Agenda item

Councillor Mrs Mayor drew member’s attention to the altered Motion, which had been tabled. Members agreed to the alterations.

Councillor Boden presented his motion regarding Sky/Chinese Lanterns and stated that;

‘First of all I must emphasise that I am proposing this Motion as a member and not as Leader of the Council. As well as many others in this chamber, I both live and represent one of the district’s towns but there is a significant number of our population that reside in rural areas within the district, including our agricultural industry.

The first time I heard about the dangers of releasing Chinese Lanterns, I admit, I thought it was a joke. I asked why you would want to stop people’s innocent pleasure and fun but it was only on further research, that I realised the danger and damage caused by both Chinese Lanterns and Helium Balloon releases.

There are now 66 local authorities across the Country who has banned the release of Helium Balloons and Chinese Lanterns on their land and Fenland District Council became one of these 10 months ago. There are approximately 200,000 Sky Lanterns sold in the UK every year. Sky Lanterns can cause significant damage to farm land if they come down still alight and Helium Balloons can be deadly if ingested by Livestock. Whilst this is damaging to the agricultural industry it is also an appallingly cruel way for these animals to die.

Helium Balloons can also cause damage to the oceans and sea with recent research showing that balloons are the highest risk item of debris to sea birds and are 32 more likely to result in a sea bird’s death than ingesting hard plastic. One of these issues is the scale of the release of these balloons. The banning of this has been endorsed by the RSPCA, The Marine Conservation Society, The British Veterinary Association and the National Farmers Union.

Can I ask that when members interact with both the general public and schools in the district, they educate them on the dangers involved with the release of Sky Lanterns and Helium Balloons. This Motion will allow an opportunity for increased publicity and discussion and the Council need to play a part in raising awareness of this.’

Councillor Humphrey seconded the motion and Councillor Mrs Mayor opened the motion up for debate.

1.    Councillor Mrs French asked for confirmation that the Council has banned the release of Sky/Chinese Lanterns and Helium Balloons on land owned and occupied by the Council. Councillor Boden confirmed this was agreed as part of an executive decision made by Councillor Murphy 10 months ago.

2.    Councillor Mrs Bligh explained that in 2006 she had attended a training session held by NABAS (The National Association of Balloon Artists and Suppliers). At that time, she was advised against doing major balloon releases unless these balloons were biodegradable. She said that unfortunately, many major balloon releases are carried out by individuals who have not had the necessary training. She stated that there is not only a risk to crops and animals but also the interaction of balloons within airspace. She offered her full support to the Motion.

Councillor Yeulett proposed an Amendment to the Motion to include the following wording as point 5;

5.    To ensure that this Motion is not too narrow or restrictive, the Council should revisit the issue taking into account other similar pollution risks.

Councillor Patrick seconded the amendment to the Motion and Councillor Mrs Mayor opened the Amended Motion up for debate.

1.    Councillor Mrs French asked Councillor Yeulett for clarification on his amendment. Councillor Yeulett clarified that the amendment to the Motion asks that consideration is given to other pollutants including plastics etc.

2.    Councillor Boden stated that whilst he would have preferred advance notice of this amendment, in principle he supports the review of other similar pollutants.

3.    Councillor Cornwell reminded members that the Council is the only marine authority in Cambridgeshire and therefore there may be other elements of pollution that are applicable to this Council but not necessarily neighbouring authorities. He stated that the amended Motion is broad enough to enable further research in to this important issue.

4.    Councillor Tierney disagreed as he does not support the Motion. He said everything in life is a balance of risk and reward and benefit versus cost and we cannot just ban everything that may have a negative reward in certain instances. He stated that people have freedom of choice and whilst there are ways to manage these issues, it is not through banning certain activities. He said it was irrelevant what other local authorities had instigated as this Council makes decisions on its own position. He explained that only one major study has been carried out on Chinese Lanterns and this was undertaken by DEFRA in 2013. The study concluded that there no significant harm is caused by Chinese Lanterns and whilst Helium Balloons can be a risk to animals, we cannot ban everything animals and birds consume in error. He said whilst it is difficult to assess the value of balloon releases, it does have a value to those participating and this is ultimately higher than the potential cost. He supports raising the public awareness of this issue but ultimately does not support the Motion.

5.    Councillor Meekins agreed with Councillor Tierney. He explained that he had undertaken research in relation to this and could not find definitive statistics showing the amount of animals injured by Chinese Lanterns. He stated that most Chinese Lanterns are both fire retardant and biodegradable and highlighted that DEFRA had been asked to support a ban of these and they had declined. He reiterated that there are many other things that can cause damage to animals and crops, such as fireworks, and the Council cannot support the banning of one activity and not another.

6.    Councillor Benney agreed and stated that there are very few statistics available to support the banning of these activities.

7.    Councillor Miss Hoy confirmed that she too did not support the amendment to the Motion. She stated that whilst she supports raising awareness of this issue, there are more important things to consider and the inclusion of researching additional pollutants is too wide a remit.

8.    Councillor J Clark agreed and stated that the Council needs to concentrate on addressing its budgetary deficit as opposed to restricting the release of balloons.

9.    Councillor Mrs Laws highlighted a recent story in the press in which a Chinese Lantern had entered an open window and had caused serious injury to a child.

10.Councillor Hay stated that she did not support the Motion.

11.Councillor Tanfield said that she understands the risks involved however she has not experienced any such issues within her rural ward. She stated that whilst she agrees with raising the public awareness of this, she does not support the banning of Chinese Lanterns and Helium Balloons.

12.Councillor Booth supported the Motion and argued that the ‘risk’ is higher than the ‘reward’ in this instance. He highlighted the injuries to animals caused by both Chinese Lanterns and Helium Balloons and added that many injuries go unreported.

13.Councillor Boden stated that he had no issue with the amendment and agreed to give consideration to other pollutants.

A vote was taken on the amendment to the Motion. The amendment to the Motion failed.

Councillor Mrs Mayor opened the substantive Motion up for further debate.

1.    Councillor Humphrey explained that he works in the agricultural industry and highlighted the impact it has on this sector. He stated that both the RSPCA and the NFU are asking Councils to discourage members of the public from releasing both Chinese Lanterns and Helium Balloons.

2.    Councillor Boden said he was delighted that this Motion had been discussed today. He confirmed that if used correctly, Chinese Lanterns are not deemed a fire-risk however used improperly they can have a devastating effect on both farm land and animals. Whilst he agrees that the Council have other areas to focus on, he reminded members that the district has a population of 20% living in rural areas and he hopes today’s discussion has educated members on the risks associated with these activities.

A vote was taken on the Motion. The Motion was dismissed.