Transcript

[BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Good morning. I am Councillor James Shepherd, Chairman of Wiltsch Council. I would like to welcome members and the public to this annual meeting of the Council. Our first item of business is the election of a chairman for the forthcoming year. And it says here, I may wish to say a few words as I'm not standing for re-election. First, my first thing really is to say big thank you to everybody in this Council chamber for making my time as both Vice Chairman and Chairman very pleasurable. I think on the whole our meetings are always done in a very business like and positive way. And I think everybody in this Council chamber is working on behalf of Wiltsch Council. And I think that's the most important thing for the public in general to see. I'd also like to thank very much Kieran and his staff for all the work behind the scenes that enable this meeting to take place every time. And he does it so easily and without any fuss. I mean, the amount of work that goes in is huge, but it always seems to just happen. So thank you very much Kieran, very much appreciate it. I'd also like to thank Perry and his legal staff. They cover an awful lot of difficult questions fielding them with great skill. So thank you very much Perry for that. I'd also like to thank Andrew, my very able Vice Chairman for the last year. Thank you so much for all your support and all the work you did. I would like now just to move on and say that are there any nominations for the position of Chairman of Wiltsch Council? Kieran, I'd like to nominate the very excellent Bridget Wayman. Thank you. Thank you. Do I have a second there? Thank you. Are there any other nominations? Councillor. Yes, thank you. Can I just begin by thanking you for your role as Chairman this year, which we anticipated would be one of good considerations, fair administration and the sense that we would all get a fair hearing in terms of our discussions and debates. So thank you very much for that. Yes, I'd like to nominate someone who I've known for many years, someone who is a fantastic representative for her community, as someone who has worked diligently as a Council here at Wiltsch Council, who I think would provide a fantastic ambassador for a Council and that's Councillor Ruth Lockett. Thank you. Thank you very much. In that case, as it's contested, we will put this to the vote through a raising of hands. As Councillor Wayman was nominated first, we will ask those in favour of Councillor Bridget Wayman being Chairman for 2425, please raise your hands and please keep them up so that Democratic officers can actually count. Okay. Okay. Thank you very much for voting. Those in favour of Councillor Hopkins, please raise your hands. The Hopkins and sorry, my apologies. We have had the vote and we have received the result. I'd like to congratulate Councillor Bridget Wayman on being made chairman for Wiltsch Council for 2425. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And I, Bridget Wayman, having been elected to the Office of Chairman of Wiltsch Council, hereby declare that I take that office upon myself and will duly and faithfully fulfil the duties of it according to the best of my judgment and ability. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you to James for all and to Andrew Davis for all the hard work that they have done over the last year. I think we're all very grateful and I hope I live up to their sort of standards. Moving on to agenda item two is the election of the Vice Chairman. Are there any nominations for the position of Vice Chairman of Wiltsch Council? Could I propose Councillor Christopher Newbury as a Vice Chairman, please? Thank you. Do we have a seconder? Thank you, Councillor Wickham. Are there any other nominations for Vice Chairman? No. So, in the event of one nomination, I therefore declare Councillor Newbury elected as Vice Chairman of Wiltsch Council. There will be. Just wait for Councillor Newbury to make his declaration of acceptance of office. I, Christopher Newbury, having been elected to the office of Vice Chairman of Wiltsch Council, hereby declare that I take that office upon myself and will duly and faithfully fulfill the duties of it according to the best of my judgment and ability. Thank you. Thank you. I guess move on to agenda item three apologies. I've received apologies from David Bowler, Portian Church, Caroline Corbin, Brian Dalton, John Hubbard, Mel Jacob, Johnny Kidney, Charles McGrath, Derek Walters and Gavin Grant, who I think will be arriving afternoon. Oh, Brian, you're here. Brian Dalton is here. Okay. Minutes of the previous meeting, I move that the minutes of the ordinary and extraordinary meetings of Council held on the 20th of February 2024 as contained from pages 7 to 58 of your summons be confirmed and signed as a true record. Second. Are there any objections to the minutes being approved by a centre of the meeting? No, none. The minutes are therefore approved. Declarations of interest. In a moment, I will ask members if they have any discloseable interest to declare at the meeting. I remind everyone that where a member has a discloseable pecuniary interest, they are required to leave the room during discussion or vote on that specific matter unless they have received a dispens dispensation. If a member has an other registerable interest or non-registerable interest, then they would need to withdraw from the meeting in their capacity as a councillor during discussion or vote. Oh, sorry, during discussion or vote on that matter, unless they have received a dispensation, but would not be required to leave the room. I will now ask, do members have any declarations of discloseable interest to make? Obviously, they are none. Thank you. Chairman's announcements. We have some new members. Since the last meeting of the council, we have been joined by two new members. Councillor Robert McNaughton was elected to Kahn-Chilvester and Abbot Division on 22 February 2024 following the death of Councillor Tony Trockman. And Councillor Nick Dye was elected to Crickland-Latten Division on 14 March 2024 following the death of Councillor Bob Jones MBE. On behalf of the council, I would like to congratulate Councillors McNaughton and Dye on being elected. I'm sure they will both make a positive contribution to this council and their communities. I would like to invite them to stand just so they can make themselves known to the rest of us. Lovely, thank you very much. For some sad news, the death of the former Lord Lieutenant of Wiltshire, Mr John Bush, CVO, OBE and Knight of St John was announced on Saturday the 11th of May 2024. Mr Bush was Lord Lieutenant from November 2004 to February 2012. The funeral will take place at Eddington Priory Church on the 30th of May from 2 o'clock. The present Lord Lieutenant Mrs Sarah Troughton will be attending this service. I'm very sorry to hear that. I liked Mr John Bush very much. He was a charming and helpful gentleman. Staff announcements. It was announced on the 4th of April 2024 that the Chief Executive Terrence Herbert has accepted the post of Chief Executive with Surrey County Council. Terrence joined Wiltshire Council in 2011 and held positions including Head of Service for Safe Guarding, Director of Children's Services and Chief Executive Officer for People Services, before being appointed as the sole Chief Executive. During his tenure, children's services went from being rated requires improvement to outstanding in 2023. On behalf of the Council, I wish Terrence well in his new position and to thank him for all his hard work with Wiltshire Council over the past 13 years. I understand that Terrence hopes to take up his position in the summer. However, he will still be in post at the time of the July meeting of full Council. So I'm sure we will all be able to make more fulsome farewells to Terrence at our July meeting. Thank you, Terrence. On the screen will be a list of some recent engagements that have been attended by the preceding Chairman and Vice Chairman, which will be included in the minutes. As you can see, they've been quite busy over the last few months. I don't think I need to read them. Okay. Thank you. The next item on the agenda is Member Training, so Southwest Councils are offering six, three places for a series of online training sessions for Councillors from September through November, including on time management. Might be useful one. Communication, resilience and well-being and evidence gathering skills. Officers will circulate the details to members shortly. It will be first come first served for the three places, but details will also be provided for members to request the Council pay for any additional places if they also wish to attend. No. And moving on, agenda item seven, public participation. So at this point, I will explain how public participation will work for this meeting. That was statements. Members of the public who have registered to make a statement will be called upon to speak for up to three minutes each. I remind speakers that any statements must relate to the item of the agenda they are speaking to, and that once their statement is concluded, they may not speak further on the item. I will remind speakers to remain on topic. I'm assuming that a lot of the speakers who are here will want to speak on agenda item. 11, which is the motion, notice of motion on solar farms, or so they can wait and speak until then, or they can speak now if they wish to. I think we'll carry on. Okay. But I don't think it's not going to take us more than an hour to get to the motion. I wouldn't have thought. And questions, we have received five public questions for this meeting, which are included in the agenda supplement. As the questions do not relate to items on the agenda, they will be received here. All the questions have received written answers. Unless requested otherwise, I will take the questions as read. Questioners are permitted to ask one supplementary question, which should be related to their question and the response they have received. So. So I'm advised that everybody is the speakers are waiting for the motion on solar farms, but on questions, I believe Colin Gale and Celia Becketer here. Colin, you had two questions. Did you have any supplementary questions? Good morning. Thanks very much for letting me speak. Colin Gale, Chairman of Russell Parrish Council. I have a supplemental question for each of my previous questions. The first one, the background of my first question identified flooding of the highway at Russell Bridge and the flooding of the adjacent property, which was partly caused by the ongoing failure by wheelchair highways to clear block drains, which were repeatedly reported since 2021 on my last year and more recently reported to the area highways engineer and the area highways manager. The question asked, what more do you have to do to get the drains cleared. The response does not advise a solution and does not advise when these drains will be cleared. Will Wilson Council commit to clearing the drains in a set time scale and maintain keeping the drains cleared in the future. The second one, the background information also identified how on one side of the road the drains fed directly into the river Avon, but on the other side of the road where the houses, the drains feed from to the river falls short by three to four meters and relies on a ditch for the water to get to the river. The response fails to provide a long term solution for a direct feed into the river for the highways drains and the response could be interpreted to claim credit for the potential, the partial clearance work of the ditch by wheelchair council, which I actually did. What is wheelchair council's long term solution to get the highways rainwater, all of the, all the way to the river. It should be noted that this is a wheelchair highways issue and not something that can be palmed off onto a resident. Sorry, Council do you want to respond to that. Yes, gentlemen. Thank you for your your question. I would like to respond. And I'd like to respond generally, but I will commit to getting you a detail response as per your supplementary question. In terms of the overall issue. I think we have been extremely honest within our internally in terms of the, some of the challenges that we've had with the functionality of the, the my wheels app. And there is a significant, significant amount of work being undertaken to rectify it. So in the, in the detail of your question, you talked on a number of occasions about the frustration that you've had with reporting it on a number of occasions through the, through the my wheels app. And, and some of the frustration that you've had with the responses which said, yes, it's noted, et cetera, et cetera. So, completely, we completely accept that there is a significant amount of work being done, which we have already communicated through the environment select committee. And the expectation is that by the end of the summer, that functionality would have been fixed to remove the level of frustration that you refer to. And indeed, are the residents referred to in terms of the multiple reporting of, of incidents. So we are intending to fix that with regards to the general question about how we're clearing the, what we're doing to remove the flooding water. We have to invest in extra equipment around the county. And we have invested very recently, an extra capital sum to specifically deal with the roads that flood like the one you mentioned on a regular basis. So we do have a commitment to solve the problems across the county. But we will, I will make sure that officers get a specific response to you about the issue you've raised specifically in your parish, you've accepted. Thank you. Thank you, Council holder. Celia Beckett. Did you want to ask any supplementary questions? Yes, I do. I'm Celia Beckett and I'm here representing the views of Hillperton area action group. The first subject question is as follows. Thank you for advising us about the reasons for the delay and the submission of the local plan to the Secretary of State. The sheer volume of representation suggests that this has been an unwieldy process and there is considerable concern about the local plan. Can we suggest that the plan needs reworking. Please can you advise us why the public were not informed about the delay. My supplementary, shall I carry on or do you want to the next question first before I forget it. Is that on? Thank you very much for your question. I just answered the first part now before I forget what I might be wanting to say. Well, the first point is it is complex and it's necessarily complex and the legislative framework for doing this imposes huge burdens. And that's the reason with the complexity. I don't think though that we can shy away from that. Indeed, as I said, it's largely down to the way that we have to conduct that process that it takes this time. And if we make mistakes in that process, we could be challenged and could be open to challenge. So, yeah, I'm afraid that is the way it is. So no, we won't be taking it back and starting from scratch. That would take even longer to do and would of course open us up to speculative development, including in Hillperton in a way that would dwarf anything that is come through the plan being put in place. So I don't think that would be a very sensible move at all. Why don't we, I'm afraid we don't have a running commentary. We do try and keep the local development scheme on the website up to date as much as possible. And we have recently done that, which is why it now indicates this. You know, we didn't know that we were going to get quite so many responses and they would require so much detailed analysis, but that's the way it is. I'm afraid. Thanks. Right. So my second supplementary question, we're extremely concerned that the Council is planning to go ahead with the same number and location of houses, many on green field sites. Can you please advise us whether the detailed comments and objections to the plan have been listened to. Well, all the detailed comments and objections to listen to that's the whole point of, of, of doing the consultation exercise. So yes, I can assure you of that. I think you're being slightly, well, not disingenuous, but I think you're missing the point that we made in the response to your initial question that we have reduced the numbers of significantly reduce the numbers. And planned over the next periods of 2038 and by something like 8000 homes. That's, that's quite a considerable reduction in the scale of development that's anticipated for Wiltshire. So, I think, I think we have listened to that point and we have used what freedom and an ability we can to set these things in order to come up with a better proposal. Um, then, then we had initially. My final subject question in the newspaper on the 14th and 15th of May, it was reported that there was a UK wildlife crisis and that all political parties are failing to tackle this amongst the species that were cited were skylocks numbers down by 56%. And in other words, 43% of species at risk of localized extinction. You mentioned that funding provided by developers is used to protect important wildlife sites around Trowbridge. These wildlife sites cannot be seen in isolation. The area northeast of Trowbridge is an important wildlife corridor from the woods to the canal and river and the woods beyond. Its development will impact on many bird species as well as affecting the rare bats. If mitigation is to protect biodiversity, it has to be in the area affected by the development. Offsetting habitat loss elsewhere will not protect local habitat and biodiversity. There is no detailed examination of the biodiversity of the area, northeast of Trowbridge in the local plan. So, how is it going to be protected? I think that was rather a statement leading to a question. Look, I wouldn't believe everything that you read in a free news sheet, quite frankly. So, and I can't comment on it because I obviously didn't see it. But there's an enormous wealth of habitat regulations and through the Environment Act and things that we are doing now that we have never done before in order to safeguard wildlife and biodiversity. So, yes, I can understand there are development pressures, definitely. But we are going forward as part of the national legislation, we are going forward and working in a far more coherent way to ensure that wildlife and biodiversity isn't lost. You can say, well, it's all not enough, or you can say, well, I don't agree with it, but that is what is happening. I can't but help think that that will make the situation better rather than worse as you seem to imply. I'd just like to point out that the I report was organisations such as the National Trust, it wasn't the I journalist reporting themselves. Thank you, Mrs. Bekit. I'm sure that Councilor Bottel will look into the I report. Thank you. Okay, I don't think there are any other questions that we can move on to petitions and I confirm that there are no petitions that have been received for presentation or reporting to the meeting since the last meeting of Council. Moving on to annual reports, agenda item eight, we've got annual updates from committees. Well, the annual reports is a new item, which we hope will briefly demonstrate some of the work and discussions taking place in Council committees, as well as highlighting some key developments over the last year. The covering report and updates for this item are at pages 59 to 98 of your summons. In a moment, I will ask whether any relevant committee chairman wish to say anything in respect of their committees. But first, I will move. We note the updates from committees. Second. Thank you. So I now ask if the chairman have anything to add to at this time is Council Graham, right? Chairman of overview and scrutiny management. Yes, thank you, chair. I'd just like to pray, see the full report from pages 63 to 67 of our agenda. Personally, my thanks go to my vice chairman, Chris Williams. As we enter the final year of the 2125 Council. Ovena scrutiny is continuing to play a central role in developing council policy. Scrutinizing the council's performance and holding decision makers to account. In 2425, we have provided pre decision input on a remarkable 90% of all decisions taken by cabinet and 67% of eligible members took part in our work. The select committees have continued to look closely at key issues affecting wheelchair residents, including the demand pressures faced by emergency health services, activities and support for young people, and how affordable housing is allocated based on need. My thanks go to more scrutiny councils for their hard work, especially the 3 other committee chairman and also the scrutiny team that supports our work. We will continue to work constructively with the council's cabinet to achieve the very best outcomes for wheelchair residents. Key items that the management committee looked at were customer complaints, financial management, stone circle companies, and we performed quarterly scrutiny of the council's performance and risk matrix flagging issues for further investigation by the other select committees. The House Senate Committee, my thanks go to Councillor John Kidney and Vice Chair, Councillor Gordon King. They had a busy year and their key items that the House that looked at were reducing hospital admissions, NHS, home, wheelchair and urgent community responses, supported a proposal to reduce smoking and vaping in young people, dementia care strategy, and supported a drive to increase community awareness around dementia, and the involvement of area boards in promoting dementia-friendly towns. They met with counterparts in Bath and North East Somerset to discuss collaboration at a regional level. This partnership will continue to be a feature of the committee's work. Children select, they always have a busy year. Mayor, thanks to Councillor John Hubbard and Vice Chair, Councillor Jackie Lay. The key items they looked at were activities and support for young people, family hubs, looking at supporting the needs of families, special education needs and disabilities. Appointment of a committee member to the governance board for SEND. This body will now oversee the government-funded safety valve investment program in wheelchair. Environment select, I have moved another very busy year for them. My thanks go to the Chairman, Councillor Jerry Conkel, the late Bob Jones and the current Vice Chair, Councillor Derek Waters. The key items they have looked at are housing. They renewed the Council's housing, they reviewed the Council's housing allocations policy, leisure centres, climate. They helped shape the Council's development climate adaptation policy. This will be crucial in supporting the county to make adaptions to alleviate the effects of climate change, pot holes for one. Looking at the day-to-day working of wheelchair scrutiny, what a great support our scrutiny teams and task groups have. We are supported by a small but highly affected team of officers. I wish to personally thank the scrutiny team lead, Henry Powell, also Kieran Elliott and his dynamic democratic services team. Finally, I'm proud to chair the over and scrutiny. I believe in robust scrutiny and the positive way we work with cabinet officers and the Council and never bringing politics into the over and scrutiny situation. Last but by no means least, a final shout out to all non-executive Councillors taking your part in scrutiny is an important function of Councillor's work. Thank you, Chair. You make that, everybody. Thank you, Councillor Wright. Did you read all your report? I thought you said it was a praise to you. Does that mean you haven't read the whole report, Chair? Councillor Ian Wallace, Audit and Governance Committee, do you wish to say anything? Thank you, Chair. Very briefly, certainly much briefer than Councillor Wright. So, I think that the report before you on pages 69-74 from the Audit and Governance Committee really speaks for itself. The main thing that I wanted to highlight is that the fact this report is on the agenda because I think it's very important that all committees communicate our work. Audit and Governance is sadly not a box office committee and we don't have cues of members down the corridor trying to get into our meetings as much as we would like that to happen. Our subjects are often dry and distant to many, but they're also extremely important. That makes it essential that we produce reports like this and take every opportunity to get our work out there in front of all of you and the public. So, I'd just like to thank the officers who supported us, committee members past and present and the two new independent members who have joined us who are already making a huge difference. