Agenda item

The Chair welcomed the Sustainability and Climate Change Team Leader, Maggie Bosanquet, the Principal Officer - Climate Change and Sustainability, Stephen McDonald, and the Carbon and Energy Analyst, Rosalind Farrow, who were in attendance to provide the Committee with a presentation on the Climate Emergency Response Plan (for copy see file of minutes).

The Carbon and Energy Analyst explained that Durham County Council (DCC) had a Carbon Management Plan since 2009, with the Council declaring a Climate Emergency in February 2019, with a Climate Emergency Response Plan (CERP) having been adopted by Cabinet in February 2020.  Members were asked to note the Council’s reduction in annual emissions of CO₂ since 2008/09, with there having been a 58 percent reduction to 2020/21.  It was explained that the main element in terms of emissions in 2008/09 was electricity 55 percent, however this had reduced to around 32 percent by 2020/21.  The Carbon and Energy Analyst noted that the main element was now heat and referred Members to a pie chart which gave a breakdown of each of the elements, electricity, heat and transport.  Members noted the low level of business travel, impacted by the pandemic, however, it was explained that the Council’s buildings, including schools, had still required heating.  It was added that those issues could be addressed through better heating controls, insultation and low carbon heating systems.  The Carbon and Energy Analyst noted that the Council’s fleet was transitioning to electric vehicles (EVs) and the Council would look to increase the efficiency of its electrical appliances and generate its own renewable electricity wherever possible.

In reference to the Council’s carbon targets, Members were reminded that the Council’s Carbon Management Plan operated over five year periods and had done so since 2010.  The Carbon and Energy Analyst explained that the target for the current Carbon Management Plan was for a 70 percent reduction in CO₂ emissions by 2025, from the 2008/09 baseline, and an 80 percent reduction by 2030.  Members were asked to note there were intermediate guideline targets for each year and that in the last two years the Council had been above target with a 51 percent reduction in 2020, against a target of 45 percent, and a 58 percent reduction in 2021, against a target of 56 percent.  The Carbon and Energy Analyst noted that targets would become progressively harder to meet as more reduction would need to be made through invasive and expensive projects, such as the replacement of heating systems.  It was added that the targets were for an actual reduction in emissions, it was not possible to look to help meet target through processes such as offsetting, planting trees or purchasing renewable electricity, although the Council did undertake both of those activities. 

In respect of the cost involved and funding that was available, the Carbon and Energy Analyst explained there was the internal DCC Climate Emergency Fund that was available, also there was Government funds, however, they were heavily over-subscribed, with the £75 million that was made available in March 2021 been oversubscribe within one day of the scheme opening.  In respect of decarbonising heating, it was estimated that if this was done across 150 of the Council’s main buildings it would leave around 12,000 tonnes of CO₂ to manage across operations and fleet by 2030.  It was estimated the cost in relation to heating would be approximately £100 million by 2030 and around £10 million in respect of electric vehicles by 2030, giving an average of around £14 million per year each year up to 2030. 

The Committee were referred to a slide setting out the areas of priority from the CERP1, noting a requirement to roughly half emissions.  The Carbon and Energy Analyst reiterated as regards the reduction in gas use, and noted that in terms of electricity, if the Council generated electricity via renewables, then it would be able to not only power its fleet of EVs and supply its buildings, it would also be able to sell surplus electricity to help fund other projects.  It was explained that the reduction of the use of fossil fuels in terms of transport could be achieved through the continuation of remote working and encouraging this where it was practical to do so.  In terms of schools, the Carbon and Energy Analyst noted there were hundreds of schools, that they were separate priority areas as they had their own budgets, and that there was a need to support them in a fair way in respect of decarbonising.       

Members were asked to note CERP1 Actions relating to the Council, with 18 on track, four completed, one on hold, and five with delays.  It was explained that the delays were due to access issues as a result of the pandemic or supply chain issues and also in some cases as some ERDF and RHI funding had been lost.  Councillors noted that funding was being sought, including through the Public Sector Decarbonisation Fund.

The Carbon and Energy Analyst explained that the Council only accounted for around three percent of the carbon footprint of the County and referred Members to a graph showing the change in emissions for the County since 2005, though the baseline was 1990, with the percentages given representing a reduction from the 1990 baseline.  It was noted that position was over halfway, with a 54 percent reduction since 1990, and Councillors were referred to pie-charts showing the reduction and breakdown of carbon emissions by source from 2005 and 2019.  Members noted the reduction in electricity emissions by around two-thirds, with a slight increase in heat as a percentage and an increase in transport.  It was explained that around one-third of the County’s emissions came from heating homes, with one-third being from transport, and one-third split between electricity and non-domestic heating.  It was explained the figures did not include through traffic on the A1(M), A19 and rail network.

