Motion 1
Motion for Time Limited Debate – Kent water quality
Proposer: Mark Hood
Seconder: Mike Sole
Motion:
This Council resolves to:
1. Recognise this Council’s commitment to work collaboratively to protect Kent’s streams and rivers, in line with its own policies and the National Planning Policy Framework.
2. Recognise that there is clear evidence of deterioration of water quality due to the impacts of combined sewer overflows events (CSO) on our streams, rivers and seas.
3. Encourage the use of Water Cycle Strategies to be completed as integral documents in Local Plans to inform district councils regarding the sustainable level of future development.
4. Recognise the continuing impact of wastewater discharges, including untreated sewage in our local rivers and seas on wildlife, the health of our residents and on Kents tourist economy.
5. Continue to working constructively with other agencies and local authorities to implement flood management schemes which also improve the environment in the interests of wildlife.
6. Continue to request that representatives of Southern Water, the Environment Agency and Natural England continue to attend relevant meetings of this Council to answer questions on the current levels of CSO and sewage plant discharge and to consider whether all future development in Kent should be Water Neutral or at least to require consumption be limited to 90lt of clean water per person in agreement with District Councils.
7. Ask Southern Water to clarify, for developments being processed by our planning department, which treatment works will be managing the sewerage and whether there is available capacity to avoid combined sewer overflows; whether it has the information available to assess the impact on the number or duration of sewage discharges into local rivers or seas and if it does have this information, to share it (noting that this can only be requested not required).
8. Acknowledge that reducing demand for water, reducing the amount of non-foul wastewater finding its way to Waste Water Treatment Works and ensuring that clean surface water is fed instead into Kent’s streams and rivers can reduce eutrophication on our slow flowing rivers.
Motion 2
Motion for Time Limited Debate – Fracking
Proposer: Antony Hook
Seconder: Richard Streatfeild
Motion:
This council resolves to record its profound concern about the possibility of fracking in Kent and asks the Leader of the Council to convey these concerns to the UK Government.
Minutes:
Motion for Time Limited Debate 1 – Kent Water Quality
(1) Mr Hood proposed and Mr Sole seconded the following motion for time-limited debate:
“The County Council resolves to:
1. Recognise this Council’s commitment to work collaboratively to protect Kent’s streams and rivers, in line with its own policies and the National Planning Policy Framework.
2. Recognise that there is clear evidence of deterioration of water quality due to the impacts of combined sewer overflows events (CSO) on our streams, rivers and seas.
3. Encourage the use of Water Cycle Strategies to be completed as integral documents in Local Plans to inform district councils regarding the sustainable level of future development.
4. Recognise the continuing impact of wastewater discharges, including untreated sewage in our local rivers and seas on wildlife, the health of our residents and on Kents tourist economy.
5. Continue to working constructively with other agencies and local authorities to implement flood management schemes which also improve the environment in the interests of wildlife.
6. Continue to request that representatives of Southern Water, the Environment Agency and Natural England continue to attend relevant meetings of this Council to answer questions on the current levels of CSO and sewage plant discharge and to consider whether all future development in Kent should be Water Neutral or at least to require consumption be limited to 90lt of clean water per person in agreement with District Councils.
7. Ask Southern Water to clarify, for developments being processed by our planning department, which treatment works will be managing the sewerage and whether there is available capacity to avoid combined sewer overflows; whether it has the information available to assess the impact on the number or duration of sewage discharges into local rivers or seas and if it does have this information, to share it (noting that this can only be requested not required).
8. Acknowledge that reducing demand for water, reducing the amount of non-foul wastewater finding its way to Waste Water Treatment Works and ensuring that clean surface water is fed instead into Kent’s streams and rivers can reduce eutrophication on our slow flowing rivers.”
(2) Following the debate, Mr Kite proposed, and Mr Hood seconded the following amendment:
“The County Council resolves to:
1. Recognise this Council’s commitment to work collaboratively to protect Kent’s streams and rivers, in line with its own policies and the National Planning Policy Framework.
2. Recognise that there is clear evidence of deterioration of water quality due to the impacts of combined sewer overflows events (CSO) on our streams, rivers and seas.
3. Encourage the use of Water Cycle Strategies to be completed as integral documents in Local Plans to inform district councils regarding the sustainable level of future development.
4. Recognise the continuing impact of wastewater discharges, including untreated sewage in our local rivers and seas on wildlife, the health of our residents and on Kents tourist economy.
5. Continue to working constructively with other agencies and local authorities to implement flood management schemes which also improve the environment in the interests of wildlife.