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Wallace. Councillor Peter Hutton, licensing, do you wish to say anything? Yeah, thank you. I will be significantly brief. Just a brief say to thank you to all the members of the licensing committee for their input over the last 12 months. And likewise, as been said previously, to our dedicated officers for their support. And my plea and reminder is to all Council members that the licensing statement is currently out for consultation. The consultation closes on the 29th of May. So, a very important document for the Council in terms of its relations with the future of licensing and can I ask you and plea with you to ensure that your city town and parish councils have inputted into it, because it is an important document and it helps form the strategy for the next coming years. So, thank you. Thank you, Councillor Hutton. Councillor Paul Ochway, Standards Committee. Thank you, Chair. The Constitution focus group has met six times in the last year to review sections of the Constitution. And you'll hear more about that later. I would like to emphasize that the subcommittees that being assessment, dispensation, hearing are not required to be politically balanced. So, the decisions demonstrates that the party politics does not play a role in promoting and maintaining high standards of conduct within this Council. Noting that most complaints received about members relate to parish councils, given there are a lot more of them. And that when relationships break down in small communities, it can quickly lead to a spiraling situation of poor behaviour and governance, of which we've had several instances in the last 12 months. Time scales are challenging for this team, but recognizing that time scales for administering complaints are not met 100% of the time. And whilst that will not always be possible in complex situations, as Chair, I continue to monitor the situation to track where improvements are needed, and I monitor all complaints on a monthly basis. Most complaints are dismissed for no further action by the monitoring officer before reaching the assessment subcommittee as they do not meet the required thresholds. The committee will be looking for opportunities to try to prepare materials which can be used after the 2025 election to promote good conduct. And as I move to an end, I would like to take the opportunity to thank all that legal democracy and governance that work with me and assist in a professional and dedicated way that they go about their business on a daily basis. And finally, likewise to Ruth Hopkinson, who manages the Standards Assessment Committee so well. Ruth, thank you so much for your team, Madam Chair. Thank you, Councillor Outwey. Councillor Richard Britton, Wiltshire Pension Fund Committee. Thank you, Chairman. I'll be briefest of all. I have nothing to add to the report. Excellent. Well done. Obviously, everyone's pensions are in a very healthy condition. Councillor Steve Bucknell, Wiltshire, please, and crime panel. Thank you, Chair. You've seen the report. You want a chance to read the reports. I won't dwell on that at all. Other than to say, thank you so much to Matthew Hitch for the sterling work that he's undertaken during the year in putting together reports and the minutes and the meetings themselves. We couldn't do it without you, Matthew. Thank you. I have some great news. Whilst we've been meeting, I've received an email from, well, several e-mails, in fact, from the newly reelected Philip Wilkinson, for one, but also from Catherine Roper, the Chief Constable. Yesterday, late yesterday, they received the great news that his Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary and Foreign Rescue Services has confirmed that Wiltshire police will be taken out of the engaged process, which is absolutely fantastic news in his testament to the amount of hard work that not just the OPCC and Philip Wilkinson himself, but the newly in place, Catherine Roper, as Chief Constable, have put in. This is the start of the improvement. Those members of the police and crime panel, many of whom are here today, will know how tough it has been for Philip as the OPCC and for the force as a whole, how much hard work they've done. And we look forward to them building on that as they move to the next stage of the improvement process and we look forward to a rapid progress towards outstanding. It's taken 14 months, which is, in fact, a record time, I think, coming out of the engaged process, just 14 months. And I'm sure that we will all help Philip will concern as the newly reelected PCC, I'll put that in again. And Catherine and their teams to deliver the police force that Wiltshire and its residents deserve. Can I just make one final plea? We don't see many members of this council attending the police and crime panel other than those that sit on it. I would urge you, if you have any issues, if you have any interest at all, come along to our meetings, you will see, I hope, an exemplar of how to carry out one of our functions with no politics at all. Unless I allow councilor Henning to go on and on and on. Thank you, Councillor Bucknell. Okay. And do group leaders have any comment they wish to make, Councillor. Other than to thank all of the members of the various committees who sit and do a lot of work in offices without a great deal of credit and credit praise or in committee rooms just to thank them for the work and they put in it's critical. So thank you all very much for the jobs that you are fulfilling in making sure that we're all being held to account really essential work. Thank you, Councillor Thorne. Yes, thank you, Chairman. Can I just take the opportunity to congratulate you on your election. And I've no doubt will be in very, very capable hands as we head through the choppy waters leading up to the election tonight. So, congratulations. I always think this particular council meeting is a celebration of two people. One is the newly elected. Chairman of the Council and the other one is the chair of overview and scrutiny. And so I was disappointed that Graham speech wasn't longer perhaps than we were treated to earlier. So, yes, thank you very much to those that participate as always. And I would agree with the chairman of the police and crime panel. The more backbench members can participate in all of these committees, the better, and thank you to officers that of course only make these committees happen with your dynamism, whatever the phrase was that Graham used earlier. Thank you, Jim. Thank you, Councillor, Ernie Clark. Thank you, Chairman. First of all, congratulations on your appointment to chairman of the council. And just say thank you to the chairman of the various committees, but I've got nothing further said. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Ricky Rogers. Thank you, Chairman. Can I add my support to the chairs, the vice chairs and the support officer team for the work of the committees that we were from. Please keep up the good work. Thank you. So I'd now open this item to general debate. Does any member wish to speak? And if so, please press your microphone button to be added to the queue of speakers. Nobody. Okay. So as mover of the motion, I will now conclude the item. All those in favor of noting this, please say aye. All those against say no. And any abstentions, please, can you indicate. None. Okay. Thank you. So that's, that's, that's approved, moved. Moving on to the agenda item nine, the annual appointment of committees. This item includes the appointment of committees, reviewing the allocation of seats on those committees to political groups, which is item nine a. The appointment of members to those committees, including area boards and also the door sit and Wiltshire fire authority and other bodies, item nine B, and the appointment of chairman and vice chairman of committees item nine C. I will take the items together. The reports can be found at pages 99 to 126 of your summons. Following communication with group leaders, the details of those proposed to be appointed to each committee have been circulated to all members by email, and these will be included with the minutes if approved. I would therefore ask the leader to move the overall appointment motion as detailed in the agenda supplement to include the specific appointments, which have been circulated subsequently. Councillor. Thank you. I say move. Thank you. So I will first check if there are any last minute changes to include. Nope. Here and certainly has the last couple of changes. We've just been, that the only change that the group hadn't been notified of was around corporate parenting panel, which was council of months to come off and be a substitute to customer. No jar to go on, but Karen has got that one. Okay. Councillor Thorne. Any other changes or you're content. No other changes. Okay. Thank you. Councillor any clock. No other changes. And Councillor Ricky Rogers. Yes, Madam chairman. I've just been informed that there would be a swap for southern planning. I will become the member and customer planning will be the substitute. Okay. Thank you. We will note that. All right. So do any members wish to speak during this debate or members content that we move to the vote. Oh, Councillor Kirk. Thank you chair. Congratulations on your appointment. I just like propose an amendment to the motion on committee places. As members will be aware, I'm currently ungrouped. I would like to propose that I haven't seek a seconder at the moment, so I just like to read a little thing out first. The proposed amendment is I retain my committee place until the end of the council term. I would like to continue on saying committee. I've been on since 2017. They were not my choice originally. They were actually the ones I didn't want and Jane Scott put me on there, but I did stay on them the whole time. I would like to remain as elected of a conservative on wheelchair council and would ask that members respect my clear rationale behind my decision and do not punish me further. Democratic services have confirmed that it would not be unusual for a member in my position to retain their existing committee places. I think you can actually see that on the document. I think Kieran's actually highlighted it. I can understand the leader is not happy about my decision to leave the group and I accept that the council's constitution permits the leader to invent as many of these portfolio roles that he likes and award the 8,900 odd to whoever he wants, including his own household. Outside of politics, I can't think of any other organisation that would permit this. I could be wrong and there would be an actual worthwhile role here, which is more important than fixing potholes or funding free parking for blue badge holders. However, even if it is the case, then please can someone explain how Richard's decision still complies with the seven principles of public lives, also known as the Nolan principles. I'd just like to highlight a few integrity, hold the public office, must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to the people or organisations that might try and inappropriately, inappropriately influence them. I'm sorry, Councillor CURK, this is an annual appointment to committees, so what is your proposal? I'd like to retain my place on my committee. So that is what you are putting forward? Yes, but I haven't privately seeked a seconder. Are you seeking a seconder now? I am seeking a seconder, but I think as I haven't spoken to anyone, I need to outline my position first. I don't think so. I think you need to seek a seconder to see where we go from here. Does Councillor CURK have a seconder to his motion? Councillor CURK. Ernie Clarke. Okay, thank you. So now I have to refer it to the leader, I think, to see whether he will accept the amendment. No, I don't accept that as a amendment. Councillor CURK. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Thank you. So we have an amendment and Councillor CURK has already spoken on this. Do I ask you again? No, I don't think I do. Well, I have to go to group leaders. So you've got nothing else to say at the moment. Councillor Ian Thorne. Anything else to say, Chairman? Councillor CURK. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Well, I must be, if this goes through, I must be, it's going to make a bit of a mess up of all the political balance. But can I just, so I've always found it intriguing that the planning committee is, it's strictly set down that there is to be no political whipping, and yet we still go for political balance on the planning committee. I find it sort of an unusual situation that we have political balance, but there's no political, there's no political whipping on it. And I understand that Councillor CURK has sort of placed everybody in a bit of an awkward position, shall we say, but it just be interesting to see what the Chamber thinks on having an ungrouped member sitting on the planning committee. Thanks, Chairman. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Councillor CURK. I'm sure Councillor CURK will come back on that. Councillor Ricky Rogers. I've been convinced by the amendment, Chairman. Happy to support it. In that case, we must move to debate. Does anybody else wish to speak on this amendment? Could I? I think, well, who's got their hands up first? Has a view pressed your buttons? [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Councillor Newbury. Thank you, Chairman. With a heavy heart, because I have great sympathy for any ungrouped member, with a heavy heart, I think I should point out somebody should point out that the fact that these committee appointments come to Council at all is something that Wiltshire Council does, but it isn't done everywhere because we have a statutory duty. The Council has a statutory duty to give effect to the wishes of the political group leaders when it comes to places allocated to them. There was a case called Gladbaum, which preceded the political balance legislation of 1989, which found that appointments needed to be brought to full council, but I've seen a significant opinion from a high court judge that effectively that was overcome by that was overtaken by the political balance legislation of 1990. We don't have any option other than to give effect to the nominations of the political group, so far as the places allocated to the political groups are concerned. So this is a matter, really, if Council Kirk is seeking a conservative group place, this is a matter for the group leader and nobody else. We really can't take a place from any group to give to an ungrouped member. I suppose there is an issue about whether the whole scheme of political balance should be changed, but that's not what is on the table. Thank you, Councillor Paul Samples. But that would have been made by the member opposite. And I think during the time that I've heard him, which is short, he's seemed to me to be a thoroughly good person, a responsible person. I think the values that I seek in those people around us who serve us on the committees are the values of accountability. We're looking for people with integrity. We're looking forward to being led by people with leadership. We're looking forward to people who are honest, who are objective, who are open, who are selfless, and who have respect for their constituents and those around them. Those are the Nolan principles of public life. And members will have to decide whether they support the member opposite, who's been sacked for stepping out a line effectively, he's resigned because he couldn't put up with what was going on. And you may laugh, but I have to ask myself whether it is appropriate that we are led by people who clearly do not support the Nolan principles of public life and demonstrate those values by their actions. And I think the events of the last two months. I think you're going to be a great chairman. I thought I'd get my groveling in early. I would like to draw members attention to the papers, and particularly page 100 of the papers, where it talks about counselors not in a political group. And if I may, Madam Chair, and I'd very briefly like to just read two paragraphs out of those papers. The Council has one member who is not currently a member of any political group. The independents are grouped as a political group for the purposes of this. It is at the Council's discretion how, if at all, to allocate committee places to an ungroup member, as this is not set out in the legislation. In the past, the Council has chosen to reserve a proportion of seats on committees equal to the proportion of counselors who do not form part of a political group to allocate to the ungroup member. That, to me, seems a reasonable process. Again, the papers go on to say, following discussion with group leaders, it was agreed that two committee places would be reserved for the ungrouped member in accordance with past practice. I don't know about anybody else, but it just seems reasonable to me that if we possibly can, we should try and accommodate people within sensible limits by putting them on the committees that they want to serve on. Why wouldn't we want to do that? And this member wants to serve on a particular committee that he's served on for many, many years. I totally agree with the amendment because I just don't think it's unreasonable if in the past we've offered two committee places for ungrouped members and the political proportionality of the Council remains the same. Then why shouldn't we do that now? It seems a little bit unpleasant to remove that person who wants to serve on that committee because he's had a falling out with the leader of the Council. It seems to me that this is personality driven rather than actually what is in the best interests of the elected member, his residence and this Council. So that's why I think we should follow the conventions of the past and support the amendment. Thank you. Thank you, Council. Do you know I have no, oh. Council Kirk. Probably enough. Thank you chair and thank you to Council Dean. I didn't wish to be put in this position. It's not through choice is sort of a conscience thing. And I can't think of anywhere else where a leader can just give a role to someone, which has a financial gain to his household without it being a personal one without it being decided by the Council. I'm sorry, this is not what this whole discussion is supposed to be about. It's about your appointment on to a particular committee. Okay, I'll sum it up. Basically, I do have a problem with how the political system works in terms of portfolio holders. And I don't see why I should be penalized because I don't agree with that and have to step outside the conservative group. And therefore I just like to propose I just keep my existing place. Thank you. Thank you. Can, can, did you want to come back on this. Thank you chair. Firstly, I, I've already explained in the press why I have chosen to recreate one of the portfolio roles properly hold communication. I'm not going to go into that in any further detail here. Council Kirk as an ungrouped member was offered to seats. One was supposed to come from the conservative group one from the independence. When I looked at the committees and the allocations of places and looked at which, which committees we were then comparatively over stacked on. I offer the place that I believe it was licensing. I note that the independence didn't offer offer up a place on Western planning either. Councillor Kurt refused both of those. And on that basis, there are a number of other Councillors from the conservative group who very much want to be on Western planning. There has been a queue for some time. That was the assessment we reached under advice from Kieran. That's the proposal we've reached. And that's why I'm proposing this now as the allocation of committee places. Okay. Right. So, Council, we have to vote on the amendment, which is Councillor Kirk's amendment to be included on as a member on the Western area planning committee. Correct. So, all those in favour, do we press our buttons? We ought to. No. Okay. All those in favour of supporting Councillor Kirk's motion to amendment to retain a place on the Western area planning committee. We need to have 10 members to support the recorded vote. Oh, the arms all come up. Have we had. So, can we vote now on this amendment? So, all those in favour of Councillor Kirk being awarded a place on the Western area planning committee, please press your green tick. If you are against it, please press your orange minus. Oh, I beg your pardon. And the yellow crosses abstain. I think I must be colour blind. Looks a different colour to me. Okay. Thank you. So, that vote was 36 for and 47 against. Now, with four abstentions, so that amendment fails. So, now we move on to vote on the substantive item. So, do we vote for this? All those in for sure of hands. So, all those in favour. So, that's passed. Okay. Thank you. I hope thank you very much. I've just had a discussion. I have had a discussion and I think we are going to move on to agenda item 11, which is the notice of motion. And so we will take the community governance review after this item, along with some other things. We have a number of speakers. Let me just move on to this one. So, this motion is from Councillor Phil Alford and Councillor Nick Bottrell and is on page 171 of your summons. I invite Councillor Alford to move the motion. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I move the motion. Formerly seconded. Thank you. I will ask Councillor Alford to speak to the motion, but I think perhaps I'll ask you to speak to the motion. I beg your pardon. Thank you. Okay. So, I'd like to start Madam Chairman by congratulating you on your election and thanking you for allowing so many people here today to be heard. The topic of this motion is energised many and it is perhaps the only time this issue has been given a democratic opportunity to be debated here. As the proposal, I've had many calls and emails for and against this proposal. Some have reinterpreted this as an attack on solar energy, but most have been balanced and reasonable, which is a testament to our residents. What they have all recognised, however, is the need for solar energy to be part of the energy mix moving forward. As a council, we pride ourself on power, our own furrow. We look objectively at the evidence and move accordingly. We've supported solar and will continue to do so. In many cases, solar arrays are a vital and secure income for farmers. Our house building programme is fitting solar panels to the rooftops to lower energy prices for our tenants and save on CO2 emissions. Our new ledger centres have fitted with panels to help reduce the energy demand and lower emissions. The recently completed Mount Shumhouse School for Children with SEMH needs has its own solar array and there are many more projects in the pipeline. We are a leader amongst counties in delivering on solar, but this must be done with the consent of the people we represent. Solar arrays and the infrastructure should be on buildings and brownfields first and in low density elsewhere. This debate is being had in the shadow of limestone, a proposal so vast it will dwarf our largest solar farms tenfold. It's planned to double the footprint of Whitley with the concrete terrace of batteries, sound a hill looming over the populace. It's just part of its ambitions. Another includes a desire to engulf a lavington, Norton, Causton and Robble, taking 2,000 acres of farmland out of production with tenant farmers displaced and many jobs lost. But what we must not ignore is the solar creep that's happening elsewhere too. Smaller solar farms and battery storage sites are being approved one by one in close proximity to each other as they swarm to existing grid connections. The impact is stark. Just ask the residents of Broughton Gifford, Norton, mind to you, sure. Our plan is desperately need clarity to help them manage this growth and our communities need a break. Our landscape and rural heritage are being lost in these highly density developments and we must protect them. We often hear the arguments that solar parks are only temporary and can be returned to Agma culture at the end of their lifespan. Who actually believes that? Once the principle of development is established, it's a brownfield site. The batteries and transformers will sit on concrete. Will that be removed and replaced with topsoil? The roads and services will become established parts of the built environment and should the businesses choose to extend their lifespan, which planning inspector will ever say no. Then we have the battery storage sites themselves. These are not green. They soak up cheap energy from the grid to increase demand and export it at peak times to maximise profits. Some call it balancing, whilst others see it as market distortion, preventing consumers benefiting from lower bills. However, whichever way you look at it, the cumulative impact of these facilities that they have in the countryside is real. We must be given the tools to manage this challenge. Battery storage should be out of site or reassure. The mass industrial relation of the countryside is in no one's favour and these facilities are all part of the problem. Madam Chairman, I'd like to summarise reiterate by reiterating what all this is about. The motion is about recognising the need for food security. It's about distributing solar and battery storage across the country more strategically, more fairly. It's about protecting our landscapes, heritage and communities. It's about a better approach to energy generation. What it is not about is cow-towing to dog-knife. Invested interest for breaking bureaucratic inertia. So, I'd like to thank you for giving me the time to speak and I look forward to hearing the views of members. Thank you. So, in accordance with the procedure, the relevant cabinet member has the opportunity to respond to the motion. In this case, the relevant cabinet member is the seconder of the motion. So, Councillor Nick Boschel, would you wish to respond to the motion at this time? Yes, thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and as you rightly point out, I'm the cabinet member here, but of course it's the seconder of this motion. I've had so much support, much of it from my local area that I represent. I have also received some criticism, I will point out, and I guess I would like to turn to some of that criticism first. As Councillors often said, we've been described as being alarmist, and it's said that we're not following the facts, and our arguments are not evidence based. So, let's just look at some of those. Now, if you look at how they do these things elsewhere, look at France, great tradition of command and control when it comes to executing big public works. A big grand proge. British version of this, on the other hand, even dare I say when NSIT is involved, is very different. And we recognise that all these big issues are necessarily contested, and we try to address this conflict, this conflict which arises by seeking to work out what the balance of the competing interests is. Because they're always competing interests when you're trying to do something on this scale. And that's a process that allows all sides of the argument to be put, and it gives airtime and the opportunity to offer challenge. And I would say very strongly that that is not alarmism. That is the way it is done so that the eventual outcomes are hopefully better informed, and the projects that arise are improved all round. Why do we address, why do we look at it in this way, in this country, and I think that begs some facts, and looking at some facts, and basically the biggest fact is a fact of geography. In France, to use that example again, you've got 320 people for every square mile. In England, you've got 1,150 people in every single square mile. That is a truly massive scale of difference. And even for Wiltshire, the density of population is far greater than that in France, and Wiltshire is an English rural county, remember. So put simply, our beautiful countryside has a very, very high level of settlement, and we have no empty or redundant pockets. And therefore it's incumbent on us all to ensure that every, each and every material development is fully scrutinized, and all its adverse impacts are understood and minimized as much as they possibly can. And that's the way that we will continue to be able to enjoy our beautiful landscape, notwithstanding of course that our population will continue to rise overall in the future. Another competing interest here, of course, is the agricultural one, not just the sustainable production of food, a matter that was put in the spotlight by the recent tragic events in the Ukraine. But the maintenance of the land and the landscape and the vitality of what is still a major contributor to our local economy farming. I would argue that the tenant farmers who have been served notice over the line down proposal, for instance, that will inevitably mean there are fewer farmers, fewer agricultural workers in our villages, and the future of agriculture in total will become less viable. So countries like ours do actually need to maintain capacity to produce food, at least to a decent proportion of the total. I quite get it 1000 pound an acre plus indexation can provide a much better yield than growing crops. But that in itself doesn't negate the need to strike a balance in a county which of course already provides a very high proportion relative to its size of the UK's entire solar energy capacity. And that's an amount of stress that is going to grow because there are a lot of existing permissions which are due to be developed. So what I'm arguing here is is is not alarmism is a cool headed consideration of where just where the appropriate balance lies. And I'm down clearly is the forefront and as concentrated everybody's minds recently. Just a few facts about lying down. It is truly enormous. It would be over three square miles of panels and battery facility. And because of the way that it's divided into five distinct sections, it would directly impact on a total area of about 13 square miles. So oblong shape of about 13 square miles. Lots of my colleague, Council Smith is a division would actually be swallowed up by it. And if you want to get an idea of what 13 square miles looks like, well the built up area of Chippalom is about four to five square miles. That's the size we're talking about with lime down. It is truly Titanic, probably in more ways than one. If it were built, it would change the nature of that part of Wiltshire adversely. And that's not to be alarmist again, but just a simple observation of the fact. So I believe there is a need to plan for reliable, sustainable and renewable energy, and signed up to that very much so. But in order to deliver this, all our residents, most of our residents, the vast majority of our residents will need to be persuaded and broadly on side. There's already clearly a growing contribution to energy generation from solar in this country. I think that can still actually probably even grow, but it's going to need to be achieved in a far smarter way. The grid needs reengineering anyway to cope with the transfer to a predominantly electric energy market. So as part of rebooting the grid, the vast untapped acreages of roofs, car parks, degraded sites, et cetera need to come into focus now for solar. Draft Wiltshire local plan, I should stress, is very much references this. And of course we're looking at putting as much rooftop solar and such like on our own buildings, this one included. Every square inch is literally in the fray at the moment. So I just conclude by saying smothering our precious landscapes with ever more and ever larger solar farms. And the constant industrialization that goes hand in hand with that of the countryside will not only prove to be unacceptable, but counterproductive because it will lose support for what is a good source of renewable energy. There has to be a better, smarter way of going about these things. So I would ask full council here to have that debate, start that debate. Let's have that conversation here in Wiltshire today. And let's make it clear where we think the direction of travel should be. I asked members to support it, this motion. Thank you, Councilor Bottrell for that very impassioned speech. I'm going to ask now, I think there are quite a number of public speakers who want to come and have their say on this matter. If I call the first speaker I have on my list is Matthew Short. And you have five minutes, three minutes beg your pardon. Thank you chair. Can you hear me generous. So good morning Councillors. My name is Matthew Short. I'm a Chippenham town councillor and a volunteer administrator for the zero Chippenham Solar rooftop scheme. I'm going to make a short statement on this motion. So firstly, climate change and carbon budget. So the global carbon budget from the beginning of 2024 to stand 50% chance, a coin toss time of staying within one and a half degrees C is 275 gigatons of CO2. That's a big number, but you divide it by 8 billion people, we get 32 tons for each of us. We use about 10 tons a year each in the UK. That gives us about three years to get to net zero. We don't have until 2050. That iceberg is going to melt very quickly. So surely Wiltshire has its quota of solar farms. Well as a whole renewables in Wiltshire only meet 6% of our total energy demand. Much of our renewable energy is imported from offshore wind. On days when it's not windy, we're actually one of the most carbon intensive regions. The government's British energy security strategy caused an ambitious increase to install solar to 70 gigawatts by 2035. Currently we're at around 15 gigawatts. So this we've reached our quota argument simply doesn't match the evidence. But we should put them on rooftops. I absolutely agree with this. However, in my role as solar admin, I can say with absolute certainty, it won't happen fast enough to reach the scale of the problem. The government's recent energy research paper concludes that in order to reach the 70 gigawatt target by 2035, that two thirds of installations will need to be ground mounted. There simply isn't enough rooftop space to do it. So shouldn't fields be kept for farming? Well yes, we should be farming on best and most versatile agricultural land. Though with climate change this is becoming more of a challenge. Solar panels will improve soil. The class 3B soil, either subsurface living ecosystem, will be massively improved. We'll draw down a long-term sequester of significant carbon and will be significantly better yielding after spending years under solar uptake panels. A well designed solar farm can become a home for wildlife during its lifetime with benefits for wildlife and biodiversity. So in conclusion, we absolutely have to rapidly build out renewables in Wiltshire to reach our climate and energy security goals. I ask the council to acknowledge the importance of large scale solar farms built on brownfield and low-grade agricultural land and battery storage near major grid connections such as Mailchum for critical energy security and a crucial step on the road to 70 gigawatts installed by 2035. Thank you, Council. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr Short. Next person I have on my list is Philip Addis. Thank you, Chair. I'm a parish councillor at Atworth. The proposed line-down development is obviously a great concern. But there is also currently over 600 acres of solar development within five kilometres of the village of Broughton Gifford and the overbearing harm and cumulative impact on this small rural community. The rural community is already at capacity and of critical concern. The area surrounding the village, including Atworth, with the south racks on Holt, is just around 2% of the total area of Wiltshire, but is potentially home to nearly half the council's 2030 solar target of 590 megawatts. This represents an unreasonable and harmful burden on a small community. If the current application at Little Chowfield is also passed, that's in Atworth, the number of large-scale industrial solar farms within a five-kilometre radius of Broughton Gifford would increase to 10. And that's before considering the proposed battery storage at Whitley. The Council's landscape consultant, when commenting on the study farm development in Atworth, stated that further developments of renewable energy infrastructure in this area of landscape could well tip the balance in terms of landscape character impact. We have now suffered but just one more argument for long enough. Clarity, regarding the cumulative effects of solar development in Wiltshire, is very urgent and I welcome this motion. The rural beauty and tranquility of this area and its farmland is under threat. Ourable land is being lost in this country at around 100,000 acres a year. But a yield of wheat on a 64-acre field, like the one at Little Chowfield, for example, can produce over a million loaves of bread from a single harvest. That potential loss must not be underestimated. Once an industrial landscape is set, it's closely followed by further industrial creepers already being mentioned, whereby more developments cluster, existing developments are extended, and battery storage and associated infrastructure added. Without oversight, a surge for solar development on greenfield sites is being driven by developers, not councils, not governments, and certainly not local communities. The cart is pulling the horse. A way must be found to bolster our planning framework and equip our planning officers with enforceable rules that protect our rural communities from industrialization and ensure food security. While developing renewables in the right sites. We need to push the solar industry to work harder, to find sustainable places to build and benefit us all in the long term. They must avoid clustering and solar creep and be placed where the harms are the least worst. Beside motorways on brownfield land on roofs on big buildings, car parking areas anywhere except clustering on good quality farmland where they stop valuable food production and cause great harm to the landscape, and most importantly, everybody who lives in it. Thank you. Perfect timing. I'm very impressed with your speeches so far in the five minutes slot and Peter Richardson. Sorry. Morning, everybody. My name is Peter Richardson. I'm the chair of community action, Whitley and Shaw and a parish counselor. I'm here today in the capacity as chair of course. Whitley is a proposed site for 250 megawatt hours of battery storage connected to the line down solar arrays north of the m4 and the mulch and substation. The course submission to line down copy to watch council sets a 25 material objections to this development, one of which is cumulative impact. If the battery storage at Whitley and other developments in training area are approved, then the village of Whitley will be completely surrounded by five solar farms, two battery storage facilities both in Whitley, and all the associated infrastructure. Most of our objections to the proposed Whitley battery storage facility have a significant cumulative impact, including fire and safety, flooding, landscape, noise, light pollution, wildlife and biodiversity and so on and so forth. We are already exposed to all these points from the six schemes in train, a seventh scheme like line down battery storage creates an untenable position for Whitley residents in particular, but the other surrounding communities too. So, with all that in mind, we yesterday proposed a small amendment to the motion, and we sent that to council's old foot and virtual yesterday. In summary, it's just three relatively small points. The first one is, we would like the motion to clearly propose the questions in the context of solar and battery storage and associated infrastructure. We feel at the moment, the motion is quite solar centric. The second point is, we think there's an opportunity to be clearer that battery storage should be located on brownfield sites. Again, the motion is a bit solar centric on that. And we think there's a particular opportunity to place them by conventional power generation facilities. And finally, regarding the energy secretary statement last week, we also asked for clarity on what the test will be to demonstrate that the use of agricultural land for solar farms, battery storage and associated infrastructure is necessary. So thank you, council for letting us come and talk about this today. In summary, we support the motion in principle, but with a few amendments, we will, we think it will make the motion more impactful, particularly with regard to battery storage. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Richardson, Sir Mike Pitt. Thank you, Chairman, for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Sir Mike Pitt. I think it's fair to say that I was the chair and chief executive of the infrastructure planning commission, which is a national body, and also of the planning and spectra based in Bristol. I'm speaking today on behalf of stop lying down. And I must say I'm already very heartened by the words of Councillor butter, and also the other speakers who had something to say this morning. The developments of lying down would be a highly damaging assault on the county's landscape and way of life. To call it a park is a misnomer, lying down would be a vast industrial complex with battery storage, transformers, grid connection and solar cells, some 4.5 metres high. Future generations would wonder why we haven't taken greater care of the county. If the application progresses in about one year's time, Wiltshire Council will be making a submission to the planning and spectra and giving evidence at a public inquiry into lying down. We believe Wiltshire Council will be by far the most important statutory console team. You are the only democratic and impartial organization with the necessary skills and county wide perspective. The quality of your evidence will be of critical importance to the final decision made. Land as a limited resource food security matters and decisions on large solar developments should not be made incrementally. There is a strong case for a county and national approach. Locally, this would be led by Wiltshire Council in the form of a county solar plan. An approved county plan would guide potential developers, inform recommendations made by the examining authority and decisions made by the Secretary of State. It would also reflect the contribution Wiltshire has already made towards accommodating solar energy compared with many other parts of the country. My final point is to confirm that stop lying down supports solar energy. However, we should learn from the experiences of other countries, as has been mentioned this morning. Solar energy generation should be located in the right places, including rooftops and brownfield sites. Where additional solar farms are needed, they should be limited in size, avoid cumulative effects and be very carefully located. Hopefully, the council's approach and a county plan will take all of these factors into account. Thank you very much. Thank you. Steve Holt. Thank you. My name is Steve Holt. I live in pot and I'm speaking on behalf of more than a thousand people who have signed a petition against excessive solar farm development to the east of pot and for protection of our countryside. We support this motion. To give this motion some more local relevance, consider that there are already six solar farms in a five mile radius of pot and there are a further five potentially in the pipeline in the area east of pot and along a seven mile corridor into the veil of pewsy. All of these proposed developments are within sight of or in the North Wessex Downs area of outstanding natural beauty and in beautiful countryside. All these developments are on good quality agricultural land and none of them, to our knowledge, are in the local plan signed off by councils. The first of these planning applications at pot and park farm immediately to the southeast of pot is a vast 200 acre site that is bigger than the village of pot and itself. It is highly visible on a north facing slope, and will completely change the character of the local farming landscape that surrounds the villages of pot and eastern and the Lovingtons. As the motion says, this area has been farmed for time immemorial. We are constantly being told that all the solar investment needed will take up less than 1% of the land area in the UK. Well, if that is the case, we shouldn't need to surrender agricultural land at all to support it. Not only is this concentration decimating the countryside and our farmland, it is also being centered on a part of the grid network that is massively constrained. So to spread out the load as per the motion into other counties also makes sense from a national grid perspective. I encourage you to support this motion and in addition to tighten up the planning process by providing more top down strategic direction as to where these types of industrial developments can and cannot be cited. i.e. on non agricultural sites and in areas that make sense from a grid perspective. Wiltshire has led the way in driving solar implementation in response to an energy crisis, and this group should be commended for doing that. Wiltshire now needs, however, to lead the way in defending our countryside and protecting our farmland. A better balance is needed. We have a food crisis and a countryside crisis as well. Please support the motion. Mr Holt, yet another perfect timing, three minutes this time. Mary Gilmore. Good morning, Chair, cabinet and board members. I am Mary Gilmore representing CPRE. I am also a resident of Wiltsford who are now facing a solar panel development of 166 acres within the parish upon Salisbury Plain on land that has been farmed from time immemorial. CPRE wholly embraces the motion from Councillors offered and bottle which echoes our national campaign for brownfield and rooftop solar. We are not adverse to solar, but the loss of agricultural land is of great concern given the global effects on food production and security. The Energy Secretary Claire Katino has made a statement on cumulative impact and size, which chimes with this motion. And Wiltshire has a strong place to stand in this debate given the plethora of solar development applications that have been made and continue to be made. We believe that at a local level, this needs to be reinforced and emphasized in stronger wording in the draft local plan with regard to solar, rooftop and brownfield sites. We would suggest that it is really important to get the wording in and up to date. Local knowledge suggests that developers see Wiltshire as being more receptive to these projects than some councils. This was the terminology recently presented to Charles St Peter and Wiltsford Joint Parish Council. We will suggest that this immediately puts small villages at a complete disadvantage as developers can outclass opposition to their proposals given that their extensive resources that they can call on, which local residents do not have. This is not a level playing field. Wiltshire Council declared a climate emergency in 2019. Given the significant changes during the last five years, surely this now needs to be reviewed. It is relied upon in part by developers in justification for the developments of solar. The Council declared a climate emergency in 2019, therefore it will be. CPRE would also like you to consider the situation when solar applications are received by the planning department. The documents in support fall short of what should or would be required by the case officer to be able to form a view. Very often, the emissions are identified by villagers or those who will be affected given their local knowledge. As the impression is that developers produce the minimal amount of information to test what is required in support from the case officer. They are then often given second and third bytes of the cherry to present more accurate case specific reports and items omitted from the original application. Again, this puts villagers under great stress where their limited resources to review corrected information in order to rebut these types of applications, which will have a profound impact on not only their way of life, but that of their progeny, the environment, our very precious landscapes and the ability to feed ourselves. What are people going to say and think in 50 years time? Thank you. Sophie Fernley Whittingstall. Is she not here? Oh, you haven't. So Helen Hicks. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I'm a Trowbridge resident and my name is Helen Hicks. Firstly, I would like to point out that since 1940, we have lost nearly 50% of our farmland. With regard to solar farms, this is all part and parcel of net zero. In 2019, the then Chancellor, Philip Hammond, calculated that moving to net zero would cost well in excess of £1 trillion and it will have profound implications for households, businesses and the exjacker. More recently, Michael Kelly, former chief scientific advisor to the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Global Warming Policy Foundation think tank has said as estimated that it will cost £3 trillion to expand the electricity grid and improve buildings. That figure does not include paying for the infrastructure necessary for electric cars. It's now time for local councils to take a realistic view regarding solar farms and think about the well being of their residents, which is what most of the people here are trying to prove. Thank you. Thank you very much Helen was our last speaker. So we now move on. And I move that we debate this motion. Can I have a second. All those in support of debating this motion. Okay, so we proceed to debate. Just before we do. I asked members to speak if they want to speak. I just wanted to say that I would ask members, particularly those on planning committees to be conscious that if during the debate, there is reference to live that is non determine planning applications that they should be careful not to prejudice. They're all the councils position, but obviously, I will also draw your attention to the localism act 2011 with section 25, which sets out the rules on predetermination in respect of planning applications. Okay, so everybody's happy with that. Group leaders can I move the Councillor Richard Claire. I want to start by reiterating a point that we've heard from a number of speakers, I am absolutely not opposed to solar power or solar farms. I have sat on planning committees that have approved solar farms. I have said in this chamber, and I will say again, it is institutional insanity that national policy doesn't compel us to put solar panels on all new buildings, and particularly on commercial buildings. We're looking to install solar panel on our park and ride sites we've already installed it on other sites to fund our own buildings. We are taking this really seriously. But national planning policy when it comes to land use is at best confused. We've got four fundamental competing demands. You've got the need for housing. By diversity net gain and nature recovery renewable energy generation and not least food production. And the MPP F gives us no clear way to judge the importance of those areas, the only one with any actual legislators legislative support framework is by diversity net gain. And farming, I think, is pretty much an afterthought. The only protection farming gets is around the best and most versatile land on solar farms. It's a confused picture which I think desperately needs clarity. It's all very well for us to say, we only need 3% of land for solar or for this and 3% for that, but without someone having a someone from central government stepping in and clearly determining and protecting the strategic priorities we as a country face. All we get is a poorly thought through use of land. Now personally, I think food production is the most important of these factors. As those hierarchy of needs without food, you starve. It's that simple. It's potentially that stark. We've got to decarbonize our electricity supply. But if we do it at the expense of food production, we're swapping one critical problem now for a more critical problem in the future. The UK has not come close to meeting our own food demands since 1940 and we didn't achieve it there. The pressures of climate change are already being felt with farming. There are areas now of Africa and Asia, where the aridity means that farming is no longer viable. And we are already starting to feel the impacts of that with the migration that is following. We are seeing the very first waves of migration into America and Europe being driven by climate change and its impacts. As a country, we are going to need to produce more of our food in the future. As farming moves further north, that means Ukraine will become less viable and Russia will become more. Who in this chamber wants to be sitting there, relying on Russia for our food in 20 years time? It's not been thought through and it needs to be. And that makes land really important in planning. We have got to use brownfield land for housing. We've got to use roofs for solar. We've got to use open fields if we are going to. We've got to make sure that they are open fields that are not the main best use of our best bits of land for agricultural production. We've got to find bits of land that are not required for that and use that for solar generation. Now farming has been part of our way of life in Wiltshire for hundreds of years. Now technology is changing it. It changes the way it flows. I was talking to one of the farmers in one of my villages actually last week and the farm there used to employ 50 people. It now employs five, but there are a number of farms in that village and farming is a critical part of our rural way of life. Now if we allow solar on the scale we're talking about to come in and become too dominant in an area, tenant farmers are driven off the land, it's turned over to solar, that rural employment that has shaped our villages for centuries, that community of our villages disappears and we face the very real risk of entire villages being surrounded by a new industrialized rural landscape of solar farms. It will change the nature of our villages beyond comprehension. It will erode communities and at the same time make us more reliant on imported food from places like Russia. That cumulative impact is really critical. We've got to spread solar around. If you look at the proposed lime down park, I haven't done the precise numbers. I'm not great from converting acres to square miles, but I think what we're looking at here is something that would at the moment be about the 16th, 17th largest solar farm in the world might be wrong. Quick bit of calculations here. That should not be concentrated in one place in farmland. We have got to find balance. We've got to have renewable energy generated in our towns and in our countryside, but in a way that enhances, doesn't harm our communities to ensure that we increase food production in a world of less certainty and to modernize our villages and farming, but not industrialize them. I didn't move to Wiltshire to live an industrial landscape. I'm sure most of you didn't either. We've got to find that balance. This is a motion that seeks to address the balance. I entirely endorse it. Councillor Ian Thorne. Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman. Can I just begin by thanking all of the speakers who have joined us from a range of communities and those that haven't spoken, but have found the time to be here this afternoon. I think we're heading towards this afternoon anyway. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that the principal role of your elected councillors is to reflect the views of local people. And you can't get away from the passionate views that were expressed a matter of minutes ago. My big problem with emotion is it's actually lacking in context. And I think we've got an amendment that we're bringing forward that will actually bring more detail, which will actually provide more practical detail in terms of how we collectively as a council can do more, which then takes the pressure off the accumulation. I completely agree with the sentiment in relation to rural villages that are feeling surrounded by solar panels, much has been made of the very large enormous scheme in the north of the county. And again, I agree with Richard Clure. We need a balance. I'm not sure this motion actually calls for a balance. It really focuses on cumulative impact. And I think we need a dialogue with the government, which seeks to ensure there is that balance between provision of food, provision of energy, and reflect the views of local people. And I accept there will be other views, very different views expressed elsewhere. So my overriding view is that we could be and would be and will be supportive of the motion, but we'll be particularly grateful if we can adopt the amendments that I think are coming up. There's no doubt in my mind that the swamping of community areas in rural areas has gone too far. We must do something about that. This motion sort of kind of takes as part of the way there. My other point, I think, is a point made by the lady from CPLE about had we been debating this 18 months, two years ago. This could perhaps have been a key part of the local plan, be a material matter, and therefore be an important part of any ongoing planning applications and debates. And I also agree, I think it's the same speaker that made the point, or maybe somebody else actually that made a point about clarification in relation to what the minister said most recently. So I think that if you come away from this meeting, I say this to colleagues with any sense of emotional view, it's the passion that's been expressed through the course of this debate. So I look forward to the amendments. I hope they're friendly amendments and can be adopted into the motion. And we'll see how that debate goes. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Councillor Thorne. Councillor Ernie Clark. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I must be as a member of both strategic and Western area planning committees. I think I'll keep my comments very, very short because I'm not feeling I wouldn't be prejudiced in my position for future applications. I hear what the previous speakers have said, and I agree with both of them. And I'm sure the debate will bring out more matters we go along. Could I just say though that several people have mentioned brought in Gifford. And in the past, the local members of Wishon 1 have pointed out what was happening there, and we were basically fobbed off until it's just an issue. So it's good to see that now somebody is doing something about the number of solar farms and the size of them. But again, Chairman, Madam Chairman, representing the Division of North East of Troy Bridge, I find it very ironic that the Council is debating this, and yet we're swamping loads of green fields with thousands of houses and everybody seems quite happy with that. As I say, Madam Chairman, I'll say no more, in case I'm prejudiced from opposition planning committees. Thank you, Councillor Clark. Just in case anyone's confused, if you would, I would prefer just to be called Chairman. Councillor Rickey Rogers. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I'm happy to. I'm happy to support the motion that's in front of us. It does seem a long winded way. We may get a reply. We may not get a reply. Who knows how long it would take. We've heard some really interesting and real conviction speeches this morning supporting the motion. I wonder why we don't take a bit more direct action. We have a system in place. All of these applications have to go through the local planning system. Do what you did today, people, lobby those planning committees, lobby those Councillors, make your voices heard. These applications don't have to be supported. Make your voices heard. Take some direct action. Rather than waiting for something from government, there's an opportunity to say no, and say it through the existing system. Thank you. I will now open the item to general debate. So any member wishing to speak, please press your button. And clocking up nicely. I will go, shall I, I'll go to Councillor Martin Smith first, I think. Thank you, Chairman. This motion has also been prompted by this increasing pressure on agricultural land. In Wilcher from huge seller farms, I'm in Shurston, 2/3, the limestone project would be in my division. So I know it's raised huge public concern. But what it's also highlighted is that is the fact that the government appears to be leaving the transition to renewable energy very much in the hands of market forces. This perhaps inevitably has created the situation where offshore energy companies are partnering with foreign banks and large land owners to create solar projects that only benefit them. So it's raised a serious question of how to ensure not just energy security, but also food security in a world where supply lines are getting more and more tenuous. And I've listened to the public speakers today with interest and many of the views expressed like completely support. And dare I say, I completely supported pretty much everything the lead of the Council said on this issue as well. I think it's all about achieving the right balance between food production and energy generation. Coming to the specifics of the motion, I support, Council offers and bottles motion as far as it goes, but I do think it needs to go further. It talks about getting clarity around the issue of the cumulative impact of seller developments on Wilcher and asked for sellers we will spread evenly across the UK. I know that the Secretary of State recently made a statement where she mentioned the need to consider these cumulative impacts. I didn't really mention how this was to be done, or what is meant by locality or what weight these considerations would have in the planning balance. So I do think we need to push a lot more on this issue, but also tackling that cumulative impact. It may not give the result that what we want here because the Wilcher Council themselves commissioned report in 2022, which said that although we're coming close to our share of the solar needs. Due to the lack of other renewables in this county, I win power. There remains a significant gap to close, so it may be that somebody in government will come back and say, because you haven't got any wind turbines in Wilcher, you may have to take more solar. Also, I think the optics of this from another county, they probably look at this motion and think it's just another nimby motion, perhaps designed to move a problem somewhere else. We therefore need to be careful to frame it differently, so we should have some more positive suggestions in there that would reduce the pressure on agricultural land and communities across the country. So I'd like to bring forward an amendment to this motion, if I may. There's four parts to that. That would like to urge the Secretary of State to provide more incentives to residents and businesses to install rooftop solar. That's directly benefiting local people through reduced energy bills, whilst also helping to achieve our solar targets. We also urge the government to support the local energy, sorry, the local electricity bill, which has been stalled in Parliament, but has a lot of support from MPs, because this would remove the barriers to community energy projects, and would again benefit local communities and ensure a fair transition to this new energy world that we need to get into. And it'll be focusing on generating energy close to where it's needed, thus reducing the need for huge schemes with lengthy connections. We'd also ask for a formerly formed national strategy for solar farms, which balances the need of food security with the equally important need of energy security. And finally, we'd ask that consideration, given that inevitably some of these projects will go ahead, we finally ask that consideration is given to introducing a proper national standard of community benefit, to be paid into local funds for community projects and combating energy poverty. And we've actually set a figure there, which would be 1000 pounds per megawatt capacity per annum for the life of solar projects. And so, so as to exclude small scale projects, we've set a sort of low limit of 15 megawatt capacity. So, could I formally propose those amendments, please, Jeff? Do you have a seconder? Councillor Matthew. Councillor. Do you agree to accept this amendment? There we go. Here we go. No, I don't. Would you like me to explain why or do you want me to wait? Leaders. Sorry. Group leaders to comment on the amendment. Councillor. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it would have been useful to have a little more than the sort of hour this morning to look at it. I think there are bits in there that might make some sense, but there are bits as well that I'm concerned about as it stands and I wanted to run through why any incentives have got to be funded. I'm not sure that this council should be asking government to put in schemes, unfunded schemes that are just going to increase the national debt burden on solar without some great deal more rationale and detail on how such schemes work in the past. They've been highly distorted with markets. They've been scrapped because they were being, they were highly distorting markets. That's an area where I think the law of unintended consequences could not say would, but could be significant. And therefore to simply call for a subsidy scheme is the way forward. I'm not convinced is the right way to handle that. I also think if you look at the way the benefit that we're getting, for example, from the solar together scheme or from the work that we're doing with our own council housing and trying to work and encourage other registered providers. It's not the only way forward. I suspect most people in this chamber have not got a detailed knowledge of the local electricity bill. I have looked at it in detail. I was asked whether I would support it some time ago in my role as part of my role as with the UK 100 country climate network. And I thought I couldn't for a couple of reasons. Again, it's not clearly coherently thought through. It's not thought through the consequences of what would happen if it were implemented as it stands. It's not a sensible piece of legislation. If it were, if it were rational, if it had clear, properly understood implications, if it was clearly thought through, then I would be inclined to support it, but it's not there yet. And the idea that we should put our weight behind legislation that really hasn't been thought through about the potential harm it could cause, I would be extremely nervous about. You've heard my points about land, land use. I really think you have got to include biodiversity in a game or nature of recovery, and you've got to include housing in any assessment of land, land use. I think the point made by one of the speakers earlier about the need to have that cogent approach to how we use Wilchers land to meet the competing demands that we have, including the competing demands of so I think is important in the way to move forward. Until we have a ministerial statement, however, we didn't even have a way to define cumulative impact. There was a throwaway comment in the MPPF that we couldn't really use. At least now we've got a ministerial statement telling us to work out what cumulative impact is and make use of it. But I do agree that we should be looking at supplementary planning guidance. It will need to be supplementary now given the state of the local plan to try and define where we think renewable energy should be in Wilcher or all kinds and where we think farming and where we think housing should be and where we think areas for nature. And then lastly, the idea of endorsing a community energy rebate without understanding what the implications of that were, whether it was affordable without having some serious evidence. It's not something I'm prepared to do on the fly. We don't we as a council make evidence based decisions. This motion is asking government to go away. They've actually since the motion was published compatible way towards what we want to achieve. They have made it clear that cumulative impact is now relevant. We're asking government to go further and give us a greater definition of what cumulative impact means. There's nothing there that is opening up that law of unintended consequences. We're asking them to think strategically on planning for once. What's being proposed in this motion, I'm afraid, is a lot of well-intentioned ideas, but without the evidence to back them up. I think there's too much risk that we as a council would be endorsing that and it would be seen as that becoming our endorsements of various owners of planning policy as well. It's not the way we should be making policy in this chamber. Thank you. Councilor Ian Thorne. Well, can I thank my two colleagues who have presented and proposing the amendment. I'm particularly keen and that was have been keen to listen to Council Smith in relation to the challenges that he and his communities are facing in the north of the county in relation to solar panel development. As I was hinting at in my earlier contribution in relation to the motion. What the motion essentially does is ask the secretary of state to do something. I've got no idea whether she or he will do anything who will be the secretary of state tomorrow, who will be the secretary of state, of course, after the general election. What we have here are a number of what I would describe as mitigations. In other words, it's not just about saying, we don't want accumulating schemes delivering or not delivering solar energy. But here are a range of devices that can be used, which actually allow us to reduce that coordination by doing other things and providing it's providing the opportunity. And we've touched on this many times in relation to rooftop installations, whether it's residents or businesses seeking where there will be solar farms that communities get a real benefit and this is something we have experienced in some parts of the county. And the point that everybody's making which again is in the amendment is a national strategy, which is developed in relation to solar farms, but also again, as we've already said, balances the critical need to provide food. So all the amendments is doing, I think, is adding rigor to the motion is adding some much needed detail to the motion and is providing at least a range of mitigations that provide some opportunity to address the fundamental point being made in the motion. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you. Councillor, Ernie Clark. Thanks, Chairman. Having said I wouldn't speak too much on the motion, I must admit the amendment looks perfectly reasonable. But as it's not been accepted as friendly, I think we all know where it's going to go. That's the Ricky Rogers. Yeah, thank you, Chair. I just think the amendment adds a bit more punch, doesn't it? If you're going to write to the government and ask them to consider something this is actually asking them to do something. And I think it fits, I think it fits well with the original motion. And I don't know why we're shying away from it. Let's have something back if we were asking the government to respond in a positive way or even a negative way. Let's ask them something to make them act. Okay. Thank you very much. And so now we move to debate the amendment, and I have a list of speakers here. First on my list is Councillor Ian McClellan. Thank you, Chairman. I've never been called first before. It would be. Okay, speaking, speaking to the amendment and the main motion. Really, the amendment looks as Ricky said, looks to be adding something to the motion that's before us. And I don't see anything wrong with that. It gives a bit more structure to what we're trying to ask government and also tries to seek to help local communities in the balance of all of this. So I don't see anything wrong with the amendment. See, in terms of why we're doing it. I wonder why other than to try and get something more in the long term, because what we're dealing with is now. Even in the original motion, it says we're asking Mr Gove, who's the consumer teller of untrooves one day, and then who can reverse it the next day and equally straight face so I don't know why we'd ask him anything because today's answer will be different tomorrow, the opposite. So why wait for a buffoon to answer when in our hands already as part of planning, we have the decision making process first of all to call in an application as members. So we should be doing that. If it's affecting our community adversely, it's our duty to represent our community and call in an application, whether that be a simple extension on the back of someone's house that's going to wreck their neighbors views forever more. Get rid of all their light, et cetera, through to mass things like a solar farm or a wind farm, but of course, Wilts the council stepped in a long time ago and did away with wind farms. So, yeah, we took the choice then as a council, we didn't go and wait and ask somebody for permission. The council of that time took that decision. So, if you're looking to make a decision on planning grounds, and it's called in by the local member, then it's for if the officers are saying, Oh, well, we're not sure about this because governments say we should give priority to this. Well, as council, the clue says farming is paramount in this country. So, if we decide as a council, our farms that are bringing in the best crops are needed to be protected, then it's our duty to vote accordingly in that way. And let the government inspectors planning inspectors test differently, but farming land of great value is farming land of great value. We should have a duty to protect it within our planning laws, and we've got that ability. Cumulative damage to our community is in the same vein. If we decide that community that damage is being done to our community, whether that's by building a couple of houses, or changing a green field, or not being built in the same style as the rest of the village. We decide in planning to turn down that application, and they can go to appeal by all accounts. But if we've got the reasons right, then we're in the right, and those appeals get turned down. So, cumulative damage to a community with solar farms surrounding it. I would say the argument's been made already. So, I wonder how we got to the fact that we've got cumulative damage already to our communities. Why haven't we been protecting these communities already through our planning system? Because we could be doing that already. We shouldn't be asking Mr Gove for permission, or can you add some words to community of damage? Because we already make those decisions through planning every planning committee. So, I just say to planning committee members, when an application is called in, take food production into account, take cumulative damage to your community into account, and vote accordingly. That's it, Chairman. Thank you. We don't need to go anywhere else. Thank you, Councillor McLennan, and Councillor Matthew Dean. May I say, what a wise and distinguished chairman you're turning out to be? I think today is going to be seen as a red letter day for many Councillors in this room. Those people are now going to see, for the first time, the conflict and how difficult it's going to be to get to net zero by 2050 and to reduce our carbon emissions by 45% by 2030. I've always been what I consider to be an environmentalist. I've always believed in climate change, but where I think I'm different to many of my colleagues is that I've always accepted it is going to be difficult and expensive and controversial on our communities. And this is just the start of it. When we move to not having petrol and diesel cars, when we move to having a huge amounts of additional costs in our economy, people are going to make have to make quite difficult choices and they will not be for the faint hearted. I was very pleased to see Sir Michael Pitt, the former chief executive of the planning inspectorate here. But I did think Sir Michael's contribution was a little paradoxical, because it is, of course, the planning inspector inspectorate that consistently overrules local councillors and local council members. The very issue that he faces in his community where he lives or where he has an interest in, and he's come and spoken today. I've had problems where my communities have been overruled. The planning authority has been overruled. I have an incinerator being built on the edge of my town, deeply controversial as a result of the planning system. And I think things are going to get less democratic around planning. If there is a change of government, the Labour Party's documents, creating a clean energy superpower, is eye watering in some of its proposals. And then I think that we will have very large solar arrays and wind farms imposed upon our communities. If that document is transacted in government into power. In terms of Wiltshire, Wiltshire is about 860,000 acres in total, and about 114,000 acres of that is formed. And it seems with the solar panels that we have already, and the ones that are proposed, that we've got about 2000 acres of proposals currently. So that's about 1.7% of farmland that he's going to be or has been lost. But at the same time, agricultural yields nationally have gone up about 5 or 6%. So actually, if this is all about food production, then so the despoiling of the countryside with the creation of very large industrial solar farms doesn't really wash. My suggestion to my colleagues is if you are against these types of development, it should all be about loss of visual amenity. It should be about the community's impact over development, those sorts of things, the destroying of ecosystems and by habitats and all the rest. This business about food production, if you look at the figures, it doesn't wash. So, let's be honest, it may be something that it's talked about, but it's not. And yesterday, the government gave guidance on forestry, and despite this country having a massive trade deficit on imported timber for construction and all the rest, it didn't say anything about increasing production, it was all about the environment. And I was as disappointed with anyone on that because I want to see this country become genuinely more sustainable. And so I don't think I can support the amendments. I think this point about having some more government guidance about... Can you wind up pretty quickly, please? I think... That's a very wise and... [Laughter] And every other thread would I? So, in conclusion then, and in deference to you, Madam Chairman, I would just say that I do support the proposals, but not the amendment. Thank you, Councillor DEAN. [Laughter] Councillor Paul's sample. Lady Chair, can I call you Bridget, perhaps? Chair, welcome to the argument about renewable energy, which the Liberal Democrats have been talking about and campaigning on for decades, two weeks, says Ricky. I was campaigning in 1978 on the issue. So, you know, some of us have been talking about this issue for ten years. And it seems, as Matthew Dean says, it seems like much longer. So, the argument for us is that, yes, we want to see energy conservation, we want Britain to make its contributions to hitting the targets that have been set for us internationally. We do want to see more wind power, where it's appropriate. We want to see heat pumps. We want to see high energy contributing towards our energy mix. We want to see hydro power, where it's appropriate, and yes, we want to see solar. But we want to see a balance of those things. And importantly, we want to see the balance against other land uses. And Richard said earlier in the debate, he talked about the whole area of land use needing clarity, that the whole area was poorly thought through the use of that, and he was talking about the use of land. Britain is in a mess, it's not just Wiltshire, the whole of England, Scotland and Wales, there is a problem. We do not have a clearly defined strategy by government. We don't have the clear objectives, we don't have the good leadership. You know, it's seen the whole issue of energy is seen as something which is somehow second class. It's not really important enough to rank the place in the Conservative parties debate. Until now, when we've got members of the public coming to meetings like this, where they're going to have solar farms imposed on them, largely imposed, let's be honest, on their communities. And they are going to suffer the pain of that, the ruined views, and they're going to get nothing back. And I think if they're going to suffer the pain, I think they should get some of the game. And that's what this amendment is about. If it's going to be forced upon you, and someone who's sat on planning committees over the years, I can assure you it is going to be forced upon you. If that's what the committee decides, then you should get some of the game. And what we've got is a council which allows pretty much unregulated housing development on greenfield sites. And we can all name some of those where housing was opposed by the locals, but somehow wheelchair council managed to approve it all around the county. It'll developments here and there. And the end result of that is that you can't find an NHS dentist, that you can't find a doctor's surgery. You can't find somewhere for your children to go to school. There is a problem with getting access to clean water. Council sample, I think you're straying off the motion somewhat. I'm sorry Madam Chairman, but I'm reminding you of what unplanned development and lack of strategy have on our communities. I mean, it just bring your back to this amendment. The end result of that type of unregulated development in our county means that we have foul rivers. We have poor housing, poor housing provision for those on low numbers. And what we're asking for here with this amendment is for you to address those issues. We are asking for some. No, it's not in return. Madam Chairman, if you don't support this motion. If you don't want to put forward. That the rooftop energy should be increased by wheelchair council. We should we should encourage the development of more rooftop energy. By all means, vote against our motion, our amendment. If you don't want the removal of barriers to community energy projects to benefit our towns and villages, then by all means vote against this amendment. If you don't want a national strategy for solar farms. Can you wind up as well, please? Farming and energy, vote against this motion. Madam Chairman, the only policy which conservative government over the plot. Can you wind up, please? Thank you, Councillor SRI. It's unregulated. And the. Thank you, Councillor SRI. Can we move on to our next speaker, please? I'm trying to give some leeway, but you just don't take the mic. Thank you, Councillor, tomorrow, Ray. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I will be brief. I'm privileged to represent devices rule of west, which has many beautiful and historic villages, including pot and thank you to the residents from pot and who came to speak today. Across devices are a west, we have a long history of feeding Wiltshire and the nation. And like many residents, I share concerns about the cumulative impact of solar arrays in the local area and in other places in the county. We are doing more in terms of bringing solar forward. Just to remind members about the. Solar together group buying scheme that I had the, I was able to bring forward when I was support failure whole different climate change across the county. One thousand one hundred and eleven solar PV installations have been installed on residences across the county. And in terms of our council assets, I'm pleased that the assets team are looking at all opportunities for installing solar PV. Due to 202324, the assets that we have installed have generate a generating 2,700,000 kilowatt hours with a saving to the council of nearly 700,000 pounds. There are solar PV on the roof here and on the southeast facing wall. And there is also a scheme to develop solar PV on the inside of the atrium. So there is absolutely more to do. I want to see that a motion that helps to protect our rural communities and the beautiful landscape in the local area. Thank you. Councillor RAY, it's 1255. I have got a list as long as you're on of people who want to speak. So I think we'll break for lunch now and come back at one one forty five and recommence the debate. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Such control. Let's go. Okay. We are continuing to debate the amendment. And so the next person on the list that I have is Councillor Tony Jackson. Okay. Councillor Smith, what did you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry. Thank you for Larry to speak, Chair. On a lunch break, we've had discussions with the leader. And it made a very relevant point, but it's very difficult to look at some of the wording of this in such short time scales. There are amendments that potentially he would like to see. We would potentially be happy to accommodate that. So on the basis that we will cross party the coming weeks. On a version of this amendment to presume we bring back to another. Council meeting. I'm prepared to withdraw the amendment as it stands. And go with the original motion. Okay, that's wonderful. Thank you. I need to ask you formally, if you're happy with the motion to be withdrawn, the amendment to be withdrawn. Thank you. So now we go back to the substantive motion. And if anyone who was going to talk to the amendment, have you deleted them all or the people who wanted to talk to the amendment? Or if you've turned yourselves off, then now we will proceed with talking about the motion itself. So, first on my list is Councillor Jonathan Seed. Thank you, Chair. Well, I'm very pleased to see the motion withdrawn because I actually couldn't see the point of all of it. I'd like to speak in support of this motion largely because I've had over the years quite a lot of experience in dealing with solar farm planning. I am a fan of renewable energy. I even drive a hybrid car, but I generally support offshore wind farms. I'm very much against onshore wind farms generally, but I have an open mind, albeit generally supportive of solar farms. I was really pleased to see some Michael Pitt, who I worked with years ago in flood alleviation and local resident Philip Addis at their encyclopedic environmental knowledge to this debate. As I say, I've had quite a lot of experience of solar farms having represented, seen, and a poll shot for two councils and laterally include, brought and gifted in the area I represent. All of which have been subject to multiple solar farm applications. Now, I'm very clear that in some circumstances, solar farms can fit in to our environment, and I've supported these. But in others, I've opposed the applications generally, either because of their cumulative effect, which comes in with this motion, or because of insensitive sighting. I've also concerns where very large solar farms can result in tenant farmers being thrown off their land, or in the name of progress. However, where I have supported, I've generally and successfully moved amendments to these applications to try and blend the applications into the environment. And that includes the use of rural deer fencing, as opposed to more urban chain link fencing, and setting the panels at a height that sheep can graze underneath. And that is very successfully done in one of the solar farms in Braun Gifford. But I am really concerned at the blanket cover of our countryside that is emerging with huge solar farms, and particularly, I'm also concerned at the cumulative effect of solar farm surrounding a village brought in Gifford that I represent. We now have an application in which would give three sides of that village surrounded by solar farms, and that gives me a real cause for concern. Happy to listen, but it is a real concern, and particularly, it is a concern because these are so commercial that in one application, the applicant is not taking his power to the nearest battery site. There is battery storage site along the edge of farmland. They're planning to dig up the only road through the village for a year, because they can do that more cheaply than taking it elsewhere. And I think that is another unacceptable impact of these things on our rural community. So, I support this motion. I'm very pleased to see that we're looking at a more close definition of cumulative impact. I've been fighting that for years, and thank you to cabinet members for bringing this forward. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor SEED. Councillor HOWARD Greenman. Thank you, Chairman. I'd like to give you my congratulations to you on your appointment today. I want me to welcome this motion on a whole lot of fronts, as members will probably be aware from my stance on to be a little bit careful because I chair currently the Strategic Planning Committee. So, I don't want to strain to cite specific issues, as has been already today. I'd like to thank all those that spoke before they have said, and I recognize, of course, there are very strong arguments on both sides of the fence, forgive the plan. The situation we've faced in strategic planning is that we have both supported and resisted solar farm applications. So, I think we've been pretty even handed, and workshop council. Please, this is in shine with this policy. It's very committed, of course, to green energy as we see today. So, I applaud that members will also be aware, though, that from the chair, the Strategic Planning, I've expressed three predominant concerns. First, one being community impact, and I've often mentioned that in the Strategic Planning, I'm glad that's been addressed by Claire Petino, the Secretary of State in her paper of the 15th of May. That has been a big issue. It still is an issue that's enshrined within this today. The second being my bonnet, if you like, is that of not only community impact, but this one that we see today, battery storage. And this is one of the, one of the elements that I want to address. So, actually, I have a friendly amendment to make to the second paragraph here. And that is that after the words, it's just disappeared, it's got a lot smaller now. After the words regarding a solar farms in the second paragraph, I'd like to put in there, if I may, battery storage and associated infrastructure. We're constantly, especially our concern over battery storage. I'd like to put that in there, which would all be at the need, in fact, for the suggestion by Peter Richardson. I think in his comments earlier, he wanted to put at the end of that second paragraph with regards to battery storage, which accounts also cause on the Secretary of State to ensure that such schemes are also located on battlefield sites, et cetera, et cetera. If we put back the storage and associated infrastructure in there, that eliminates that that need. The other issue that was also raised by Peter Richardson, I pretty understand the sentiment behind this, is regarding the energy secretary statement last week. We also asked for clarity on what the test will be, but I don't think Peter was the only one to mention this. To demonstrate the use of agricultural and for solar farms, battery storage and associated infrastructure is necessary. That test, actually, I believe is more appropriately given to planning authorities, not to the Secretary of State. So, I'm very anxious that we don't offer no responsibility to the Secretary of State and that we keep that in here. That isn't in this motion, but it was suggested earlier. So, I just wanted to address that issue, because it came up earlier. One other issue that I just wanted to mention is not within this, but I would like the authority to keep an eye on that. It's an issue that I raised in mastery town hall at a very largely supportive meeting recently, and that was of agricultural land classification. That was also addressed in this 50th of May paper, which I strongly applaud because I think that's very much misnomer, and I have raised that too, from the chair's strategic planning, because it would appear that in many aspects when you've seen planning applications come forward, the applicants can mark their own homework because you don't have any means for question and land classification they give, and a lot of the data, and the information that happens inaccurate. So, that's one to keep an eye on, but I would like this amendment. As you see it there, it's only small, it's very minor, and possibly innocuous, but I think it sits well in that second paragraph, so I'd like to put that in there. Thank you very much, Kevin. Thank you, Councilor Green. Council, all for due, except this is a friendly amendment. Yeah, I do. Thank you, Councilor Green, but I think it's very sensible and it's rich and for picking up on that, and I think it adds clarity. Thank you. Okay. Okay, I just need a seconder for the amendment. And you're happy with that too. Okay, Councilor Cave was seconded. And Councilor Botterall is happy. Right. So we can continue now with debating the current motion, which includes this amendment. As amended. Councillor Jerry Kuntler. Thank you, Chair. I just want to run the clock back to the 2016 when we were voting to leave Europe. To be, I'm a confessor of a remuner, a remuner, that the country voted to leave 2020, January the 31st, we finally left Europe. Or did we? Did we completely leave Europe? The idea was to get our borders back, to get our lands back, so the farming communities and that could bring in, make us more self-sufficient so we can grow our produce. So I was speaking to a farmer this week, they come into my place, I said, so what do you think about when farming? He said, well, Jerry, I'm a bit concerned about it, actually, because are you going to have to be able to grow my teas or my corn or my wheat and that, as much as I'd like to, if we got all these things around. So what he was unfusing is, in fact, that there are other places to put these wind farms on the roofs. He said, I'm happy to have them on my barns and on my houses and all that he said, and places where we can grow produce, because there's 70 million living here now. In 10 years' time, there's going to be 80 million living here. And we got to feed them. I said, good point, very good point. So, and I said, well, look, I support this portion, and I think that Wilts has done enough. We actually have got a lot with farms and taken up space. It's a beautiful county. It's a beautiful country. We're quite high up to the world. We're in the northern hemisphere. I sometimes wonder if we get enough sunlight here to justify having that many wind farms, because during solar farms, sorry, during March, people were taking vitamin D tablets because they were getting a shortage of sunlight, and it was like frustrating for them. So, are we at the right place? And all I'll finally want to say is, there was a hymn written in 1804. And when I just sing the verse where I read it, it was written in 1804, sorry, I just dropped it. I think I read it, I think. It was, and did those feet, in ancient times, walk up on England's mountains green, and was the Holy Lamb of God on England's pleasant pastures seen. Now, that person didn't realize we were going to be having solar farms, I think, in those days. But it is something I think that we should protect in Wiltshire. I support the motion. I just think we've probably done a lot and a lot and enough, but that is all I really want to say, but we came out of Europe, the reason we haven't probably executed it properly yet. Thank you for that diversion, Councillor, Councillor, Councillor, Daniel Cave. I'm going to come back with, draw my speech. Thank you. Councillor Dominic Munns. Thank you, Chairman. I thought as cabinet member for environment, it'd be a little remiss if I didn't speak on this motion. And essentially reiterate some of the points that have been made by colleagues earlier this morning. We're helping to lead the way in Wiltshire when it comes to solar, not just in terms of the number of sites that we have in the county, but also in our policy. Last week, I approved the third rollout of Wiltshire's solar together project, and tomorrow I mentioned this, solar together delivers retrofit solar installations for residents within Wiltshire. And since it started, we've seen installations of more than 1,000 PV systems on homes, 98 retrofit storage batteries, 106 EV charge points, and the combined solar together scheme across Wiltshire. Has seen more than 16 million pounds invested by residents into renewables, which is fantastic. And throughout the life cycle of those installations, we will see 29,500 tons of CO2 reduced in the region as a result. As an authority, we're using solar to help power schools and leisure centers. The leader of this council, if he doesn't have enough to do, is also chair of UK 100, which is a group of local authorities that are working together to combat the worst impacts of climate change. And just last week, just down the hallway, we hosted the Wessex Community Energy Network, where we had the National Grid, we had Wiltshire Climate Alliance, we had community energy groups, and we had elected members from Wiltshire, Dorset, Somerset, South Foster, Sher Bristol, and Baines, all there with this shared vision. So for the record, if there was any doubt, I am very much pro-solar. So long as that solar does not jeopardize our food production, or significantly damage our landscape. The strength of opinion on this subject is really clear. We've seen that from around the chamber. We've seen that from members of the public. And so it helps to reiterate the concerns that I have, that of over-development impact to our surroundings and our enjoyment of the countryside and food production security. And it was during actually that meeting last week, that conference, that I had this debate with Councillor Matthew, where he hinted that planning law should be loosened and conservation restrictions should be relaxed to make it easier to install solar panels and food waste processing plants in our community. And what I would say to everyone in the chamber, take note, please, of both sides of this argument. The need for sustainable energy is real, but we also have to embrace valid concerns about the cumulative impact of large solar installations in Wiltshire. So there is a balance to be found, and I'm really pleased that other members have mentioned this word today, balance. It's really, really key, and it is our job to try and find it in this argument. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor MUNS. Councillor Nick Murray. Thank you, Chairman. So, as caution by yourself, I will not be referring to any particular applications and commenting on the motion specifically. I'd like to start with some sobering facts and add a bit perspective. We're in a climate crisis, which, if we don't address it urgently, will severely adversely impact our future and the prosperity and security of future generations. And as part of addressing this, we need to rapidly decentralise and decarbonise our grid and produce more onshore renewable energy with the UKs to make its targets. The well-being of current and future residents is at stake. According to the Climate Change Committee, the government's independent advisers, the UK is not on forced to meet its fifth and sixth carbon budgets, which are the greenhouse gas reduction targets were committed to by law under the Climate Change Act. Neither are we on target to achieve a 68% reduction in emissions by 2030, which we've committed to under the UN process. Nor are we delivering enough renewable energy to achieve the government's target of 70 gigawatts of solar by 2035, which will require a fivefold increase in solar energy between now and then, which rooftop solar can only play a limited part. The Climate Change Committee has also said that achieving these targets depends upon local action for which local authorities are in a strong position to influence things and demonstrate leadership. And as a council, we need to show leadership for the long-term benefit of current and future generations and acknowledge that these will imply real and difficult changes. Some of the real challenges we need to address as other members have pointed out, and we absolutely need to work harder to bring our residents with us as pointed out by other members, and it will not be easy. Turning to the motion, I think there are a number of factual inaccuracies, the contention that solar farms jeopardize the UK's food security is simply incorrect. So the energy generation supports our farmers and our local food supply, not only through cheaper energy, but by providing farmers with opportunities for diversification and additional income. There's already protection in the national planning policy framework for citing solar farms away from the best and most versatile agricultural land, and we need to make sure we apply this in a way perhaps that we don't apply it when it comes to housing and other development. And other well, we're equally need to apply to that. Other NPPF and which accounts for policies provide protection for landscape and visual impact, which are, of course, very important considerations, although most social solar farms have stringent conditions about screening and where they're located. It's also worth pointing out that solar farms are supported by the NF you who are very interested in food production happens, and the CLA and government polls consistently showed support of 89% making it the most popular form of renewable energy technology. And rather than industrializing our countryside solar farms effectively protect agricultural land since planning permission is time limited, and nothing else can they may be permanent or destructive can be developed on that land in the interim. Soil health is able to recover agricultural activity such as sheep grazing continue and the land gets returned to agricultural use after the permitted period. Biodiversity net gain is usually substantial sometimes as high as 100% and there are benefits such as additional public access and local community benefit funds that can be used for local environmental projects, particularly where community energy is involved. To deliver that target of 70 gigawatts solar will require less than 0.5% of farmland, which is less than the area currently occupied by golf courses, and in Wiltshire only 6% of our renewable energy comes from energy comes from renewable sources, as is stated in the Wiltshire Council's climate change strategy. Wiltshire has no wind generation in the county and few opportunities for other types of renewable energy and is ideally suited to solar with one of the highest levels of sunlight in the UK, as well as considerable suitable lower grade land. Limited grid capacity is actually the key constraint, which is why we need to make the most of the opportunities available with the proper considerations rightly imposed by the planning system. The Council's climate team are quite rightly working hard to promote renewable energy generation working with in partnership to help Wiltshire meet his climate change commitments, and only last week, as was mentioned earlier, hosted the meeting of the West Coast Community Energy Network to consider how more renewable energy can be generated in the county. The motion calls for the Secretary of State to define what is meant by cumulative impacts and take steps to ensure that the developments and I quote are not concentrated so as to industrialize the countryside. Firstly, cumulative and in combination impacts are already considered under the planning system for solar farms as for other developments, and this happens within landscape and visual impact assessments that propose projects. Secondly, once grid connections are a key factor in determining solar farm locations to suggest that the country is being industrialized is misleading to say the least. So the energy doesn't make a noise or smell or pollute the local environment, it creates less traffic than farming, it boosts biodiversity, it protects land from being built upon and improves the quality of soil for future generations of farmers. Hardly what we could be described as industrial. In a recent planning appeal decision at Park Farm in Gillingham, the planning inspector rejected the assertion that solar farms can be described as industrial, stating we have little in common with industrial development, under increasingly becoming accepted as a part of our rural landscape. Can you wind up now, please? Sorry if I've gone over my five minutes, which I didn't think I had. In summary, solar farms are temporary, reversible, provide multiple benefits that they directly address energy security and climate change, which deferest identifies the single biggest threat to UK food security. They're not industrial and food production and farming significantly benefit from them. And they're an essential part of the net zero as a council, we need to vote. Thank you. So, have I gone over five minutes? Well, well over five minutes. Yep. I did warn you just at the five minute mark. Okay, can you sit down, that'd be one sentence to finish off. No. Okay. Thank you. Thanks. Dr Brian Matthew. Thank you, Chair, to correct Councillor MUNS, when suggesting loosening of planning rules, I was talking about greenhouse schemes that can play a part in sequestering CO2 from AD plants and turning it into tomatoes and cucumbers. Back in 2019 I wrote the climate emergency motion, which we as a council voted for on a rugby score of a vote 36 for 32 against and with seven abstentions. We need for renewable energy. However, I also share Council offered and Peter Richardson's concerns for the people of Whitley in the face of the proposed battery storage overlooking their village, especially when another viable location exists. Just to the north of the Milksham substation. I look forward to our cross party discussions and what we can bring forward to the next full Council meeting, but to give you a flavor back in 2013 I attended a meeting about the then proposed line and solar park on the former MOD airfield. At that meeting, I suggested that the best then best practice be adopted of a thousand pounds per megawatt generation capacity for life of the project. This was then taken up and the communities around line have since been benefiting to the tune of 45,000 pounds per annum net into their community solar fund to spend on a range of local projects from repairing community buildings to assisting with those facing energy poverty in their area. A real win for the community. There are however many communities who are not so lucky and either receive less or nothing at all from the renewable energy schemes in their areas. So the motion that we will hope to bring in the future will seek to change that so that all communities with renewable energy schemes in their areas benefit from them. It's true that there is no no longer a feed in tariff, but with the dramatic fall in the price of the technology. This will be well affordable, and I would suggest that it's for us to suggest, but for the secretary of state to consider. It would also promote a feeling of ownership by the residents of our county and not just be good practice, but become standard practice. For now, however, I'm content to vote for this motion. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor David, is it by goal? It's by goal. Thank you for asking, Chairman. Yeah, I will also with with Councillor Matthew, we'll support this motion. In particular, I think given the committees I'm on, I can say without fear of predetermination or bias that a 500 megawatt solar farm is out of place in the United Kingdom. That is the kind of scale of solar farm you see in the deserts of Middle East or mountain tops of India or China, and not in Wiltshire. So I would oppose something of that scale in the UK. However, I do think that we need perspective in looking at this and the stance you take to this motion, and particularly the way it's worded in its language, really depends on the degree to which you believe, if at all, the climate change is a reality, Chairman. If you believe that climate change is a reality, then you'll be looking at what's happening around the world. You'll see that last year was the hottest year on record. You'll see that last year people were dying in their thousands in Africa from tropical cyclones. They were dying from drought in the Horn of Africa. They died from tropical storm Daniel in Libya in their tens of thousands. Those places may seem far away places of which we know little, but closer to home in France last summer, it was estimated that three out of every 100 deaths was attributable to heat waves. That's not so far away from home. And in time, those things will come closer to home. They will come closer to Wiltshire. We're quite sheltered from it at the moment from the worst impacts of climate change, but it will get closer. In the time that our grandchildren are growing up, by the time our grandchildren are old enough to be vulnerable to heat waves, this will be a reality for Britain, because climate change is like an oven. When you turn the oven on and you put your Sunday roast in, you touch it in five minutes time. It's still quite cold to the touch. Touch it in 15 minutes. You can still touch whatever's in the oven. Go back in half an hour. You can't touch it anymore. Go back in two hours. It's roasted. The heat will reach a plateau, but the cooking doesn't stop. The only way to stop your Sunday roast burning is to take it out of the oven or to turn the oven down. And solar panels is part of turning the oven down. We need solar panels in this country if we are going to get to net zero and overcome climate change. At the moment, this particular day, I just looked up solar power as accounting for just 15% of our power in the UK. So, we are going to need more solar. And if we really want to get to net zero and do away with fossil fuels, we're going to need the batteries as well. Because when the wind isn't blowing and the sun is shining, you're going to turn something on to get your power. You can turn on gas quickly. You can turn on batteries quickly. You can't turn on nuclear quickly. So, we're going to need solar. We're going to need batteries. So, I think we need to have a balanced attitude towards these things. And the concern I have about this motion is some of the language here seems to me to be demonizing something that we need. Which is solar power, the industrialization of the countryside, the destroying of farmland. Solar farms at the moment, how much of our land in farmland in Britain do they take up, do you think? 5%? No. 1%. That's what they take up. We need more. We need them in the right places. And we don't need them as big as some of the ones that have been discussed. But we do need them. And so demonizing language, talking about smothering, talking about engulfing. What about this is a public good solar panels, like hospitals. Hospitals are public good. Would you talk about hospitals being industrialization of the countryside? Would you be increasingly concerned about the concentration of hospitals? Would you be saying that hospitals are smothering of farmland? It's a public good solar panel, so we need to understand that, treat them positively, treat it in a balanced way. And given that, I think we're going to be generous about this motion. But in the future, let's try and get a cross-party view on this that has perspective, has balance and is positive about what we need in order to achieve net zero. Thank you, Councillor Brian Dalton. Chairman, thank you very much. Just a couple of points. I can agree with everything that I think most members have said here today. But I've got a couple of corrections, I think, for Councillor Conchler, Jerry, you mentioned the ONS figures. I couldn't believe that we were going to increase by 10 million in 10 years. So I've looked it up. So they predict the Office of National Statistics predict that we're going to hit 70 million by next year and 78 million by 2050. So not 80 million by 2035. And just on a final point, Jerry, I didn't realise all farmers talk do hard, to be honest, but some might, but not all. And I thought you were going to break out with the rendition of Combine Harvester, but on that point, I'll sit down. Councillor Phillip Whitehead. Thank you, Chair. As you know, I quite enjoy seeing Lib Dems squirm and looking comfortable. It's one of my joys. I don't get many in life. So thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor, for achieving that for me today with your stupid speech that went on and on about political things when we were all debating about solar. We talk about cumulative impact here. I serve on the scenario planning committee with Councillor Brown Matthews and I'm very pleased to do so. And he will be aware that recently, over the last two or three years, we've had a young couple who want to farm the land. And they've struggled to get the land, not massive like this, certainly about 90 acres. They've struggled to get permission for a barn. And they've now got temporary accommodation on there for three years. What a contrast between that and a company who can put a solar farm wherever they seem to want to. And what we haven't got is the cumulative impact of that on Wiltshire. On both sides of Wiltshire, that's the farms that farmers struggling to get their farms set up in the first place. And that's the impact of solar farms around small villages. And that's what this motion is all about is definition for so we can act on in planning meetings on cumulative impact. We're all in support of solar. Within support of renewable energy, but we want to know the cumulative impact on our residents. I'll pull Councillor Rogers up as well, because he said that the residents spoke eloquently today, and they can go along and speak at planning meetings and they do. But for one application of one solar farm, it's not too large at one planning meeting, it gets very difficult to say no to it. That's why we want to know the cumulative impact of all the solar farms, all the solar farms in Wiltshire. So that their elegance speeches can then count because we'll have some data. So we're asking for data, we're asking to measure the data across the UK, the impact on Wiltshire and measure the data across Wiltshire, so it can make informed decisions. And if we do that, it's not farming against solar, it's not solar against farming, it's making the right decisions. And again, Councillor Mathews, I do have a problem with people receiving handouts and communities receiving large financial handouts for implementing solar farms or anything. Because there will be some thought body or another community affected by that, just a little further away, that doesn't get a penny. And are you bribing those people to accept something they wouldn't? Let's make the right decision. Let's not offer bribes. Let's make the right decision and put all these things renewables, solar, nuclear, where they should be to have the best benefit for every single resident in the UK, all across the UK, and make sure we do it correctly. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Whitehead. Councillor Chuck Berry. Thank you, Chairman. I want to really say a big thank you to the sun and nuclear fusion because without that, a, we wouldn't be here debating it, b, we wouldn't have an issue. And similarly, it's good and bad because without the sun, we wouldn't have had the carbon problems we got now. But what effectively the sun did is it developed its own battery system, which we then used, stored up for our industrial revolution. Now we're in a situation where we've got to close that gap. We can't carry on using that stored carbon to produce energy because it's endangering the planet. So what we've got to do is use it directly from the sun. So solar power is a great thing. Nuclear fusion is a great thing, provided it's 100 million miles away. And ultimately, that's what keeps our planet alive. I think the sun is good for you. It's good for your health. But solar power, if it endangers your environment, it's bad for your mental health. So absolutely let's promote it, but let's promote it rationally. Let's promote it sensibly. Let's have it where it's used, but not too close to people to upset their mental health. We've got to live with it. And so we need to embrace it. And the further we embrace it, the better we will understand how it can be used. And Jerry, the further north you go, the more the sun stays alight, right the way through the summer. So you've got the land of the midnight sun in Norway. So it's not necessarily your place in the north and the south. It's where you are in terms of the sun coming in. And I think it's important to remember that too. But a big up to the sun today, and a big up to solar power today, and our ability to use that to maintain our planets for the good of all humanity. And it starts with Wilcher, but not necessarily here. Thank you very much, Chairman, and I think I'm probably the last one up. So I just wanted to briefly talk about my experiences that I've had with Sony together, and which the third phase of which is being rolled out as Councilman mentioned a little bit earlier. I had it fitted off. They came to see me last year and I went ahead with it. And it is fitted to my house and devices and it was fitted at the end of February. I had so far, it comes with this, it came with batteries, I have 11 panels fitted and batteries, and it also comes with this app. So I can tell you exactly to the minute and to the kilogram. So far, since it was set up back in the end of February, I have reduced my CO2 by 986, rather, 0.2 kilograms. I have saved 395.7 kilograms of stand coal, and I have ensured that 54 trees have not been chopped down for my generation of power. So all I can say is that so far, so good, it's working, days like today, not only am I generating enough power to power my house, I'm charging up my batteries for 100%, and I'm also putting power back into the grid. So, happy days all ran, so I would encourage any of you, I would encourage your constituents, your residents, to get out there and have a look at service together as a way forward, because if we all take a little step with this, we don't, we're not going to need these massive numbers, and acres worth of sale of funds. Thank you very much, Jeff. Thank you, Councillor Jacobs, Councillor Sarah Gibson. Thank you, Chair. One quick clarification, Councillor Berry, if we had nuclear fusion, an awful lot of other things wouldn't be necessary, it's a nuclear fission that we do have at the moment. Nuclear fusion is, right, sorry, I was thinking that you were, yes, yes, I was thinking that you were hopeful that we had actually finally got to nuclear fusion which case none of this would be necessary. And I just wanted to make one quick point, which is that we mustn't, at this point, forget that the biggest threat to our agriculture is climate change. If you look at the number of fields, and you don't have to go that far from here to look at fields that are flooded in May, that is agriculture that is no longer viable because of climate change. It isn't that any point start demonising our renewables, and whilst we are all aware that Wilcher is playing its part in terms of solar, that is partly because we don't have the capacity in our landlocked county to provide wave power or hydroelectric or even wind off shore. But we are undoubtedly going to end up with more solar than we are other forms of renewables. So I urge most of our councillors, it's possible to work with this cross party motion and try and see if we can turn this very commendable motion into something that is positive and does not make any attempt to demonise the very important work that our renewables are doing in this county. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Gibson. Oh, Councillor Nick Pontus, sorry, I hope you were the last speaker. So do I. We got homes to go to. Thank you very much. I don't see anybody on this side demonising anything to do with solar power or any of the renewables. On the contrary, I see us supporting it. The first sentence in there is whilst not opposed to the principle of development of solar farms. So that in itself tells you that we all support renewable energy and solar farms. And without wanting to repeat what most people have said today in the right places. An example of the right places in Bradenstoke, it was mentioned earlier, there are 250 acres of land in linom that have got solar panels on it. Just to put some context on that, that's 0.4 of a square mile. We heard earlier that this application in Limedown is for 13 square miles of our beautiful countryside that our farmers use to produce food to feed us. Just think about that for a moment. Think about the impact that all of that solar might have on our ability to be sustainable. And I know that farmers have been mentioned today, but I was brought up on a farm. Some of this land that's being suggested is farmland that some of my relatives use as well, whether they're tenant farmers or owner farmers. And I've been in my youth, I was out there harvesting on those fields. My grandchildren, I would hope, would still have the ability to want to be able to do the same as I did as a child and go out and use them from a leisure point of view as well. So please, let's think about this from the point of view of not demonizing anything on the contrary, supporting solar panels, but supporting them in the right places at the right time. And let's think about the future from both perspectives, land and food production and sustainability from our natural resources that we have. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, I will use this opportunity just to wrap up and can I thank everybody who's spoken today. It's been quite an interesting debate and in particular members of the public, but also made some very useful points. So, as it's already been noted, we have had some good news of late in that the government clearly got wind of the motion today here, and issued the ministerial statement. I think that is a reflection itself of the, the tensions, the pressure that's building up around the country and in the countryside, in particular on this issue. And we already had, had some clarity on the quality of farmland, which can be used. It's actually already been admitted that some of the land, which is in the lime down proposal is actually considered to be best and most versatile. So I think when that comes forward, that will be something that needs to be interrogated in some detail. The recent announcement ministerial announcement also mentioned mentioned several times here today, but it makes clearer the concept of cumulative impact. And I'm probably this is a little bit rubbish in the sense I had to make it myself, but I have to get some pieces of maps. But you can probably just about see the pink and purple markings, which show the solar farms that are in Wiltshire, either planned or already there. So, you know, if that is not cumulative impact, when you've got places, as we've said, surrounded on three sides around Milksham by solar facilities, Norton would be sort of almost obliterated if the lime down proposal goes ahead. So, you know, that is a measure of the cumulative impact. So I'm afraid I don't take the argument that was made from Councillor Vigar that this is trivial and have no particular impact. It is, if you're surrounded on three sides and you're about to be surrounded on the fourth, that has an adversely profound impact on your, your whole wellbeing, probably. The final point have been asked, what are we actually trying to achieve here today? Well, I think the answer is that this is not a debate over purely technical matters or really over technical matters at all. And it's not over one site, although of course, lime down has concentrated the mind somewhat and has been referred to several times. This is debate which is designed to set down a marker. It's designed to express the considered views of Wiltshire, which Council Wiltshire residents of Wiltshire, and to set the strategic overview of the authority. And it's been discussed today by way of future planning document as to how solar can be ruled out. So it's going to be, I think, less reliance on large scale field, mountain arrays. And with all their associated paraphernalia, which we've, we've now got in the motion. These are the things that are impinging on our landscapes, and it's going to be more emphasis on exploiting smart sites with potential. It's not to be anti-solar, just to say it again, but to be anti-certain types of solar, which rely on the industrialization of the farmland by the nature of them coming into beer. So bring on solar. Let's have it. Bring on solar, but in the right places. That's what this is all about. I rest the case. Thank you. Councillor Auford, as a mover of the motion, do you have any final comments before we move to the vote? Yes, I do. Thank you. So I'll keep them brief because I know everyone's quite keen. I wanted to thank you Chairman for allowing me to come back in. It's been an interesting debate. I think issues have been raised that go beyond the motion. And particularly welcome the contributions from the public. Many of them have stuck it out. So thank you to Peter. Richard and Steve Holt, Mary Gilmore, some might fit, Philip Addis, Helena, Helen Hicks and Matthew Shaw. So thanks for coming in and sticking with us. I think probably just needs to add a moment, a little bit of clarity. I think it's probably a little bit over simplistic to compare climate change to an oven, but I appreciate the effort. Councillor, and Councillor, and give some just to mention, this wasn't a cross-parting notion. I put it in. You tried to amend it and changed my mind. So I appreciate it. Okay, but I appreciate your support nonetheless. But what's really come across is just how passionate people feel on this issue. Everyone's has a view. But what is clear is that we'll recognise the challenge here and the value of this motion in a healthy democracy. We debate issues and we seek to forge a consensus so we can all move forward together. I think that in what we've achieved here from listening to the speakers is that we are moving towards that consensus. And I do appreciate everyone coming in behind this motion if indeed they can. And so, one last time, I'd just like to ask everyone to support this motion. And then we can speak with one voice to control the cumulative impact and the excessive development of solar and infrastructure. Thank you. You can't solve it. Okay, in accordance with the Constitution, then we will now move to the vote. There will be a recorded vote on this item. So I assume it's all up. Thank you. How much. 75 for the motion to against six abstentions. Okay, so the motion is carried. Thank you. Well done. Right. Yes. Thank you very much everyone who's stuck this one out and very good of you to stay here for so long. So we're now going to move back to agenda item 10 on which is community governance review. I'm glad to, glad to see Councillor O'Neill's comeback way dashed off to. So would you like to proceed with the community governance review. Thank you, Chairman. I must confess, I had to quickly use the bathroom before we got to my item. So I was very quick and did make it back on time. And I'm about three hours late to the party, but can I just take this opportunity to congratulate you on your election to the office of chairman. For this for coming year, clearly, Councillor Dean is very much happy about about that particular election. And I would like to move the proposals set out in the agenda pack on page 127. They are also up on the screen in front of you as well. Next slide, please. So I think that's a members will probably now be very familiar with this process is something that we've been through a couple of times already. So this is the third round of recommendations from the electoral review committee in this particular council term. So if you'll recall, we did this previously in 2022 and 2023. I'd say I think previously the changes were a bit more significant compared to what we are recommending as an electoral review committee today. So hopefully this shouldn't be too long process. Just a quick reminder for those that have not been here previously for other recommendations appreciates. Maybe you might have missed the others. The electoral review committee is the committee here at Wiltshire that makes recommendations to Council on community governance reviews. So reviews take place because of requests from city town of parish councils. Could be a public petition, as was the case with Derryhill and Studley, the sort of county organization that we looked at previously, or even from internal stakeholders. So, you know, elections might notify us that there's an anomaly somewhere that needs correcting. So we can look at all types of governance arrangements for city town of parish councils. So that can be boundary changes, boarding arrangements, the names, the name of a parish council, and many, many more. But throughout this whole process, there's a huge amount that goes on into this behind the scenes. We are judging our recommendations against statutory criteria that's set down for us. So it's not us that comes up with the criteria, and that is very much around securing effective and convenient local governance and reflecting community interest and identity. And I must just emphasize at this point, as it does get brought up quite frequently, that as a committee, we do not look at precept levels when we are forming our recommendations. That is something we're very clear about. We're not allowed to do that. We don't, we don't discuss those elements. Next slide. So you have a number of recommendations in front of you today. As I said, a huge amount of work goes into this. Those colleagues that are on the electoral review committee, I'm sure, can confirm that we look at a huge amount of data and evidence, including projected electoral figures for the next five years. We also look at other potential anomalies that might be within the area that we're looking at. So even if we're asked to look at a specific issue where something has been identified, it doesn't stop us from then looking at other aspects within that area. I think it's just worth mentioning that. We do consult extensively on any recommendations. So we do a pretty consultation where we try to gather as much information as possible, and then we very much look to informing people that are affected by any potential changes. We do a formal consultation. We hold public events where there are significant changes, or we think there's a lot of interest in a particular area and send up briefing notes, discussions with local members. So we really do take this process very seriously. So we listen to that feedback that we receive from the various different consultations, and then try to address the comments that we receive as much as possible. And then we look at our draft recommendations and say, do we want to propose further changes and are we going to consult again, or are we dropping a recommendation, or are we moving it to full counsel for approval? Just want to emphasize as well, this is not a referendum. None of these recommendations are referendums in terms of the public view. So Council can, and has in the past, prove changes that are opposed by the majority of the sort of submissions that we receive, particularly where strong evidence is received or looked at to suggest making a particular change. So it isn't just a sort of a binary. If it's opposed by a majority of people that respond to us, then we have to go with that view, but we obviously do try and take that feedback very seriously. I'm very fortunate to chair a committee that I think is is truly cross party. We are very, very careful to try and keep the politics out of the electoral view committee. And it works very, very well that way. I think it's fair to say that we do try to reach consensus and we generally do on virtually all matters. It's very rare that we we disagree. And I think that is certainly the case with these recommendations here. If approved today, these changes don't come into effect immediately. So this will be from the local elections in 2025. And there are a small number of changes that are going to require the consent of the local government boundary commission for England, as they are areas that were looked at and amended as part of the wheelchair counts Council boundary review process that we went through about five years. Or go else also ago. And so that is something that we've done with other review areas and have been granted permission. So hopefully that won't be too much of an issue. Next slide, please. I'm now going to give a short overview of each of the recommendations. I'm going to start with recommendation one, which is mere and seals. And our recommendation here is that we transfer the area marked as a from the parish of seals to me. And if I could have the next slide, please. That's, no, sorry, you went on too far. So actually the next slide. That's the more detailed view of it. And so the area marked in a contains a factory. So you look at that and think, okay, well, there's no residents living there. It actually contains a factory, but more significantly. A recent permission was granted for a care home facility. So we know there will be a number of residents living in that area. The request initially came from mere town council. And as a committee, we felt that clearly the residents that care home would relate to me as much, much more than they would. And that's much more remote. We did receive a significant response to the pre consultation following extensive publicity, 115 responses on this one. So it is the one that is more controversial than some of the others that will talk about. And a lot of those were against the proposal to transfer area over to me. Most of that was from residents in seals and predominantly talking about the loss of future finance to see to seals. So when we talk about that as an aspect that we're not allowed to look at, that is something that we have to discount. We met with mere town council and seals, informally in October last year, and we did actually hold a public meeting on this particular recommendation. That was well attended. And I think it's fair to say that it was quite a lively and interesting debate on that evening. And then during the formal consultation, we had 14 formal responses, 12 are in favor to against. We looked at that in the electoral review committee meeting in April, and looked at all that data we decided to stick with our original draft recommendation. And the final recommendation is here with you today. So recommendation to this is a troubles and north Bradley. Our recommendation is to transfer area marked in B the three B's that you've got there from the Paris Trobridge to north Bradley. So a bit of a history lesson on this one I appreciate background might not be apparent to everybody. During our review of the Wiltshire Council boundaries, part of this area here was transferred to Trobridge as part of a development site that was due to come forward, and where the line was drawn, you see, you got wood marsh road there, just sort of northwest of the image. Actually took some properties that are accessed off that road, and were in north Bradley and took them into the Trobridge boundary. So what we are proposing is to correct that because in terms of good governance, obviously, it's not ideal that you've got those properties being accessed from one road, whereas everything else in off that road is accessed. Sorry, all the other properties off that road are part of another parish. So we probably had broad agreement on that from Trobridge town council north Bradley, they work quite closely together to come up with a close nine, although I think north Bradley possibly would have preferred a larger slice of land, but we are where we are. Only a small number of representations on this particular issue, even though it was quite a hot topic. So for in total, we received three in favor one against. Next slide, please. So I think the rest of relatively non contentious and early minor corrections. So I'm just going to rattle through these. So you've got soulsbury there. So our recommendation is to transfer the area mark C from some Francis and Stratford to Milford, and the area mark D transferred from Milford to St Francis and Stratford. And the reason for this is that you have the orientation of the properties means that they're currently sitting a different division to the other properties on the same street and obviously that's quite confusing and is not good governance. Next slide, please. Brinkworth and Rawwood and Bassett. So our recommendation is to transfer the area marked E from Rawwood and Bassett to Brinkworth. You have neighboring properties that are very close together there. And we are recommending to unify them into to one parish and that's Brinkworth. Next slide, please. Next recommendation is is Chippinham. This is in the sort of the Pucheum area. You again, you know, you have a single road there where properties on one side of the road versus the other are in different wards, not only Chippinham town council wards, but also unitary boards. So we are proposing to take the area marked in G and move that from hardness and central to the Pucheum ward. Next slide. And then additional one looking at Trobridge. So transfer the area marked H from Grove to Lambrock. So again, you've got ward boundary there that's drawn down the road, whereas properties on that road are currently in different wards. So we think that should be corrected. Next slide, if you could just skip to an excellent Tara. So you've got a couple of aspects here for Calm. The one on the left there is transferring the area marked with I from the parish of Calm without to Calm. The current boundary, which is marked there in purple, actually will shortly cut right through the bellum site and actually cuts the dwelling in half. So we are proposing to change that boundary and align it with the black line so everything in that development is part of the same parish. On the right hand side, the current boundary goes down the high street. So you have properties on the high street, those on one side in one ward and those on the other side in another ward. So we are proposing to transfer the area marked J from Chilvesta and Abbott ward to Calm central. Next slide, please. And then recommendation eight, so there's a small dwelling there in the area marked L. And to the south, that is is the breath and even south ward. And so we are recommending that the area marked L is transferred from breath and even north to breath and even south. You can see the proximity there versus the remoteness of it to the rest of north ward. Next slide, please. There's three areas here that we've looked at, so transfer the area marked M from milk from south to milk from forest. So sorry, transfer area marked M from milk from south to milk from forest. So the properties that you can see there were just the right of that little M on the screen in the bottom left of the presentation. They are part of bowl will place, whereas as things stand they are in a different ward to the other properties in bowl place and then transfer area marked N from milk from forest to milk from south. So property marked N is a single dwelling there, possibly a flat I think above a shop on the high street is part of the high street and it's felt it should be included in south rather than the other ward is then everything on the high street would be part of the same ward. And then to transfer the area marked Q from milk from forest to milk from south. So this actually was a late request that came in from M from town council. So originally we'd sort of just talked about the aspects on the left hand side there and as part of that they identified this additional anomaly to us where you have some dwellings on coronation road in one ward and those on the other side in another ward. So we are proposing to correct that as part of these recommendations. Next slide, please. And then this is Westbury broke Dilton Marsh. This is actually very, very simple. If you look at the existing purple line there on the map that currently runs off the line of the water course and potentially through a dwelling or two. That's sort of close to whether sort of the lettering CS is we are recommending that we actually amend that boundary line and bring it down onto the water course where we think it should be. Next slide, please. And then Southwick North Bradley we are proposing that the area marked P be transferred from Southwick parish currently in and move it over to North Bradley. This actually came to us following a query to the elections team is there was some ambiguity on who exactly was the console T from parish council point of view on a planning application that came in and actually realized that the current boundary line. Sort of splits the tiny settlement of Scotland that I'm sure there's probably a joke in there somewhere. And it actually currently runs through at least one property in that area. So we thought it would be a good idea to correct that particular issue. And we did reach out to the various parish councils involved. North Bradley came back and said they would be supportive of that change and a resident in the area also confirmed that to. Next slide please. Okay, I think that probably brings me to the end of the recommendations just a couple of final remarks if I can. Proposals are back up on the screen there but I just want to take this opportunity to say a massive massive thank you to our officer team. I know we say it every time when we go through this process and we look at these recommendations but they put a huge amount of time and effort into supporting us on this. And Lisa and Kieran we really couldn't do this without you. And so thank you very much. And I'd like to. I'll sit now. Thank you, Councillor Neill. Councillor Grant, I think you were going to second this. That is quite correct and I've raced back from a family wedding in Epping to be here for this very vital discussion this afternoon. I'm pleased to have arrived in time to second Councillor Neill's proposals. I know for a lot of colleagues in the chamber this may seem rather dull and tedious stuff but I do have to say for the individuals concerned in these communities. It's actually a rather important decision that are being made and particularly to the relevant town and parish councils as well. And I echo Councillor Neill's commendation of our ex and officer team and his comments about the way this committee has both behaved. I think it's been a model of constructive collaboration and cooperation and quite a lot of share hard work. Thank you, Councillor Neill. I've had the privilege of being his vice chair and Councillor, Billing, also as his vice chair in the course of this particular council. I think this brings us to the end if these recommendations are adopted of the work of the electoral review committee and no doubt a new electoral review committee will be formed and the best of British luck to them when they get into their stuff. Thank you. Okay, I think we now hear hear from group leaders before opening the debate for other members. So, Councillor. Thank you very briefly. I think these make sense. I think we've got clear evidence that the committee has done its usual thorough job in making sure that sensible recommendations are coming forward. I think it's a really responsible, mature way to address this long may continue. I'm very happy with them. Thank you, Councillor Thorne. And just to pay tribute to Councillor O'Neill and his team, I am a member of the committee would have missed most of the meetings for reasons that people will be aware of. I have to say I am astonished by the degree and the amount of time that's expanded on getting these decisions absolutely right. I think Councillor Grant's right is a model of cross party stroke cross Councillor coordination and agreement. And I think we've come up with the absolutely correct recommendations in the paper. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you. Councillor Clark is not here. Oh, Councillor Wright. Thank you, Councillor, Ricky Rogers. I'm very thorough review German happy to support. Thank you. So I now open the item to debate. If anybody wishes to speak to this item, please press your buttons now. Councillor George jeans. First of all, I'll have my congratulations, Bridget, to becoming chairman. The bit late in the day. Never mind. I've done it. The I'd like to also thank cabinet member, Ashley, who highlighted to me this morning that nobody from mere or zio's despite you hearing it was contentious is taking the trouble to attend today. So I contacted them and that they were told when Ashley came to me or along with other members of the electoral review committee, which I was free, please put forward. Everybody's got every opportunity to speak, and that they were told that it would be at this full council today. They both tell me that they knew nothing of it being on the agenda the day because it's sort of inside where it said the electoral review committee isn't it is called community governance change, as opposed to changing the borders but still. I'm just sticking the fact because I represent seals, I represent me, I must state that I sit on, I also, I'm a member, elected member of mere town council, and that I wish to stay neutral on this one. I wish I should be abstaining, but at least I pass back the reasons that appears to be nobody here to speak the day. It's contentious in that I'd also like to thank the electoral review committee, because they spoke on teams they gave me. I tried to stick to factual comment, which I'm sure Ashley will. Encour with them, I tried to take neither side on this, and all I can do is thank everyone, including the officers care and everyone else for all their hard work. Thank you. Thank you George, Councillor Matthew Dean. I just like to make a point about bureaucracy and money. This Council has spent so much money and so much officer time on boundary reviews over the last 12 years, it is staggering the amount of resource that has been put into this. You know, you look at other big unitary authorities, and they might review their parish boundaries once every decade. And we're doing something here where we're reviewing our boundaries on an ad hoc basis all the time. And I just think if you wanted, if the next administration wants to take some painless budget cuts, one of the things they could definitely do is just move to perhaps an annualised, or even once in administration round of boundary reviews, because my goodness, it would not have saved some money. Thank you, Councillor Dean. I've lost the plot now. Where am I going? I think we moved to the vote. I didn't. Thank you, Chairman. I wasn't going to speak, but Matthew Dean caused more harm in his quest for boundary changes than any other person in his Council. So I'll find out really odd. He wants to save some money now. Now he's got it all wrong. Well, I am stood up. I sat through this committee from its inception, four different Chairman, all done an excellent job. The committee's been totally impartial and objective, and I'm pleased to be a member of it all. