Agenda item

Proposed amendment to a motion passed by Full Council on 8 September 2020 in relation to a moratorium of Fenland District Council land in Wisbech submitted by Councillor Cornwell and, in accordance with Rule 14.1 of the Council Procedure Rules, supported by Councillors Sutton, Bligh, Booth, Divine, Marks, Meekins, Patrick, Tanfield, Wicks, Wilkes and Yeulett.

Councillor Cornwell presented a proposed amendment to a motion passed by Full Council on 8 September 2020 in relation to a moratorium of Fenland District Council land in Wisbech in accordance with Rule 14.1 of the Council Procedure Rules, supported by Councillors Sutton, Bligh, Booth, Divine, Meekins, Patrick, Tanfield, Wicks, Wilkes and Yeulett. 

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 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) continue to exercise their powers so as to achieve these objectives.  Those powers should also be used to promote continued development and opportunity within Fenland provided that this serves the purpose of: 

(a) promoting the re-instatement of the railway line but not the incinerator; and

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

that in order to achieve that, consideration is given to the use of restrictive covenants and/or retaining strategic parcels/strips of land as part of its overall assessment of the disposal.

The previous moratorium should now be lifted in favour of the proposals set out above with this guidance to remain in place for a period of 12 months again recognising however transactions which FDC are 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 will prevail.

Councillor Sutton seconded the motion and Councillor Miscandlon opened the motion for debate.

1.    Councillor Yeulett said that he supports the motion, the knock-on effect of the decision taken at last full Council will be detrimental to the Fenland economy and businesses. The strapline 'Open for Business' will become meaningless. Wisbech businesses will suffer as will employment prospects in the area and this will have a similar effect throughout the rest of Fenland.  He said he felt that two Cabinet members had been compromised in their original decision.

2.    Councillor Tierney said that he believes 'Open for Business' means we support every attempt to increase all businesses in the Fenland area as best as we can, but it does not mean we will support every business no matter how damaging to the residents. You could argue the incinerator is business, but this Council passed a near unanimous motion not to support the incinerator so clearly that is a type of business we thought differently about. We are stuck between a rock and a hard place; any choice we make regarding the sale of land could go one way or the other so all we can do is the best we can to put in place whatever is possible to frustrate the arrival of an incinerator which our previous motion said we would do and most people agreed to. That motion was put in place so that we would not get into a situation that we would have to sell land that might aide the build of an incinerator or cause a problem the railway line. This is our land and we do not have to sell it to anyone. Therefore, he is surprised to see this motion come forward; the previous motion back in September was just for six months and what business deal will be harmed in the coming weeks over Christmas and during a pandemic. To his mind the motion put forward by the opposition is mischief making and political.

3.    Councillor Bligh said she would like to reassure all members and members of the public that she strongly objects to the incinerator and supports the reintroduction of the March to Wisbech rail line.  In respect of Councillor Tierney's previous motion, she understands that this was brought before us with a desire to stop the incinerator; a stance she supported with the information provided at the time. However, it has come to light since that meeting that legitimate companies in Wisbech have had their expansion issues hindered and the mantra is 'Open for Business' regardless of whatever that definition may be.  Therefore, she feels if we stop the expansion of businesses this could be damaging for FDC which is why she supports this motion. Councillor Bligh added that it not political but helps solve both problems.

4.    Councillor Hoy said she does feel this is political and done to cause division; she appreciates the heartfelt sentiments expressed by Councillor Bligh but suggested that not all members had the right motivations. She had no issue with anyone abstaining last time, we are a democracy and we are not all going to have the same views. She agreed with Councillor Tierney's comment about 'Open for Business'; she is hoping that we get the rail line but not the incinerator but bearing in mind both those projects are in the vicinity of our land and so that land could potentially be very valuable. This money will be for the taxpayers of Fenland. She does not know what the impact will be on businesses, but she does not like ultimatums, and she would ask members to ask how this looks to their electors. Basically, this motion means that members in support want us to sell our land potentially to people who support the incinerator and she finds it disappointing.

