Agenda item

Motion submitted by Councillor Tierney regarding the proposal of a moratorium on sales of FDC land in Wisbech within 500 metres of the track of the decommissioned railway line or within 500 metres of any part of the site of the proposed new incinerator. 

Councillor Tierney presented a motion regarding the proposal of a moratorium on sales of Fenland District Council (FDC) landin Wisbech within 500 metres of the track of the decommissioned railway line or within 500 metres of any part of the site of the proposed new incinerator and stated that:

FDC has consistently supported the reintroduction of a rail service into Wisbech, and has opposed the proposal to build a mega-incinerator in Wisbech. In the near future, both schemes will reach critical milestones.

To help promote the re-instatement of the railway line, and to help defeat the incinerator proposal, Full Council recommends that those exercising delegated authority for decisions connected with the disposal of land observe a six-month moratorium on all sales of FDC land in Wisbech within 500 metres of the track of the decommissioned railway line in Wisbech or within 500 metres of any part of the site of the proposed new incinerator unless either:

(a) the proposed sale assists in the promotion of the re-instatement of the railway line and does not assist in the promotion of the incinerator OR

(b) the proposed sale assists in the fight to oppose the proposed incinerator and does not harm the proposal to re-instate the railway line.

The moratorium above shall not apply in respect of transactions which FDC is obliged to complete by a Court, or under the terms of a Compulsory Purchase Order, or under threat of legal action against FDC which FDC is unlikely to be able to defend successfully.

Councillor Meekins seconded the motion and Councillor Miscandlon opened the motion up for debate:

·         Councillor Meekins stated that the proposed construction of the incinerator has provoked the residents of Wisbech, like no other issue that he can recall, adding that prior to the Covid-19 lockdown, the rallies and public meetings that took place saw people of different ages come together to discuss the subject and to make their feelings known. He advised that he spoke to local people at those events and they had informed him that it was the first time that they had ever demonstrated, which in his opinion, shows the strength of local objection and the large amount of yellow banners which have been placed at various locations around the town of Wisbech against the project, show that the incinerator has little or no support in the town or a place in the town, as the proposed site is in close proximity of Thomas Clarkson School and also many houses, including the future development at the disused College of West Anglia site. Councillor Meekins stated that everything legally possible should be done to prevent this incinerator being built and he supports Councillor Tierney’s motion wholeheartedly.

·         Councillor Booth stated that he will support the motion, but he does have concerns that the moratorium is only for 6 months.  He made the point that the Wisbech rail project has been ongoing for a number of years and, in his opinion, 6 months is not long enough to fully utilise the power and effect of the motion and he would like to suggest that after 6 months it is reviewed again to ascertain the status. Councillor Booth added that if the incinerator is brought before the Ministry for Communities and Local Government it can take many years before appeals are considered.

·         Councillor Tierney stated that the Council has previously supported a motion to state that it will do everything within its power to oppose the building of the incinerator, but it is not known currently what schemes that those responsible for the building of the incinerator are proposing and whilst it is wrong to speculate, it could be through land that is owned by the Council. He stated that in response to Councillor Booth’s concerns regarding the six month period not being long enough, this appears to be the timescale where the proposal may be brought forward, however, if required then the moratorium can be brought back again to Council. Councillor Tierney made the point that there is also a very specialist school which looks after vulnerable children even closer to the proposed site than Thomas Clarkson school.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he has concerns regarding the motion, although he does understand the reasoning behind it and is against the incinerator, however, he believes it has further ramifications for the Council and local businesses. He stated that by placing a six month period and 500 metre area embargo on the sale of land belonging to the Council, it could have serious implications on businesses who may be considering expanding or relocating in that embargoed area, which may mean that those businesses will look to relocate to other areas outside of Fenland, taking employment opportunities and wealth with them. Councillor Marks expressed the view that the embargo could mean that other land owners in the area could look to sell their land to the incinerator company during this time and should the incinerator be given approval or not there is the possibility of appeal which could take years and should the moratorium be kept in place it could stifle growth in Fenland and land owned by the Council. He made the point that the strapline of Fenland District Council is ‘Open for Business’ and questioned whether that is the case as if the motion succeeds then one of the biggest growth employment areas for Fenland for the foreseeable future has been eradicated. Councillor Marks questioned whether the Council continues to support the March to Wisbech rail link as it could be used in the future for freight movements, which would mean that waste could be used by rail to feed the incinerator and that he would like to see a new motion put forward where instead of embargoes, covenants and ransom strips could be placed on all land around the incinerator that the Council owns, which would ensure that the Council have a safeguard in place for other land which is not being used in conjunction with the incinerator. Councillor Marks asked Councillor Tierney whether he has any written proof, which he could provide to him today, which shows that the incinerator company requires any further land than it has already taken lease on? Councillor Tierney agreed with most of Councillor Marks comments, but added that public land should be used to the best of its ability and the Council should be doing all it can to promote business. He added that it may mean that when it comes to the Secretary of State, there may be an argument whereby the incinerator company tries to make the best case about why the incinerator should be allowed to proceed against the people of Wisbech, with the Council previously promising that they would do everything legally possible to stop the incinerator and whilst he agrees it will effect some companies the residents feelings need to be taken into account and they do not want this incinerator in Wisbech. Councillor Marks reiterated his initial question to Councillor Tierney and asked whether he has any written confirmation concerning additional land being required? Councillor Tierney stated that he has nothing written down which can be disclosed, but stated that there must be the acceptance that the incinerator company could purchase a piece of land from a third party or a third party purchases land and sells it on, which would strengthen the case for the incinerator. Councillor Marks stated that currently any other landowner around the incinerator could sell and Fenland would have the embargoes in place and somebody else could sell and the embargoes would be worthless. Councillor Tierney stated that we do not control that scenario, but we do control the motion before members today.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he agrees with Councillor Marks and all that he has stated. He believes that there is another solution to this situation, which is to allow the sale of the land, and although he has no evidence, he feels that there has been negotiations taking place with regard to the sale of land in close proximity to the site. Councillor Sutton added that he does not disagree with some of the information that Councillor Tierney has provided, but if the Council are to do everything possible to stop the incinerator, it means that the improvements to the A47 must be stopped and also the possibility of the rail line, both of which would impact in the favour of the incinerator. He stated that he would suggest that Councillor Tierney withdraws his motion and brings forward another with regard to covenants on the land, which he would anticipate would receive 100% support from all members. Councillor Sutton expressed the view that there could be reputational damage to the Council if there have been negotiations taking place, it is detrimental to business and he urged Councillor Tierney to withdraw his motion.

·         Councillor Topgood stated that he will support the motion, councillors have been elected to take into consideration the views and thoughts of the local people. He added that posters are being placed in the local villages which are voicing concerns over the proposal and there appears to be little or no support for the incinerator.

·         Councillor Boden stated that he is disappointed to hear that Councillor Sutton cannot support the motion as he had hoped that the motion would have been accepted without any opposition, which would have sent a strong message to the proponents of the incinerator but also to our residents. He added that he was sympathetic to the comments made by Councillor Marks, who is correct with the point he made that the Council are not stopping other landowners from selling to the proponents of the incinerator, but all the Council can do is to act within the powers that it has for the land that it owns. Councillor Boden referred to the comment that Councillor Marks made that there is the potential, despite the relatively small number of employment sites which we own in the relevant area, that we may stifle some genuine employment opportunities that have nothing at all to do with the incinerator. Councillor Marks is correct that there is a danger of that. Under the Constitution, Full Council does not have authority to stop land transactions, as these decisions are delegated either to officers or to the Cabinet dependent on the size and value of the land concerned. He added that the motion is a request to those who make those decisions about observing a moratorium, and if there is a situation where any legitimate employer wishes to take action within the area that has been prescribed and it would be in our interest for that to go ahead, and it has nothing to do with the incinerator, he gave assurances to Councillor Marks that he would be open to any direct approach from any such company or from any councillors so that consideration could be given to that legitimate employment opportunity which can have nothing at all to do with the incinerator and discretion will be appropriately used in those circumstances.

