Newark and Sherwood District Council to adopt United Nations goals as policy framework despite Conservative concerns

A council is to adopt United Nations goals as a framework for creating its policies.

The 17 Sustainable Development Goals set by the UN, including no poverty, gender equality, affordable and clean energy, sustainable cities and communities, and climate action, are to become a framework for informing Newark and Sherwood District Council’s policies, work programs, functions, and initiatives.

The motion was put forward by Keith Melton, portfolio holder for climate change, who said: “The overall ambition [of the goals]... is to eradicate poverty around the world and enhance wellbeing for all, in such a way as to protect the planet’s environment in the long-term.

“Since we only have one planet, this requires all of us to do what we can to help.”

He added that there are “still sections of the population” in the district who rely upon foodbanks despite working full-time, and that clean water and affordable energy have “recently taken a serious turn for the worse in the UK.”

While many of the goals are written with an nationwide or even international focus, Mr Melton believed the intentions behind the goals had significant relevance to the district.

He suggested the district should be moving rapidly towards self-sufficiency with renewable energy sources — considering schemes such as solar panels over carparks and developing a community-led Local Energy Partnership — and using partnerships, including with experts at Brackenhurst to develop regenerative farming practices and Trent Valley Internal Drainage Board and the Environment Agency to tackle flooding.

The motion was met with mixed reactions, with full support from the Liberal Democrats, Labour and the Independents for Newark while the Conservatives raised a number of concerns.

Matthew Spoors seconded the motion, and thanked the previous administration for their work on climate change.

He said: “It is an issue that effects everyone in this cabinet and everyone in the country. We can do our bit.”

Opposition leader Rhona Holloway raised concerns that the goals had been developed “for nations to adopt, not councils” and said the council didn’t have the authority needed for many of the goals.

“I do have very serious concerns that the council agrees to all 17 goals and the 126 targets which sit behind them,” she added.

“When you look through the targets it becomes increasingly obvious why this council cannot take on this in its current form.

“Anyone who does support this in its entirety must be aware of the impossible burden they are putting on the council and its residents.”

She later requested the motion to be brought to the council “properly” with “goals designed with councils in mind”.

Penny Rainbow said adopting the targets “could actually bankrupt this council” and Roger Jackson added that while they agree with the sentiment of the motion, it is “too broad” and “too big” and suggested the motion should be taken to the Policy and Performance Improvement Committee to determine what the council could actually do.

The administration partnership clarified that it is a “statement of values” and the council would not be held to the targets, but rather use them as a guide for its own policies, which would not cost the authority.

“Why would we not agree with the United Nations,” added Rowan Cozens.

“At what point are we going to say that business as usual is not possible. There is no reason why would say we can’t adopt these goals.

“We are an ambitious new administration and we were put here by people who wanted change.”

Lee Brazier said: “We as a council should not disagree with what the United Nations says. Yes, we can’t change things in other countries, but we can in Ollerton, Southwell, Farnsfield.”

Council leader Paul Peacock added that he didn’t understand why anyone could not support it, and believed the council had spent too many years not doing the right thing for the environment.

Mr Melton concluded that he was “surprised, sad and perplexed” by the disagreement from the Conservatives and, addressing claims the motion had not been done properly, added: “If you think I have been able to bring this to the council without the involvement of senior officers, you are wrong.

“It won’t bankrupt the council, it has no cost, it is just a framework.”

The motion was carried, although all present Conservatives voted against it.