Campaigners behind a 3,697-signature petition calling on the Isle of Wight Council to declare no-confidence in Southern Water have raised questions over how the local authority dealt with it.
Community organisation Sustainable Freshwater voiced concerns over whether the appeal, submitted and accepted under the terms of County Hall’s petition scheme, was handled properly, transparently and constitutionally.
The scheme, detailed in part four of the local authority’s constitution, says the council welcomes petitions and recognises they are one way in which people can let it know their concerns.
Sustainable Freshwater’s petition included demands for the council to call for serious intervention, stronger enforcement, greater transparency and ‘meaningful consequences’ for ‘continued failure’.
Instead of backing the motion set out in the petition, County Hall passed an alternative combined proposal on Southern Water from independent council leader Jonathan Bacon and Reform UK councillor Les Kirkby in July.
Action points in the agreed motion included writing to Ofwat, the Environment Agency (EA) and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, expressing the council’s ‘serious concerns’ over Southern Water’s environmental performance and coordinating ‘appropriate lobbying activity’ to seek and promote stronger enforcement and accountability regarding water companies.
Read more
In an email to the council’s monitoring officer, Christopher Potter, Sustainable Freshwater requested County Hall’s policy, finance and resources committee (PFRC) review whether the local authority dealt with the group’s petition properly.
It said: “Since the meeting, Councillor (Becca) Cameron has sought a straightforward factual chronology explaining the handling of the petition and subsequent motion.
“The responses provided have largely referred back to the constitution and other procedures rather than giving the requested chronology, timings and specific procedural basis for the decisions taken.
“We believe these unanswered questions reinforce the need for the formal review provided for within the petition scheme.”
Sustainable Freshwater asked that the review consider issues such as the petition’s handling, the subsequent combined motion, opportunity for scrutiny, declarations of interest as well as financial and staffing implications.
A council report signed by Mr Potter recommends PFRC refuse Sustainable Freshwater’s review request.
“Full Council made its decision on the motion arising from petition submitted by Sustainable Freshwater, and its decision on the changed motion on notice,” it says.
“Both motions had been debated in public and there were democratic votes, the latter being passed by 32 votes to 0 votes against, with only two abstaining.”
PFRC will consider Sustainable Freshwater’s request at its meeting starting at 5pm next Thursday (October 8).
Share