate Change, for further consideration.

Members discussed a number of other areas in respect of this matter, including the loss of hedgerows and trees for housing developments and the impact on wildlife and it was suggested that this should be recognized within the motion. Although it was accepted that this may complicate matters and therefore should be restricted to Council owned trees.

On being put to the vote the motion was lost.

Residents’ Funerals

The Chairman advised Members that Councillor A. Kriss had withdrawn this notice of motion.

Reducing food waste; financial and environmental benefits

Members considered the following Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor K. Van der Plank:

“This Council notes that:

1) The estimated annual cost of the food wasted in the UK is around £12bn - an average of £810 per family, per year.

2) Across Worcestershire, approximately a third of black bin waste is wasted food. WCC dispose of around 42,000 tonnes of food waste each year which equates to more than £4.5m in disposal costs.

3) Education and awareness campaigns such as the national ‘love food hate waste’ initiative can have a big impact on reducing food wastage at the same time as saving both individuals and council’s money.

4) More than 8 million people in the UK live in households that struggle to put food on the table, with more than half regularly going a whole day without eating. (Source: Food Foundation, using UN data).

5) Using food waste to feed the hungry is not a solution to food poverty, however, whilst both food waste and food poverty co-exist, we should ensure surplus food is used to help people in need.

This Council resolves:

To reduce food waste across the District by developing a practical action plan to include:

- communication and education activities to improve understanding and change behaviours in order to reduce food waste;

- work in partnership with other authorities and organisations on food waste initiatives and campaigns to increase awareness and participation;

- set an ambitious target for food waste reduction across our district and measure our performance against this; and

- support and encourage food redistribution initiatives and encourage local retailers and businesses to sign up to food redistribution schemes. “

The Motion was proposed by Councillor K. Van der Plank and seconded by Councillor A. English.

In proposing the Motion Councillor Van der Plank explained that there was both food waste and food poverty (which had been highlighted earlier in the meeting in respect of the Active Kitchen report) and the Council should do its best to ensure that surplus food in the district was put to good use. There were a variety of ways in which this could be done, including the support of local groups and charities and taking practical action to educate its residents and work in partnership with those organisations. The essence of the motion was to reduce food waste across the district and help support some of its most vulnerable residents.

Councillor M. Sherrey, Portfolio Holder for Environmental Services responded that Central Government were currently consulting on changes to how and what local authorities collected and processed for disposal and recycling as part of the Resource and Waste Strategy launched in December 2018. This was expected to result in significant changes to the services the Council provided and involved financial support in order to implement the changes once the national picture had been determined. Food waste was a key part of the consultation and the Council was already engaged with Central Government, alongside other Worcestershire authorities, as detailed in the Herefordshire and Worcestershire Municipal Waste Management Strategy. As such, the motion being put forward is already being considered as part of a national review of services to reduce the impact on the natural world. Councillor Sherrey made reference to the ministerial foreword to Central Government’s Waste and Resources Strategy and advised Members that the Council was already actively engaged in this process and whilst fully agreeing with the principal of the motion put forward was keen to ensure that the Council’s actions coincided with the national position in order to ensure the sustainability of any changes to the Council’s services.

The Leader responded that whilst the motion made some good points she wished to reiterate that whilst the matter was still out to consultation it would not be prudent to take any action until a directive had been received from Central Government. Once the consultation was completed then the Council would react appropriately and carry out any necessary actions.

Members discussed the motion in further detail and it was suggested that the motion referred more to the use of food waste rather than its disposal as suggested by the information provided by the Portfolio Holder, and there was still the opportunity for the Council to set a target for this. The schemes referred to in the motion were a good example of this, with the potential cost to the Council being minimal at this stage.

In summing up Councillor Van der Plank commented that although there was a consultation being undertaken at the moment, with a likely outcome of the Council having to collect food waste, this did not prevent the Council from taking a number of practical steps towards reducing food waste within the District, which would help residents save money and broaden their expectations in the future.

On being put to the vote the motion was lost.

Green Plan

Councillor S. Douglas confirmed that as the matter referred to in her Motion had been discussed under the Climate Change item she would withdraw her motion.

Supporting documents: