Agenda item

The Committee considered the joint report of the Corporate Director of Resources and the Corporate Director of Regeneration and Local Services that provided members with an overview of how Durham County Council’s fleet was managed including details of work being undertaken to reduce emissions by Durham County Council’s fleet to help achieve the Council’s targets as stated in Durham County Council’s Climate Change Emergency Declaration (for copy of report, see file of minutes).

Members were provided with a presentation that highlighted the following points:

·       Fleet profile

·       Sites where fleet is located

·       Current fleet management arrangements

·       Why fleet was managed in this way

·       Plans to change how the fleet was managed in the future and any challenges

·       Work undertaken to reduce emission from the fleet and contribution to 60% reduction by 2030

·       Future plans and steps

Following the presentation, the Chairman thanked the officer and invited questions from members.

Councillor McLean asked if the procurement process considered CO₂ emissions created by the manufacture and transportation of vehicles as part of the purchasing procedure. He continued that if vehicles were purchased in the UK this could produce a carbon footprint saving and contribute to employment.

Mr M Toas, County Fleet Manager responded that it was a valid point that he would raise with procurement but very few of the specialised vehicles and associated equipment are solely produced in the UK.

Mr S McDonald, Principal Officer: Climate Change and Sustainability advised members that CO₂ emissions from manufacturing were calculated and accounted for in the country of manufacture however in relation to CO₂ emissions from transporting vehicles, this was a grey area. Procurement were looking at how the procurement process can be more sustainable in the future.

Councillor Tucker referred to leased arrangements with vehicles and asked if the authority had maintenance agreements for these vehicles.

The Officer responded that currently no maintenance agreements where in place, vehicles are maintained at Durham County Council workshops, any maintenance agreements would be with the dealer and not the council workshop, this could impact on a timely return of the vehicle into service. In relation to operator licenced vehicles the authority has a legal requirement to ensure the vehicles are maintained to the Authorities Operator Licence requirements.

Councillor Tucker referred to pool cars and asked if there was a saving in relation to the cost of the car pool when compared to the cost of personal mileage claims.

The Officer responded that the car pool scheme was introduced for a number of reasons, including that it cost less than personal car mileage rate (5p under personal car mileage rate) rate but one of the main drivers for the scheme was employees not wanting to use their own vehicles for council business for security reasons.

In response to a question from Councillor Brown asking for clarification on the role of the ULEV working group, officers advised that consideration of the Council’s fleet and how to reduce its carbon emissions in the future was just a small element of the work of the ULEV working group. it was confirmed that the group was headed up by Adrian White, Head of Transport and Contract Services.

Councillor Brown asked on behalf of Councillor Coult what were the timescales for switching over as many vehicles as possible in the fleet to electric and did they intend to purchase more gully cleaning vehicles.

The Officer responded that the timescale was 5 years and that Durham County Council gully cleaning vehicles are on a 5 year replacement plan. There is currently no additional gully cleaning vehicles included in the replacement plan, any additional requirements for gully cleaning vehicles would be at the request of Technical Services and advised that the service sometimes hired in these vehicles during peak times.

The Overview and Scrutiny Officer advised Members that detail on the role and activities of the ULEV work stream had been presented to the Economy and Enterprise Overview and Scrutiny Committee in September and Members of Environment and Sustainable Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee were invited to attend this meeting.

On the 27 February 2020 a report and presentation on regional and local transport, which would include detail of activity undertaken by the ULEV working group would be presented to Economy and Enterprise Overview and Scrutiny Committee, members of the Environment and Sustainable Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee would be invited to attend this meeting.

The officer responded that members may want to visit the biogas facility at Newton Aycliffe as the authority was also looking at vehicles powered by alternative fuels.

Councillor Sexton referred to the replacing of machinery that was currently working for electric alternatives to be greener. He asked whether the authority by replacing items that did not need replacing was causing an impact on carbon emissions and was the resulting increase in electricity accounted for in these calculations.

The Officer responded that machinery was replaced when it was scheduled to be renewed. He also commented that battery operated machinery was not producing fumes, fuel was not transported and the vibration was a lot lower so there was also health and safety benefits.