·         Councillor Benney stated that he fully supports the stopping of the incinerator, but in his role as the Portfolio Holder for Assets and Growth he cannot support the motion. He stated that he is bound by confidentiality but expressed the view that by not selling a piece of land could be detrimental towards the stopping of the incinerator and to the business community of Wisbech. He stated that both he and Councillor Mrs Laws have undertaken work with agents and developers to encourage business and growth in Fenland and by putting this moratorium in place could prove damaging to the reputation of the Council. Councillor Benney stated that the proposed location for the incinerator is not best placed and with it will bring traffic problems and pollution, but in his position as Portfolio Holder he does not think the motion is the correct course of action for the business community and is damaging to the work that he has undertaken since he has been in his role, whilst he fully supports the stopping of the incinerator and he sympathises with the feelings of the people of Wisbech.

·         Councillor Hoy stated that the incinerator company have been very clear in some of their documentation that they have a requirement for extra land for their substations and site construction works. She is surprised with the earlier comments made by Councillor Marks and made the point that Councillor Sutton abstained when the previous motion was before Council and now he appears to be against the moratorium. Councillor Hoy referred to a point made by Councillor Sutton with regard to the rail infrastructure and she stated that there has been no suggestion anywhere that waste will be transported by rail and adding that if the incinerator is built it will sever the railway line and there will be no rail station in the town centre. She stated that she is not against business; however, the people of Wisbech deserve to be supported and the reputation of the Council will be effected if the piece of land is sold to assist the proposed incinerator.  She concluded by requesting a recorded vote.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws stated that she agrees with Councillor Benney and added that she does not want to see the incinerator, but she has not been provided with any evidence to prove this is going to happen being aware of how much time both Councillor Benney and Officers have spent on the subject and she has attended meetings from a planning perspective. Councillor Mrs Laws made the point that the Conservative Group and the Leader of the Council have provided guidelines to encourage business and growth and economy and she has adhered to those guidelines as has Councillor Benney. She does not support the incinerator, but in her role as Portfolio Holder, she has abided by the request of the Leader of the Council and, therefore, she cannot support the motion.

·         Councillor Maul stated that he will be supporting the motion and added that he understands the comments made by other members, and the Leader has made his position clear. He feels the views of the residents of Wisbech have to be taken into consideration and everything possible needs to be undertaken to stop the incinerator being built, which is why the motion should be supported and passed.

·         Councillor Tierney stated that Councillor Mrs Laws and Councillor Benney have undertaken great work in their Portfolio Holder roles by promoting growth and business in the area and he understands the points raised by them and by Councillor Marks, however, feels that if the proposed incinerator was to be built in their wards they may take a different view. He does not think that Councillor Sutton will change his opinion even though the proposed site does fall in close proximity to his ward, but he will not withdraw the motion as covenants can be overturned but what cannot be overturned is the Council’s refusal to sell its land.

A Recorded vote was taken on the Motion.

In Favour: Councillor Mrs Bligh, Councillor Boden, Councillor S Clark, Councillor Connor, Councillor Cornwell,  Councillor Mrs Davis, Councillor Divine, Councillor Mrs French, Councillor Miss French, Councillor Hay, Councillor Hoy, Councillor Humphrey, Councillor Mason, Councillor Mrs Mayor Councillor Maul,  Councillor Meekins, Councillor Miscandlon, Councillor Murphy, Councillor Patrick, Councillor Rackley, Councillor Seaton, Councillor Skoulding, Councillor Tierney, Councillor Topgood, Councillor Wallwork and Councillor Wicks.

Against: Councillor Benney, Councillor Mrs Laws, Councillor Marks, Councillor Sutton and Councillor Yeulett.

Abstentions: Councillor Clark

The motion was adopted.

(Councillor Booth left the meeting prior to the recorded vote taking place)