6. Continue to request that representatives of Southern Water and all relevant water companies, the Environment Agency and Natural England continue to attend relevant meetings of this Council to answer questions on the current levels of CSO and sewage plant discharge and to consider whether all future development in Kent should be Water Neutral or at least to require consumption be limited to 90lt of clean water per person in agreement with District Councils.
7. Ask Southern Water and all relevant water companies to clarify, for developments being processed by our planning department, which treatment works will be managing the sewerage and whether there is available capacity to avoid combined sewer overflows; whether it has the information available to assess the impact on the number or duration of sewage discharges into local rivers or seas and if it does have this information, to share it (noting that this can only be requested not required).
8. Acknowledge that reducing demand for water, reducing the amount of non-foul wastewater finding its way to Waste Water Treatment Works and ensuring that clean surface water is fed instead into Kent’s streams and rivers can reduce eutrophication on our slow flowing rivers.”
(3) The Chairman put the amendment set out in paragraph 2 and it was agreed unanimously.
Amendment carried.
(4) The Chairman put the substantive motion set out in paragraph 2 and it was agreed unanimously.
Motion carried.
(5) RESOLVED that the County Council:
1. Recognise this Council’s commitment to work collaboratively to protect Kent’s streams and rivers, in line with its own policies and the National Planning Policy Framework.
2. Recognise that there is clear evidence of deterioration of water quality due to the impacts of combined sewer overflows events (CSO) on our streams, rivers and seas.
3. Encourage the use of Water Cycle Strategies to be completed as integral documents in Local Plans to inform district councils regarding the sustainable level of future development.
4. Recognise the continuing impact of wastewater discharges, including untreated sewage in our local rivers and seas on wildlife, the health of our residents and on Kents tourist economy.
5. Continue to working constructively with other agencies and local authorities to implement flood management schemes which also improve the environment in the interests of wildlife.
6. Continue to request that representatives of Southern Water and all relevant water companies, the Environment Agency and Natural England continue to attend relevant meetings of this Council to answer questions on the current levels of CSO and sewage plant discharge and to consider whether all future development in Kent should be Water Neutral or at least to require consumption be limited to 90lt of clean water per person in agreement with District Councils.
7. Ask Southern Water and all relevant water companies to clarify, for developments being processed by our planning department, which treatment works will be managing the sewerage and whether there is available capacity to avoid combined sewer overflows; whether it has the information available to assess the impact on the number or duration of sewage discharges into local rivers or seas and if it does have this information, to share it (noting that this can only be requested not required).
8. Acknowledge that reducing demand for water, reducing the amount of non-foul wastewater finding its way to Waste Water Treatment Works and ensuring that clean surface water is fed instead into Kent’s streams and rivers can reduce eutrophication on our slow flowing rivers.
Motion for Time Limited Debate 2 – Fracking
(1) Mr Hook proposed, and Mr Streatfeild seconded the following motion for time-limited debate:
“The County Council resolves to record its profound concern about the possibility of fracking in Kent and asks the Leader of the Council to convey these concerns to the UK Government.”
(2) Miss Carey suggested that the motion be withdrawn based on advice obtained prior to the meeting from the Head of Planning Applications.
(3) The General Counsel clarified, from a legal perspective, that the motion was capable of discussion.
(4) Mr Oakford proposed, and Mr Murphy seconded that the motion set out in paragraph 1 be put to the vote.
Motion carried.
(5) Following the debate, the Chairman put the substantive motion set out in paragraph 1 to the vote. The voting was as follows.
For (14)
Mr A Brady, Mr S R Campkin, Mr I Chittenden, Ms K Constantine, Ms M Dawkins, Ms K Grehan, Mr P M Harman, Mr M Hood, Mr A Hook, Rich Lehmann, Mr M J Sole, Mr P Stepto, Mr R G Streatfeild, MBE, Dr L Sullivan
Against (29)
Mr N Baker, Mr P Bartlett, Mrs C Bell, Mr A Booth, Miss S Carey, Mrs S Chandler, Mr N Chard, Mr P Cole, Mrs P Cole, Mr N Collor, Mr P Cooper, Mr M Dendor, Mr R W Gough, Ms S Hamilton, Mr P M Hill, OBE, Mr A R Hills, Mrs S Hohler, Mr D Jeffrey, Mr J Kite, MBE, Mr R A Marsh, Mr D Murphy, Mr P J Oakford, Mr D Robey, Mr D Ross, Mr A Sandhu, MBE, Mr C Simkins, Mr B J Sweetland, Mr A Weatherhead, Mr J Wright
Abstain (2)
Mr T Bond, Mr T L Shonk
Motion lost.