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Stuart Wheeler. Thank you, Chairman. I wasn't going to speak, but Councillor Dean has, of course, done me into action as I was the first chairman of the electoral review board back when this Council. The council formed in 2009. These reviews, we inherited a situation in '09 when we had a huge amount of work to do, which was actually, in some respects, very contentious. And I think the work of the committee since has been to actually make sure that these grumbles and concerns of our population, our electorate, are met and dealt with. And the proposals come from parish councils, town councils, and we sit and look at them, and I think the committee does an excellent job and actually stops an awful lot of aggravation that would otherwise take place. Because, as Councillor Grant has said, it has been dealt with properly in an orderly fashion, and in such a manner that there is no political debate arising because people feel they're not being properly represented. And I think what Councillor Dean says shows a total misunderstanding of the need for this committee and the work it does in world. Thank you, Councillor Wheeler. Does Councillor O'Neill have any comments before we move to the vote? I do. Thank you, Chairman. I'll come back to Councillor Thorne and Councillor Jeans in a second. But I think to Councillor— Councillor Dean, Councillor Wheeler and Councillor McLaren have already set out quite nicely why I think that, you know, those in this chamber probably don't agree with the view that he expressed. But I think ultimately this is a price you pay for democracy. Yes, there's some bureaucracy. Yes, there's some red tape. But in the grand scheme of things, it's a very small sum in terms of officer time, and actually a significant amount of time comes from us, the members. We do a huge amount of work as well, so I don't accept that there's a huge impact there. And I think you have to react to the changing circumstances in our communities. If you just said, Okay, we'll just store this stuff up and then we'll just leave it, any development that takes place over a number of years, you're just going to say, Oh, we know there was an extension to a particular town there, but we're going to leave it set in a rural parish area for the next ten years. And then that becomes a huge issue about then representation, about the focus on the relevant issues for people, so I don't think it's just as simple as saying that we can ignore these things. You can't clear them up, you end up with a huge long list, and then you have a situation like we've had here where we're starting to try and get through them and get through that backlog. And so I have to say, I don't agree with your comments, I'm afraid. Councillor Thorne, thank you very much for your kind words, very much appreciate that. Your presence and input on the committee was sorely missed, and hope to work with you again on that in the future. Councillor Jeans, I made the point to you because I was very surprised, obviously, that nobody did come up to speak today, given the sort of the enthusiastic behaviour that we experienced in the public meeting, we did try very, very hard to encourage them to come along. I was quite clear in that public meeting that the recommendation would be looked at, the draft recommendation would be looked at at our meeting in April, and that these changes, if they were to go forward, would be on the agenda, most likely at this Council meeting. So I'm afraid I've done as much as I possibly can, I think we've done everything we can here today, and not sure there was much more we could do. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor Neill. Okay, in accordance with the Constitution, there will be a recorded vote on this item, so can you indicate on your microphone console, whether you're voting for the motion against or if you are abstaining. Looks like a resounding 81 votes before the motion, no against in one abstention. I don't know why they don't come up anymore. Anyway, that was the result. Thank you. So we have done a gender item 11, which is the motion, so we move now on to constitutional updates, a gender item 12 proposed changes to the Constitution. Thank you, Chair, and I have just realized the error in my ways when it came to the previous item, and I didn't seek a seconder before I continued with my presentation. So I do apologize for that, but I'll now move the proposal set out in the agenda pack on page 173 and seek a seconder. So members, you have before you proposed changes to the Constitution, or sections this time, so you've got part 11a, so they're up on the screen there, corporate parenting panel, part five access to information procedure rules, part seven cabinet procedure rules, and part eight overview and scrutiny procedure rules. This is all partly changes have really come from the work that as a Constitution focus group we have been doing to review as many sections of the Constitution as possible. Some of it is very out of date. I've said that previously, and has not been touched since the formation of which Council many, many years ago. Focus group is very much a cross party group is chaired by myself. The work that we do is very, very interesting. It is an absolutely fascinating topic. If any of you wish to come and observe the work that we do the door is always open, please do come along. I'm not sure you'll take me up on the offer. But we do have very, very robust and detailed discussions about precise wording. And before it comes here, I think, Council already mentioned earlier that we've met six times in the last 12 months to look at various issues. Some of them are here today. Some will come forward later as part of another batch of changes to look at. We do try and reach consensus where we can, very much like we do with the electoral review committee. I think it's fair to say we generally do. And certainly with these changes here. I think we're pretty much all on the same page. I think unanimous across the board. Very rarely do we need a formal vote to take any of this stuff forward and decide what we're doing. That said, focus group is not the sort of body that actually is recommending these changes to you must be clear on that is standards standards committee that does that. So we're just the advisory body. And all of these changes have been through the usual process through two standards and then recommended onto you here today. So just on these changes that we are looking at is fair to say there's no substantial changes here. Really, it looks like quite a lot of you look at the actual documents. Because you've got those track changes. And so if you've got sections that have been moved about, you see lots of red. It doesn't necessarily mean that it's been deleted. It may have just been moved elsewhere. So you have got those clean copies in there as well if you want them. And the updates that we've got here are really predominantly to reflect changes after the adoption of other documents. So in the case of a corporate parenting panel, that's as a result of an updated strategy. And to reflect legislation. So if something changes in legislation or we're not reflecting something correctly or changes for clarity where there might be ambiguity in the wording, for example. And then lastly, in this case here today, documenting practices where we currently undertake them, but we do not set them out fully in the Constitution. That's particularly the case with the overview and scrutiny procedure rules. So Chairman, I'm not planning on going through these in great detail. Otherwise, we will literally be here for hours. And I'm sure you'll be shouting and wanting to go home. There was a very thorough briefing offered last week. Thank you to Kieran for that. And that was also emailed out to all members. So would you like me just to summarize what's in there or do you want me to just sit down now and do you want me to sit down? Okay. It was fascinating reading at all. I'm sure everybody would say that. So I think we move on to hear from group leaders now. Councillor Klue. Thank you in the interests of honesty. I'm not sure fascinating is the word I would use, but there were elements in there that were definitely interesting. I think everything that makes sense. I really have no comments to add. Thank you. Councillor Thorne. Thank you, Chairman. Well, I have to say it would be a wonderful day. All cabinet members sat down as backbench members tell them to sit down. I think we've introduced a new innovation perhaps at this particular meeting. Again, I'm a member of the focus group. Again, for obvious reasons, I've not been able to attend, but I have to say again, the degree of discussion, debate and thoughtful process. Lead us to where we are. So I'm not into raise any issues. I have absolute faith in the members that have taken part in this process, particularly led by Councillor Neill. I'm very happy and will be supporting the changes. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you. Councillor Wright. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I'll speak as a member at this moment, this opportunity. I think it was a very well run organisation. Thanks to Councillor O'Neill. But I'd like to say a message to Kieran. Should I ever sit in a black chair? He's chosen subject will be the wheelchair council constitution. Thank you. Councillor Vicky Rogers. Yeah, thank you, Chair. I'm also a member of this group. I'd like to say it's been a pleasure serving on it. It's been painful, but it's been thorough. And I think it's important that the work, particularly, I want to mention Richard Bricken, who challenged many, many items in many, many sections of wording. I think it was the right thing to do. I urge you, please, to support this and let's put this group to bed, please. Thank you. So I now open the item to general debate. So any members wishing to speak, please, can you use your punch or button on your console? Be helpful. Oh, Councillor SEED. Chair, thank you very briefly. I have get crashed a couple of these. They've been really useful, the constitutional focus groups. I raised one point for going forward. We've had a bit of chewing and frying earlier on about predetermination, the 2011 Localism Act, and where our constitution, in my opinion, is at variance with the 2011 Localism Act. And I would ask that going forward, the cabinet member and chair of the constitution focus group might like to put that on the agenda for future discussion, because I really do feel that it would benefit this council. Were that to be properly, those two documents be properly aligned at the moment, they're not. Thank you, Councillor SEED. As a Councillor, Neil, there's no one else who wishes to speak. So as moved as a motion, do you have any final comments before we move to the vote? I do, Chairman. I'll just address the point made by Councillor SEED if I can. Councillor SEED, I think you're quite right. The section sections that you talk about are confusing at best. I'll leave it at that. I have already asked officers to put it on the agenda for our next meeting. And so we will make sure that you receive an invite to that so you can make your representation. Lovely, thank you. So in accordance with the constitution, there'll be a recorded vote on this item. So please can you indicate on your console, whether you are voting for the motion against the motion or abstaining from the motion. So 78, 78 for the motion, none against the no abstentions. Thank you. It's carried. So other items of business, a gender item 13 is the Integrated Emergency Management Guide. I will ask Councillor Richard Chloe as leader of the Council to introduce this item and move the motion. The report is that pages 233-238 of the summons. Councillor Chloe is to move. Thank you, Chair. If I start by moving the motion and seconder. Thank you. I won't pretend I've got a long speech to give here, but this is a really important, a really important set of documents. And I do want to just summarize why we are looking at them and why they're here. If any authority should know what the need is to have a good set of major instance and emergency plans, it would be Wiltshire after Novajok. When we were looking at that, certainly from from a cabinet perspective, we noticed early in the day that there'd been a major instance declared at Salisbury Hospital, and after a while it became apparent that it was much more serious than that. They didn't have plans and they existed, but they certainly didn't have a massive amount of clarity to them. And what we now have in front of us is a set of plans and actions and particularly action cards that mean any officer from this Council were we to have a similar incident, or, I haven't forbid, we do, even if we would have a less serious incident, they would be able to go to this to take out the card that tells them what they need to do, and how the responsibilities are in a specific type of incident, and it would make action and reaction significantly easier. I think it's worth bearing in mind that as members actually our role in an emergency or a major instance is to let officers get on with it and make sure that we are updated. It's not our job to step in and take charge. That's why we need these plans so officers know precisely what they need to be doing. And then after dealing with a stressful situation where you're having to cope with things you really are geared up to cope with a chemical incident in the middle of Salisbury. And having that plan, having that simple guide is critical. Just to give a quick summary from page 241 I read it all out, but it gives examples of four incidents and to what extent we would respond to them how we would treat them. So if you look at storm, but best I'll storm Karen, those would have been considered business as usual, but they will big storms that caused a parameter flooding, a parameter disruption to the network, but it was something we could cope with we didn't need to put any plans in place. The aims would be fire for those who recall it we had a book of facts that put fire and aims pre that would be considered an emergency, because there were several families that needed relocation it involved several council departments that had to come forward. But it was something we could deal with inside our own our own resources our own remit working with the fire authority. If you then look at storm hank another set of flooding but this time significantly worse we got stretched. We got breaking but we got stretched we had flooding in Mulberry that meant that, again, we had residents who needed relocating at speed. We got to the point where the between us with the police we were struggling to get roads closed in the way that we needed given the sheer volume of road closures. The police weren't able to respond to everything. Again, it was an emergency it wasn't a major incident we could cope with it inside our resources, but it was definitely something where that greater degree of focus was required. It's all very instant clearly a major instant I mean it involved national governments involved international politics at times. I won't run through the rest of it the information is all there. The only thing I will ask to make sure is that we have both paper and electronic copies of this. In case we get hit by something that takes our power out so that officers can get to a physical physical copy in the corner I will make sure I keep this draft sitting inside my office so there's at least a copy there. And aside from that I think that probably says everything I need to say it's it's a bit dry it's a bit dull but it's really important to have in place. I really would thank officers for the work that has gone into preparing it. That time spent preparing advanced means when a crisis does happen you know what you're doing. Thank you. I will now call on the other group leaders before opening the debate for members. Councillor Thorne. Thank you. Nothing from Graham Wright nothing from Councillor Rogers. Does anybody wish to make any other comment wish to debate this item. I can't see anyone names coming up on the screen. So there's no point me asking you if you've got any points rising from the debate because I hasn't been one. So let's move to the vote. And all those in favour please say aye. All those against say no. And all those abstaining please indicate no abstentions. Okay lovely thank you. The next item on the agenda is the parish name change. So I call upon Councillor Ascio Neil to introduce this item as Chairman of the Electoral Review Committee. Report is on pages 359-362 of your summons. Thank you Chairman. I had prepared a 10 minute speech for this item but I get the sense that maybe you'd like me to cut it down slightly so maybe we'll go with just five instead. So I can't move the proposals that are set out in the agenda pack on page 359, seeker seconder. Fantastic. Okay I'll keep it brief. Reports basically seeks Council approval to change the name of cliff pipard parish council to cliff pipard and bushton. This is something that parish council has requested themselves. We have done a survey overwhelmingly. The response was in favour and so we are recommending it to Council. That's probably all I want to say. Thank you. Lovely thank you. Any. Let's hear from group leaders. Council, no. Thorn, no. No Ricky Rogers. He's asleep. I will now open the item to general debate. So is anybody wish to speak on this? No. Okay so I think well there's no comments so you haven't got any final comments to make. So let's move to the vote. All those in favour please say aye. All those against say no and all those abstaining please indicate. Nobody. Okay agenda item 15 announcements from cabinet and committees. So on behalf of the council I would formally note as this is the annual meeting of the council that there have been no executive decisions taken under special urgency provisions in the last year. I would also note that there have been three executive decisions, which in accordance with part eight of the constitution, the then chairman of the council exempted from the usual call in provisions. Those were as follows cabinet member delegated decision holiday activity and food program 2024 grant acceptance cabinet member delegated decision de determination Ashton Park funding agreement. And cabinet decision decision update on safety valve deal with the department for education on the 12th of March 2024. I would also note updated cabinet member responsibility since the last meeting as detailed on page 363 of the agenda as provided by the leader. And finally I would ask the next cycle of full council meetings be noted as 23rd of July 2024 22nd of October 24 25th of February 2025 and the 20th of May 2025. Are there any cabinet members or chairs of committees who would like to make any announcements. Councilor Chuck Berry. Thank you chairman. Just very briefly on the recent proposal that we accepted earlier on the meeting. At what stage will that have weight for planning committees around the cumulative impact of solar influenced installations or will it never. So it depends doesn't it on government coming back to us on a further definition of it, I would have thought. Right. The answer is, I don't know. Clearly will be, you know, onto this to make sure that we are. Right. Okay. Well, I think it's possibly a little bit early for that. But we will make sure that your advice. Have you got a solar application on. Thank you. No, nobody else wishes to speak on anything so let's move on to questions. Oh, no, actually the council dean you. Is the motion that we all voted on said that we're going to call upon the secretary of state. Does that mean that you're going to write to him. Any personally, but I suspect council of bottle will call. Okay, in somewhat metaphorical but I actually do have his number so I might just give him a call. Okay, thank you. Can we move on to a gender item 16 questions from members of the council. I think we have got councillor by car. They were all your questions so you've had received a written response. Do you have a supplementary question? Believe it or not. Yes, I do. If that's okay. And this will be. If you'll excuse me about 150 words about one minute and it will be a question, but with a slight preamble. Today's figures show that the council is still holding on to about 10 million pounds of the money provided by central government to support Ukrainian refugees, which I personally regard as deeply disappointing. Although I know there are country views, which is that we should hold on to it for longer in case it's needed later down the road. Half of that money is earmarked for a controversial project to buy property, but given the need to enable the Ukrainians who are now in Wiltshire to fulfill their personal and economic potential. I'm thinking, for example, of people I've spoken to in the last week, a dentist who is working as a dental nurse, a lawyer who is working as a gardener, people who with more personal professional support could do more. And here comes the question. Will the leadership consider I'm not asking for an off the cuff commitment to a spontaneous question here. Just for consideration. Doing what several other councils are doing, councils like Oxfordshire Nottinghamshire to elicit a range of useful initiatives. And set aside a small proportion of the remaining money, say, 300,000 pounds, which would be comparable to those authorities, or 3% of the remaining money. To set up a fund to make grants to suitably experienced community organisations or to specialist providers to offer services that are really needed by individual Ukrainians, particularly one to one advice over employment issues. Thank you, Chair. Yes, as you say, Council, I got there is 10 million left. However, as the answer will have told you, 5 million of that is already committed to the purchase of houses. I have been able to clarify with Andy during the course of today. Actually, a further 500,000 is all of that has already been used with the acquisition of houses. You say that that's a controversial scheme. It's so controversial that government looked at it, thought, my goodness, that makes sense, copied it and rolled it out nationally. I wouldn't call that controversial. I call that sensible use of our idea and rolled out by government, which is great. I will look into the point you're making about sport. There is sport, particularly around English, second language. That has been the most significant barrier that I am aware of for the more highly skilled Ukrainians. I appreciate it's not the case in all cases, but it's quite consistent with this case. I will ask officers to have a look and we'll come back. I know that there is some work going on around limited use of grants. I'll see what more. I mean, it's a reasonable suggestion. [inaudible] No, I think you've had your question. For the sake of clarification, so the Council know what the Leader meant by the cookie cutter approach of government. No, I think we just leave it at that. I think if you need to speak to Council of Clerk another time, then you can do that. OK, so I have no further or part two items. And I would just like to remind members of Morbrough Pusey and Tidworth area board that they should now move to the Kennet room in order to hold the annual required meeting of the Eastern Wiltshire area committee. And that concludes the business for today. Thank you very much. [inaudible] [inaudible] [BLANK_AUDIO]