Agenda item

Motion submitted by Councillor Tierney regarding the Fens Biosphere.

Councillor Tierney presented a motion with regard to the Fens Biosphere.  He expressed the opinion that the recent member seminar concerning the Biosphere in his view did not provide any information and that, after listening to the three speakers, it appeared that the same questions were asked and the responses received were very vague and it was not clear how the Biosphere would benefit Fenland and what the consequences would be for Fenland. Councillor Tierney expressed the opinion the motion highlights the views of other members and he asked members to support it.

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

1.    Councillor Boden stated that everybody wants to see improved biodiversity, less pollution and more open spaces and added that many of these aspects are already provided or being planned for by Local Authorities or other bodies. He added that it is very unclear as to what additionality would be created by the Fens Biosphere Project. Councillor Boden expressed the view that by having the designation of a biosphere could be valuable and helpful in terms of tourism and reputation and Fenland is the only Local Authority which falls totally within the planned area of the Fens Biosphere. He stated that he does not know, as it is currently constituted, where the Fens Biosphere would go and how far it will go. Councillor Boden questioned whether input would commence with the Planning process and whether representations would be made regarding Economic Growth or with the required new Infrastructure. He stated that all these questions were asked, but answers were never provided. Councillor Boden stated that he is not against the concept of the Biosphere, but it is what comes with it which needs to be limited. He stated that it is pleasing to know that in the last few days the Biosphere Steering Group have contacted the Council, asking for discussions to take place to discuss the project and he expressed the view that it is a shame that the discussions have not taken place previously. Councillor Boden welcomes the opportunity for discussions to take place to see if there are any areas of commonality, which he is sure will happen, however, the current proposal is so uncertain and open ended, it would be irresponsible for a Local Authority to agree and adopt such a proposal. 

2.    Councillor Count stated that he would like the newly formed administration at the County Council, Councillor Lucy Nethsingha, Councillor Elisa Meschini, Councillor Tom Sanderson, and Cambridgeshire County Council Officer Executive to be added to the circulation list. He stated that the newly formed administration has already publicised their plans to oppose the Fens Biosphere across the whole area, however, that opposition does need the agreement of all relevant parties.  Councillor Count stated that the previous administration had requested extra time during debate to consider further information with regard to the proposal, however, the new administration have disregarded this request. He expressed the view that the Fens Biosphere does have aspirations, including biodiversity and green space, and he has been looking at this project for over four years since they first approached the Combined Authority for extra money to keep themselves in a position where they could promote the Fens Biosphere. Councillor Count added that at that time the same questions concerning the project were asked and four years later there are still no answers and he expressed the view that it does appear to be a branding exercise in terms of the benefits, however, the disbenefits will place a number of restrictions which will be placed on the area which do not line up with the aspirations of the local people and it appears to only suit people outside of the area to determine that the proposal is the best thing for Fenland. He stated that at the recent Annual Council meeting of Cambridgeshire County Council, the new administration spoke at length with regard to the importance of collaboration and communication and their press statement appeared to state what their intentions are for Fenland by imposing the biosphere on the district, when in fact there have been no discussions. He stated that he cannot agree to the biosphere from the evidence he has seen to date, as the benefits are far outweighed by the tenuous links that have been stated with regard to what will happen to the area. Councillor Count expressed the view that Fenland is a great place to live and the Biosphere is not necessary to achieve what can be attained anyway and he will support the motion.

3.    Councillor Benney stated that he attended the seminar and expressed the opinion that the representatives who presented to members on the Biosphere did not seem to understand their subject matter. He added that they kept referring to Fenland as special and he stated that Fenland and the whole of East Anglia is special as it feeds the rest of the country.  Councillor Benney expressed the view that their proposal would be economically harmful to the area as they referred to tourism being a replacement for farming. He expressed the view that Fenland is a farming area and an economy cannot be dismantled that is good on the hope that something else will better it. Councillor Benney added that the proposal would be very detrimental to the core business of the area which is agriculture and to jobs and he fully supports the motion.