5.    Councillor Booth said he would be supporting this motion but wanted to address some of the points previously made. This motion does not talk about just selling the land, so it gets into the hands of those who want the incinerator, which he opposes, and he also supports the reintroduction of the rail line. He believes we need to work to the best of our ability, and it is about putting covenants on the sale of land, so it is not used by the company that wants to set up the incinerator. This motion is guidance for the executive of the Council because the way the constitution is structured is that this motion, if successful, and the previous motion are taken under guidance when they decide what they want to do. We are not setting direct policy but giving guidance. There has been speculation in the press about businesses moving out, and the danger we have as a council is that if they do it will have a financial impact because of the new way local government will be funded through business rate retention. We also need to think about what will happen in the future, some of these businesses have announced expansion plans so we would increase the income from these businesses. What will happen to the land that these companies currently occupy, they may seek to dispose of it, and they may seek to dispose of it to the incinerator company. Therefore, the previous motion may end up helping the incinerator company by allowing them to acquire more land which is not what we want. We need businesses expanding onto our land, and this may then leave no land for the incinerator; we also have more information than we did when we voted on the last motion which is why he is supporting this.

6.    Councillor Meekins said at the last meeting he seconded Councillor Tierney's motion. At the time he thought it was the best way forward to avoid the incinerator coming to Wisbech. However there have been reports in the press of businesses being offered lucrative deals to move to neighbouring authorities. He feels that if we had some of the information that has come to light since, are we prepared to risk permanent good quality jobs coming to Wisbech and Fenland in general by not selling some of the land to businesses that are already in the Algores Way area.  As previously mentioned, there are covenants in this motion to stop people selling it on to the incinerator company. He is strongly anti-incinerator, but he thinks we need to be mindful that what we do need is good quality permanent jobs, which is why he will be supporting today's motion.

7.    Councillor Topgood said the current motion only has 6-8 weeks left to run and any company that sells to the incinerator was already going to sell to the incinerator.  Councillor Miscandlon said that was possible and is a matter for business.

8.    Councillor Booth raised a point of order that this motion is asking to carry on for twelve months, but the original motion was for six months.

9.    Councillor Mrs Davis raised the issue of covenants and restrictions and said these are not necessarily a protection and can often fall down in court. She feels that some of the companies are posturing themselves to further their own cause and the rumours circulating are just rumours. Unequivocally we are here to support the residents of Wisbech who have said they do not want this incinerator and if it was in our ward, we would not want it either so she will be voting against the motion.

10.Councillor Lynn said the motion was put in place to prevent the sale of land to people who want to build the incinerator, however it is also wanted by a company that potentially wants to build stuff from the incinerator. It makes no sense to help a business in support of the incinerator and then come to this meeting to say we do not support the incinerator. We are here to represent the residents of Wisbech, and the majority do not want it. We have a motion in place that prevents the sale of that piece of land that makes it difficult for the incinerator. If we now vote to sell this piece of land and the incinerator comes how are these members going to feel. 

Councillor Miscandlon invited Councillor Sutton his right to reply.

Councillor Sutton said members have given good representation about how they feel but he is on public record that he is against the incinerator. The original motion was for six months but the full application for the incinerator will not be submitted until the fourth quarter of 2021 so there was no point to the motion in the first place. It has had an impact on a company or companies but let us hope that we do not see the movement of any company out of Wisbech. If that happens those in support of the motion will need to answer to the electorate.

Councillor Cornwell was given a right to reply and said the amendment does nothing but strengthen what we are trying to do yet is seems to be misunderstood by some.

A Recorded Vote was taken on the Motion.

In Favour: Councillor Bligh, Councillor Booth, Councillor Cornwell, Councillor Divine, Councillor Meekins, Councillor Sutton, Councillor Tanfield, Councillor Wicks, Councillor Wilkes, Councillor Yeulett

Against: Councillor Benney. Councillor Boden, Councillor J Clark, Councillor Connor, Councillor Count, Councillor Davis, Councillor Mrs French, Councillor Miss French, Councillor Hay, Councillor Hoy, Councillor Humphrey, Councillor Mrs Laws, Councillor Lynn, Councillor Mason, Councillor Maul, Councillor Mrs Mayor, Councillor Miscandlon, Councillor Murphy, Councillor Purser, Councillor Rackley, Councillor Seaton, Councillor Tierney, Councillor Topgood, Councillor Wallwork,

The proposed amendment to the Motion approved by Full Council on 8 September 2020 failed. 

(Councillor Marks indicated that although he has no pecuniary or non-pecuniary interest in this Motion, he will not take part in any debate or vote on this item and requested that his name be removed as a supporter of the Motion).