Agenda item

This report sets out for the Committee details of the work and research undertaken by officers as a result of the Motion referred to the Committee on 8 November 2023. The report informs the Committee of the progress made by officers in identifying options to establish a mechanism of advocacy and improved protection for the River Arun by assessing the feasibility of the ‘Rights of the River’ and sets out an alternative option for establishing a method to help protect the River Arun to ensure that its biodiversity and function are maintained.

[30 Minutes]

          Upon the invitation of the Chair, the Climate Change & Sustainability Manager  presented the report, which set out details of the work and research undertaken by officers as a result of the Motion referred to the Committee on 8 November 2023. The report informed the Committee of the progress made by officers in identifying options to establish a mechanism of advocacy and improved protection for the River Arun by assessing the feasibility of the ‘Rights of the River’, with support from neighbouring local authorities and river trusts.

          The recommendation was proposed by Councillor Worne and seconded by Councillor Wallsgrove.

Councillor McAuliffe, as original proposer of the Motion, was then invited to speak to it. He stated that when he introduced the original Motion in 2023, the aim was to find out what this authority could do to protect and improve water quality of the River Arun. This included what ADC could do internally and also in collaboration with others, who were also doing work in this area, to safeguard the rivers and streams. He had however, made an error, which was to introduce the word ‘rights’, as that had legal implications and this authority did not have the legal powers to introduce ‘rights’. The officer recommendation was to introduce a statement of intent, which was one thing of many ADC could do. He felt ADC needed to look at things that could be introduced and actioned rather than make statements upon, which was what the public expected. With the wording as it was, this was not possible. Looking at how the Council could take action on river quality with the limited powers and resources available, the best thing was to amend the wording of the original Motion and remove the word ‘rights’, because that word stopped action from being taken. He explained each department in the authority could look at ways that positive change could be made, for example the Licensing department could look at the ways it influences licensing. Pleasure boats that operate on the river needed a licence, and one of the things that could be done would be to incentivise electric motors instead of petrol motors. Something similar had been done with taxi cabs, who were offered lower fees in their application if they were applying for their licence with a hybrid or electric vehicle. The  Planning department could look at their policies; the Communications department could issue voluntary codes of conduct; procurement options could also be looked at. He explained that he was not allowed to propose an amendment as he was not a Member of the Committee, however Councillor Wallsgrove could do so. If Committee supported this amended wording, it would empower every department within the Council to find extra protections for Arun’s rivers and streams, and embolden and empower individuals to come up with ideas that could be looked at and taken forward should they be reasonable, suitable and viable. The public wanted action on river quality, and Members could do that if the Motion wording was changed accordingly, and he urged Members to support the amendment.

Councillor Wallsgrove then proposed an amendment in that the Committee considers, debates and votes upon an amended version of the motion as follows (additions shown in bold, deletions shown in strikethrough):

(1) This Council acknowledges the work of multiple bodies in addressing the health and wellbeing of the River Arun and believe that there is a case to be made for adopting the ‘Rights of Rivers’ approach researching additional measures that could improve river protections; and

(2) This Council will explore , with local communities and relevant stakeholder, the feasibility of implementing Rights for the River Arun and will, within two years return to Full Council with its findings for further debate and possible adoption options that could introduce, enhance and/or influence additional protections for the River Arun, connected streams, tributaries and other surface waters within, or connected to, Arun. Particular emphasis will be placed on measures under the direct control of the Council, with recommendations on viable protection measures being taken to relevant Committee(s) for discussion.

This amendment was shown to the screen, and it was seconded by Councillor Worne.

The Chair invited debate on the amendment. It was asked whether the Motion needed to be proposed and seconded formally by Committee. The Monitoring Officer explained the Motion had been deferred without debate from Full Council, the recommendation to debate the Motion had been proposed and seconded and that is what Committee needed to do.

One Member felt this would require too much officer time, and felt the result would be unsatisfactory, so although respected the passion behind it, would vote against the motion.

A vote was taken on the amendment and it was declared CARRIED.

Turning to the substantive, the Chair invited debate.

Councillor Gunner wished it to be recorded that he was very unhappy with how the Motion came to the Environment Committee. It had taken over one year to be presented to Committee. The original Motion was that the Council explore the Rights for the River Arun, which he felt had now been done by officers, even though the motion had not been voted upon. He felt this was procedurally unacceptable. The Committee may not have approved the motion, and therefore he felt officers should not have done the work that they had now done in the report. The report was clear that it did not want Members to vote for the original motion. Paragraph 7.1 stated ‘The cost implications of this initiative are not yet known but are expected to be substantial.’ It was asked whether this was likely to be the same for the amendment. It was also asked whether if the Motion passed, where this would sit, and whether it would go back to Full Council or Policy and Finance Committee. Councillor Gunner then stated he wished to move an amendment in that the Committee considers, debates and votes upon an amended version of the motion as follows (additions shown in bold):

(1) This Council acknowledges the work of multiple bodies in addressing the health and wellbeing of the River Arun and believe that there is a case to be made for researching additional measures that could improve river protections; and

(2) This Council will explore options that could introduce, enhance and/or influence additional protections for the River Arun, connected streams, tributaries and other surface waters within, or connected to, Arun. Particular emphasis will be placed on measures under the direct control of the Council, with recommendations on viable protection measures being taken to relevant Committee(s) for discussion within the next 12 months.

The amendment was seconded by Councillor Worne, and shown to the screen.

The Director of Environment and Communities explained it would not be possible to give a cost at this stage, as further work would need to be carried out which would need to be scoped. Reports would be taken to the appropriate committees. It would not be possible to complete the work within one year, however it may be that a scope could be provided within this time.

The Group Head of Law and Governance shared a view from the Chief Executive Officer, which was that there were no resources and setting a 12 month deadline would be setting the process up for a fail. It may require a considerable amount of time and work, however it would require a co-ordinated approach across the Council and for an officer to take ownership of it. In order for this to be done within one year, that Officer would need to be released from other work, which was not felt possible due to the additional burden that would fall on officers once local government reorganisation begun.

One Member would not support the amendment following officer advice on timescales.

The proposer of the amendment felt that if introducing the 12 month deadline was not possible, he was left with no confidence that anything regarding the Motion would happen while Arun District Council still existed.

Upon taking the vote, the amendment was NOT CARRIED.

Debate on the substantive was then resumed. Some Members, while supporting the idea of looking after the rivers,  were opposed to the Motion due to the unknown and potentially substantial, costs and risks. Other Members offered support for the Motion, stating that any opportunities to make improvements should be explored, or nothing at all would be done.

Councillor McAuliffe was given permission to speak by the Committee as a non-Committee member. He felt that it could not be determined that this would be a substantial cost until it was clear what the action would be. This stage was about ideas from people that already work in the building, and creating a mechanism for those ideas to be captured, which he felt would have no cost. If the Council wanted to take some of those ideas forward, that would be the point at which a cost would be involved.

          Having considered and debated the motion, the Committee then voted upon it.

The Committee

RESOLVED that

(1) This Council acknowledges the work of multiple bodies in addressing the health and wellbeing of the River Arun and believe that there is a case to be made for researching additional measures that could improve river protections; and

(2) This Council will explore options that could introduce, enhance and/or influence additional protections for the River Arun, connected streams, tributaries and other surface waters within, or connected to, Arun. Particular emphasis will be placed on measures under the direct control of the Council, with recommendations on viable protection measures being taken to relevant Committee(s) for discussion.