4.    Councillor Sutton stated that he would support the motion if he felt that the fears of other members would come to fruition, but he does not. He added that the motion is incorrect in three places as it refers in Section 8 as David Thomas being the Chairman, which he is not, in Section 14 it states that at the seminar members were wholly against the proposal, which is not true, and at Section 18 it states that the proposal does not have community support, however, there is no evidence to support this fact. Councillor Sutton added that the Middle Level Commissioners administer over 30 Internal Drainage Boards (IDB) and he has been advised that every one of those IDB’s support the proposal in principle. He expressed the opinion that the motion is slightly premature, and a decision should not be made currently as the application will not be submitted until the last quarter of 2022 and further discussion and information is needed before a decision is made. Councillor Sutton referred to the earlier comments made by Councillor Count regarding the new administration and made reference to their press statement, which does not categorically state that they agree with the proposal and have stated that they will work with them and other partners and he expressed the view that is what the Council should be doing.

5.    Councillor Cornwell stated that the idea of the biosphere has been in place for some time and if it was ever to come to fruition, in his opinion, it would have been in place by now. He added that the Internal Drainage Boards that he is a representative for the Council on have only noted the report. Councillor Cornwell expressed the opinion that unless there is further movement on the proposal within the next three months there is no merit in moving the project forward. He expressed the view that he does not understand what the benefits are in the proposal.

6.    Councillor Hoy stated that she did not know what the Biosphere was initially, and had been looking forward to the seminar, so she was able to obtain a better understanding of the proposal, however, that did not happen. She added that the biosphere representatives stated that the Fens have no real green space which she finds meaningless. Councillor Hoy referred to a response she was given with regard to a question she had asked concerning re wetting the Fens and the reply she was given in her opinion was evasive. She referred to a BBC Radio Cambridgeshire debate that she had listened to earlier where Pippa Haylings from South Cambridgeshire District Council was quite animated over the topic of rewetting the Fens who had stated that it is something that should be done as the carbon capture is needed. Councillor Hoy stated that those comments worried her and added that one of the aspects that the people of the Fens should be proud of is the amount of agriculture and farming in the area, which help to feed people. She added that it was interesting listening to some of the Councillors at the seminar, who have links to the farming community and to hear their expertise and knowledge was interesting. Councillor Hoy stated that regarding the point made by Councillor Sutton about supporting the proposal in principle is that sometimes the contributing factors associated with proposals and projects may change in the future. She added that further questions and requests for detail have been requested, but there has been no further information received. Councillor Hoy made reference to the Rainbow Coalition at Cambridgeshire County Council with regard to the fact that they are not in support of the proposal and stated that at a previous County Council meeting Councillor Lorna Dupre was very much in support in everything she said with regard to the Biosphere and had made reference to the fact that Fenland District Council did not know enough about the proposal.

7.    Councillor Booth stated that he agrees with the comments of Councillor Sutton and added that he attended a presentation from the Biosphere project representatives held at North Level Internal Drainage Board. He expressed the opinion that he was sceptical of what the obligations would be to the area if the Biosphere was adopted and after asking questions and carrying out some further research it has become apparent that the project would have no legislative power or impositions on the local area and would only be a designation. Councillor Booth added that the only way the Biosphere could enter discussions with the Planning Team is if the emerging Fenland Local Plan states that the Biosphere should be recognised. Councillor Booth expressed the opinion that there is a need for further information before the motion is put forward and he added that there is more background information that Councillors need to be made aware of and it is not necessarily the Fens Biosphere that could bring about changes referred to in the motion, such as re wetting the Fens, it is also Central Government. Councillor Booth made reference to George Eustice, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who has published the Peat Action Plan which refers to re wetting of the Fens to bring peat back into better condition. He stated that Central Government are taking this very seriously and have set up a specific taskforce which will specifically look at the Fens. Councillor Booth stated that there is the assumption that the Internal Drainage Boards are dormant, however, he expressed the opinion that they still manage the water very well in our area, including dealing with the recent extreme weather events where some of the pumping stations were 40mls away from being flooded in the North Level catchment area. He added that the drainage boards are reviewing how the area can be protected against flooding and other possible mitigation needs to be considered, including the need to recognise that there needs to be change and the realisation that the drainage boards are going to operate differently with regard to the Peat Action Plan and also the fact that tax will no longer be able to be claimed for red diesel costs, which will have a direct financial impact. Councillor Booth expressed the view that the motion is too premature, and he agrees with Councillor Boden, that there should be further dialogue. He stated that the possibilities it could present is about more investment and he expressed the view that the Council is being poorly served by the Combined Authority regarding Agritech up until now as there has only been one application to date in the Fenland Area for £68,000. Councillor Booth stated that the motion refers to the lack of public engagement, but consultation took place for the Wisbech Garden Town Project which was submitted to the Government having only consulted 150 people on one day in Wisbech Market Place, and that report stated the project had the overwhelming support of the Fenland, which in his opinion is incorrect. He stated that the Biosphere Project has probably consulted more people than the Garden Town project did and stated that the Wisbech 2020 Vision recently listed the Fens Biosphere as being on the Council’s agenda moving forward as it is being listed as project that the Council wants to take forward in one document and there is now a motion to oppose it.