The Carbon and Energy Analyst reiterated that the Council needed to cut its carbon footprint and explained that the recent Independent Panel on climate Change (IPCC) report had set out that it was important how quickly that was achieved.  Members were referred to a graph showing the actual carbon footprint of the County from 2005 to present, and with three scenarios in relation to carbon budget up to 2050 based upon UK Government carbon targets for 2030, 2035 and 2050, CERP1 targets, and the scientific carbon budget for County Durham as calculated by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Research.  She asked Members to note the differences in the UK Government and Tyndall budgets, with the UK Government targets looking at elements such as industry and freight.  She added that there was some concern that it would be difficult to obtain sufficient funding and resources to go much beyond the UK Government budget.  Members noted that the work in terms of CERP2 was looking to try and bring the Council’s targets closer to the scientific carbon budget as calculated by the Tyndall Centre with the resources the Council had available.

The Carbon and Energy Analyst noted the period from 2019 to the end of CERP1, 2021, and explained that the County needed to shrink its footprint by eight percent by the end of the year, around 171,000 tonnes of CO₂.  Members noted that the CERP1 County priority areas were similar to the Council’s priority areas and that in terms of heat, the reduction in gas use in homes required could be achieved by the equivalent of 20,000 home decarbonising or everyone using around eight percent less gas and oil which could be achieved in part through insulation projects.  The Carbon and Energy Analyst explained that renewable electricity generation would support decarbonisation and that in terms of transport there was a need to reduce fossil fuel vehicle use by eight percent or to replace 24,000 fossil fuel vehicles with Ultra Low Emission Vehicles (ULEVs).  She added it could also be achieved if everyone drove a little less or used public transport, cycled or walked more and reduced unnecessary travel through use of remote working.  The Carbon and Energy Analyst noted the countywide target to be carbon neutral, with offsetting being an additional factor, unlike with the Council’s own targets.  She explained that therefore work would continue to plant trees, restore peatland, protect the natural environment, and generate electricity through renewable means.  She concluded by noting that CERP1 was 82 percent on track or complete and reiterated that delays were from funding loss or as a result of the pandemic. 

The Chair thanked the Carbon and Energy Analyst and asked Members for their questions and comments. 

Councillor L Brown noted two elements the Council could consider in order to help lower carbon emissions, allowing solar panels within Conservation Areas and insisting that all new developments plans had, at the very least, solar panels.  She noted around 2,500 new properties at Bent House Lane and Sniperley, adding there was still time to amend the Masterplans to include renewable energy.  The Carbon and Energy Analyst noted the Principal Officer - Climate Change and Sustainability may have more information, adding it was difficult to mandate. 

The Principal Officer - Climate Change and Sustainability noted colleagues from Spatial Policy were looking at the Masterplan for Sniperley and he had given his views to them.  He explained that there was not a blanket refusal for solar panels within Conservation Areas, rather each case would be looked at on its own merits.  Councillor L Brown noted she would like to see a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) regarding solar panels and renewable energy, sooner rather than later.

Councillor E Adam thanked all the team for the huge amount of work being undertaken in relation to the CERP.  He noted the issues in terms of those projects that were not actioned and referred to the graphs relating to the reduction in CO₂ emissions for the Council and the County.  He added that looking at those graphs, transport and heat stood out as key areas and those were not progressing as fast as the Council would like.  He noted the issue of heat in schools and that the issue of transport in the area had not been tackled and asked as regards plans to reduce carbon emissions from transport from a county perspective and heat from schools, also asking if it would require Government funding or if it could be sustained through Council funds.  The Carbon and Energy Analyst noted in relation to transport, the Council was moving to EVs for its fleet and pool cars and was encouraging remote working where appropriate to help reduce emissions.  She noted the example of electric refuse vehicles.  She added that in terms of county emissions it was more difficult as individuals had a choice in terms of how they would travel.  She explained that one element was the Council speaking publicly as regards transport, with the new ‘County Durham Climate Hub’ website that was being launched being one way of being able to engage with the public across the spectrum of carbon reduction activities.  The Carbon and Energy Analyst noted in respect of emissions from heating, particularly heat in schools, there was currently a number of projects looking to decarbonise heat entirely, funded by the Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme.  She added this had worked well as the upfront capital costs were effectively grant funded with the utility bill being roughly in line with the current costs.  It was noted the up front capital cost in terms of technology, such as heat pumps, was the issue.

Councillor E Adam noted he felt that dealing with heat and transport issues would deal with the majority of the carbon emissions and noted the Council should be looking at what other Local Authorities were doing, in terms of restricting transport coming into cities and introducing electric buses, as he felt such measures were not coming forward from DCC.  He noted similar issues in respect of heating in schools, accepting there were a number of schools now operating as Academies.  He added that the Council needed to ensure that heating systems were upgraded, especially given the current position in terms of gas prices and added that it made sense to transfer to alternative heating systems. 

