In accordance with Council Procedure Rule No 10 to consider Motions on notice from Members. Motions must be received in writing or by email to the Monitoring Officer by 12pm (Noon) twelve clear working days before the meeting.
Motion ‘A’ - Proposed by Councillor C Cupit
This Council notes the initial proposals by National Grid to install a new 400 kV overhead electricity line between Chesterfield and Willington, which is currently at an informal consultation stage. Council also notes and supports the provision and planning of a secure energy supply for our communities and for the future.
However, Council notes with concern the potential impacts of the proposed new pylon line through North East Derbyshire and particularly the indicative route through some of our District’s most treasured rural landscapes. Council also notes the significant resident objections and concerns over these proposals so far and expressed concerns over the impact the indicative route would have on listed buildings, valued landscape areas and the rural character of our countryside – both during and after construction.
Council therefore resolves for the Managing Director to write, on behalf of the District Council, to National Grid outlining this Council’s concerns and objections to the proposals and urging them to pursue an alternative.
Minutes:
Motion A
Members considered a Motion submitted by Councillor C Cupit asking the Council to explain to National Grid the Council’s concerns and objections to the initial proposals to install a new 400kV overhead electric line between Chesterfield and Willington. The full text of the Motion, marked as Motion ‘A’ was set out on the agenda for the meeting.
With the Agreement of the Vice Chair, the Monitoring Officer raised her concern that if Council decided to oppose the proposed electricity transmission infrastructure project at this first and informal consultation stage, then the Council might in due course find that it had fettered its discretion and could not change its position in response to the formal consultation exercise when the proposals had been finalised.
Councillor C Cupit noted these concerns but felt it important that the Council represent the concerns of the District’s residents at this informal stage before the final proposals had been confirmed.
Councillor C Cupit moved the Motion. She argued that as currently configured, the proposed electricity transmission line would have an adverse impact on the countryside and heritage buildings in the District and on the Visitor Economy. She also highlighted the impact on specific communities which the proposed line would pass close to and the possible impact which the line might have on future planning applications if it resulted in further developments close to the proposed line and facilities. She referred to the extensive concern about the proposal, which had been expressed by local people.
Councillor C Cupit made clear that she recognised the need for electricity transmission infrastructure improvements, but contended that other options would be available, such as the installation of an underground transmission line, which would not have an impact on the District.
Councillor A Dale seconded the Motion and reserved his right to speak.
Councillor D Hancock agreed with the aims of the Motion. He suggested that it be amended to make clear that the Council’s objections were based on the existing information and urging the Company to consult on alternative electricity transmission options, and not just on the use of pylons.
The Leader of the Council, Councillor N Barker made clear that he understood the concerns and objections which had been raised about the proposed transmission line and that the route of the line of pylons would run through the North Wingfield Ward (which he represents on the Council). He felt it important that the views and concerns of local communities be heard, and that the Council should express its views once the proposals had been finalised and the formal consultation had been launched.
In this context, Councillor N Barked noted that Derbyshire County Council had not chosen to submit its own comments at the current informal stage. Councillor N Barker also emphasised the advice of the Monitoring Officer and the dangers to the Council’s position in terms of future consultation if it fettered its discretion by objecting at this informal stage.
To avoid this Councillor N Barker suggested that the Motion be withdrawn and that instead a meeting be convened before the end of the month to discuss the proposal. This would involve the District Councillors for those communities that would be impacted by the proposed electricity line, as well as the relevant Members and officers from Derbyshire County Council, in order to discuss how they ought to respond at this stage of the proposal.
Councillor H Wetherall declared an interest in item 10, Motion ‘A’, proposed overhead electricity transmission line Infrastructure Project at this point as she had participated in public meetings opposed to the proposed electricity line.
Councillor H Wetherall thanked Councillor C Cupit for bringing the Motion forward, which she supported in its amended form. She also made clear that she would support the proposed meeting. Councillor Wetherall highlighted the growing concern within communities about this. She also hoped that alternative ways of transmitting the electricity could be used, which would not damage the landscape of the District through the use of pylons.
Councillor A Dale exercised his right to speak as seconder of the Motion. He agreed with Councillor C Cupit that the Council ought to make clear its opposition to the proposals at this informal stage. He did not accept that the Council would fetter its discretion if it made clear its opposition now. It could, he contended, change its view at the formal stage if necessary. He felt it important that the Council express the concerns raised within communities about the potential damage which the proposed transmission line could do to the landscape of the District and its communities.
Councillor K Gillott remarked that comments from the community could be passed on to National Grid. However, he felt it important that the Council respond at the formal consultation stage, rather than during the current informal stage. He supported Councillor N Barker’s proposal that a joint meeting should be held to help determine how best to respond to the proposals at this Informal Stage.
Councillor R Shipman commented that the proposed amendment would give the Council the option to change its position further down the line. He sought clarification from the Monitoring Officer as to whether the proposed amendment would address her concerns about the motion. He was informed that expressing the views of communities would be appropriate at this stage, but that specifically objecting to the proposals at this informal stage might cause difficulties in terms of fettering the Council’s discretion later in the process.
In response to this Councillor R Shipman suggested that the amendment to the Motion be modified to refer to the concerns raised about the proposals, rather than the Council’s objections to them. Councillor D Hancock accepted this.
Councillor M E Thacker MBE contended that the Council should represent the views of the District’s communities about the proposed development. He felt that the proposed joint meeting would be of value and thought that the Motion could perhaps be considered by Council following on from that.
Councillor C Renwick concurred that the Council should submit its’ objections to the proposals at this stage. Although the alternative routes do need to be explored but if we wait, we miss our change to object to the initial route.
Councillor J Barry supported the view that a meeting to discuss the response at this stage of the consultation should take place.
Councillor F Adlington-Stringer agreed that the suggested meeting needed to happen so that the views of residents about the project can be expressed accurately to National Grid. He also felt that the Motion should make clear the Council’s commitment to sustainable energy.
Councillor C Cupit exercised her right to reply. She indicated that she would be prepared to accept the proposed amendment to the Motion as put forward by Councillor R Shipman. She emphasised that the Council should seek to represent the views of the District’s residents’ concerns. The proposed meeting whilst helpful would not achieve this.
At the conclusion of the debate the Motion was put to a vote and was rejected.
The Leader of the Council, Councillor N Barker indicated that the proposed meeting would now be organised.