8.    Councillor Topgood stated that during the debate it has been mentioned that the Biosphere Project are not looking for any public funding and he asked Councillor Tierney for clarity as the documentation following the seminar states that the project are looking for funding only for the public consultation process? Councillor Tierney stated that he does not recall and added that the information presented was so vague it was hard to tell.

9.    Councillor Murphy stated that he is still unsure about the detail of the Biosphere and he asked at the time how much it was going to cost the Council. He added that the representatives from the Biosphere have never been able to answer any questions or provide the information requested. Councillor Murphy expressed the opinion that Fenland is a unique area and that is how it should stay, and Fenland does not want a World Heritage Site.

10.Councillor Sutton stated that the funding for the project so far has derived from the National Lottery and at this stage there has been no request for funding from Fenland.

11.Councillor Count stated that when the Biosphere project presented to the Combined Authority, there was a direct request for funding of public money.

12.Councillor Lynn stated that at the seminar he questioned the representative over funding, and he was advised that they needed the Council to join with them so that they could apply to the Government for future funding.

13.Councillor Tierney stated that Councillor Booth has advised the Biosphere Project would not have any legislative powers and although that may be the case to start with, the same could be said for the Centre for Disease Control, however, that agency has very much been in control globally for the last year. He added that when an emergency is declared, power is directed to all different types of agencies and bodies to deal with. Councillor Tierney referred to the comments made with regard to the Wisbech Garden Town Project and stated that many members had stated at the time that they were not ready to support the project as it was felt that there had not been enough public consultation and he added that he never supported the project.

14.Councillor Tierney referred to the point made by Councillor Sutton with regard to waiting to see what happens. He stated that there are consequences to taking no action and he added that the representatives who came to the seminar asked members whether they supported the proposal and, in his opinion, as Fenland were the authority they needed to have on side with the project he would have expected them to come fully prepared with information and answers, however, this was not the case. Councillor Tierney expressed the view that there is nothing stopping the representatives of the project from coming back to the Council in the future with clearer or different proposals, which would give the Council the opportunity to reconsider, however, based on what members were told, there was not enough information provided to enable members to make an informed decision.

15.Councillor Booth stated that he wished to respond to the point that Councillor Tierney made with regard to the Wisbech Garden Town Proposal. He stated that contained within documentation provided to members it stated that 68% of respondents supported the proposal and that data was submitted by the Council to the Government as part of the submission bid and request for funding and as part of that it stated that it had public support.

A recorded vote was taken on the Motion:

In Favour: Councillors Benney, Boden, J Clark, S Clark, Connor, Cornwell, Count, Mrs Davies, Mrs J French, Miss K French, Hay, Hoy, Humphrey, Lynn, Maul, Miscandlon, Mockett, Murphy, Purser, Rackley, Skoulding, Tierney, Topgood, Wallwork and Wicks.

Against:  Councillors Booth, Patrick and Sutton.

The motion was approved.