Councillor Sexton responded that we needed to justify these changes, and needed to be able to show carbon emissions from electricity usage with all this technology and compare to previous emissions, hopefully it would be negative.

Mr McDonald confirmed that carbon renewables usage was at the highest level ever and indicated that on some days there were zero carbon energy depending on the wind. He continued that the difference between diesel/petrol versus electricity was significant and a lot more carbon friendly.

Councillor Adam commented that electricity was a key feature in reducing carbon emissions however the charging infrastructure had to be in place to handle the increased demand.

Councillor Dunn thanked officers for the work and research they had undertaken and continued that the report demonstrated that Durham County Council and County Durham were not fully in control to reduce carbon emissions from vehicles as there was a lack of investment from government that had resulted on dependency of commercial organisations to develop the necessary technology for vehicles so that they were available for purchase at a competitive cost. The targets to be achieved by 2021 would give a potential carbon reduction of 53 tonnes out of 10,000 tonnes produced on vehicle admissions. Half of the vehicles and vans were to be replaced over a 5 year period, needed to be setting targets to replace vehicles more quickly with an example of at least 100 vehicles to be replaced this year. The replacement of 26 pool vehicles was a good start but much more was needed to be done this year and next year. He stated that if the introduction of charging points at employees’ homes where Durham County Council vehicles were parked was key to reducing carbon emissions then this needed expediting as a matter of urgency. In addition, 52 weeks to procure vehicles was too long and asked that in year 1 and year 2, much more progress needed to be made.

The Officer responded that it was a massive challenge and that the biggest fuel users were HGV vehicles, however the vehicles needed to be available with the necessary technology at a competitive price. He continued that an evaluation of the depots needs to be undertaken to ensure that the charging infrastructure was in place to meet growing demand, so infrastructure was the key.

Councillor Dunn responded that this needed to be done extremely quickly.

The Chair indicated that progress was being made but however there was need for greater government support and funding in terms of the development of the technology and infrastructure.

Councillor Wilkes referred to the replacing of 26 vehicles out of 1017 vehicles and commented that more vehicles need to be replaced. He then commented that members needed sight of the figures to replace say 50 vehicles, 100 vehicles and so on together with the cost of installing charging points. He continued by asking what else Durham County Council’s procurement was doing to put pressure on manufacturers to develop the technology quicker.

The Chair responded that these were areas being looked at by the ULEV working Group and that the Environment and Sustainable Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee did not have that detail, but a report would be submitted to a future meeting of the Economy and Enterprise Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

Mr Bolton referred to the development of vehicles and commented that a great deal of development had been made with small vehicles. He referred to the ULEV working group and asked if the authority were working with regional partners looking at procurement from a regional perspective and taking advantage of economies of scale.

The Officer responded that vehicles were procured with TPPL through NEPO which was a national procurement framework, so economies of scale were captured. There was however a huge difference in the cost of electric vehicles. They would look to procure the electric vehicles for 8 years as opposed to 5 years but at the moment the battery life deteriorated over the years with vehicles at 7 years having only 70% battery life. Mercedes were 2 years away from delivering a fully electric HGV vehicle with HGV electric RCV’s vehicles currently costing in the region of £450,000. Whole life costs would have to be reviewed to establish the number of years with which the EV vehicles would be operated over.

Mrs Morris referred to the 60% carbon reduction target and commented that it may be helpful to publish some information on the various stages and activities identified by Durham County Council to tackle carbon emissions by the fleet, to get local communities involved.

The Officer responded that the 60% target was a Durham County Council target and not solely fleet. They had already delivered 2 roadshows providing an opportunity to view ULEV’s and the idea was that more roadshows would be held in the future.

The Chair advised that the Climate Emergency Response Plan would be presented to this committee on the 16 March 2020, this plan would include detail of the measures proposed to meet the 60% reduction in carbon emissions.

The Chair then asked Members if they wished to visit the Biogas Plant in Newton Aycliffe in the near future.

Resolved: (i) That the report be noted.

(ii) That arrangements be made for the Committee to visit the Biogas Plant in Newton Aycliffe as part of the future work programme via an electric bus if possible.