Councillor E Adam noted he understood as regards the upfront financial cost associated and asked if the Council would approach Government again to explain to them that in order to decarbonise our schools, Government would need to help by providing appropriate funding.  The Carbon and Energy Analyst noted the efforts in decarbonising by around 50 precent prior to declaration of the Climate Emergency and added she would hope that the work and resources would ramp up in terms of decarbonisation.  She added that while the cost of electricity was expensive, the price of gas was increasing and, due to the large volumes of gas used, the amount spent on gas was significant.  She noted that as gas became increasing expensive and more difficult to obtain this would then provide a more compelling case for electric heating through technology such as heat pumps.

Councillor B Avery noted the points made by Councillor L Brown in terms of the introduction of solar panels, especially on new buildings, at the planning stage.  He noted he felt it would be also beneficial as regards the inclusion of EV charging points at the planning stage for new build properties, noting the difficulty in terms of the existing terraced properties across the county.  The Carbon and Energy Analyst noted that inclusion of charging points at homes would be beneficial, however, ideally there would be less vehicles in general, as they have a high carbon cost in terms of production and pollution from tyres and brake components, with increased car sharing and use of public transport being beneficial.  The Principal Officer - Climate Change and Sustainability noted that it was not mandatory in respect of installing EV charging points within new developments, though he understood conversations were being had at the pre-application stage and he noted that many new schemes were including such charging points.  He noted that the hardest element was the infrastructure in respect of EV charging for existing housing, such as terraced housing and flats.  He reminded Members as regards the SOSCI (Scaling On Street Charging Infrastructure) project which had looked to install EV charging points within Council car parks within 100 metres of existing housing.  He added the Council had been successful in a number of bids for grants to expand such work.

Councillor D Nicholls noted the need to encourage people to use cars less, however, given the state of public transport in the county, he felt that was difficult.  He noted an example in his area, Deerness, with a resident that relied upon public transport having tried to catch a bus home at 4.00pm from Durham and not getting back until around 7.30pm.  He added that the situation was ruining people’s lives and asked what the Council was doing to address the issue, especially with Arriva North East.  He noted the Council did provide subsidies in relation to bus services and added that many of the buses used in the county were from 2005.  He asked why other areas appeared to have newer buses and were progressing and reiterated he felt the Council needed to address the issues with public transport and timetables in order to attract the public to use it more.  The Chair noted the comments from Councillor D Nicholls would likely be echoed by many Members. 

The Principal Officer - Climate Change and Sustainability noted that Spatial Policy and Transport colleagues would be best placed to respond on those points, however, he noted the actions within the CERP reflected upon public transport and he understood there had been many changes to bus timetables recently.  The Chair noted Officers would take away the question to the service for a response.

Councillor E Adam noted page 84 of the report pack contained the slide that referenced the areas of priority for the county and set out information relating to the natural environment and offsetting.  He asked how we were using our land and forests to reduce carbon emissions, and whether the separate report mentioned relating to the issue would be made available.  He noted that the Vice-Chair, Councillor J Elmer had put a question to the Portfolio Holder at Council as regards an ‘ecological emergency’ and that the upcoming Cabinet agenda contained an item calling for further work to be undertaken on the issue.  He asked as regards the impact that work could have in terms of existing staff, the work in relation to updating the CERP, and on the Work Programme for the Committee.  The Carbon and Energy Analyst noted the slide within the agenda pack, when referring to a reduction of 48,000, it was not included within the graph as it would be a negative figure, as the graph showed emissions rather than what was offset.  She added that the separate report mentioned was the next agenda item, which the Principal Officer - Climate Change and Sustainability would present.  In respect of renewables, the Carbon and Energy Analyst noted that it was not included within the 48,000 figure relating to land use and change of forestry, though it was reported via the Council’s website.  She explained that in terms of ecology, she noted the Team could work with colleagues from Ecology on some schemes to improve biodiversity, noting an example being the development of the Tanfield Solar Farm.  The Chair noted the point raised by Councillor E Adam and explained there would be conversations with the Portfolio Holder and Corporate Director as regards the impacts upon Officers and the Work Programme, with an update to come back to Committee.

Councillor J Elmer noted one of the key areas of emissions was Council staff traveling to work in cars, adding there was a desperate need for a Council Travel Plan.  He added that, in terms of transport across the County, the Council did have influence in respect of strategic policy relating to the infrastructure network for travel, including making space for buses, cyclists and walking, understanding that was also a Spatial Policy matter.  He added there was a need for the Council to make sure its services were joined up in tackling those issues.

In relation to carbon emissions, Councillor J Elmer noted that certain elements that were in the control of the Council to influence, but were not incorporated within the reported figures, these included emissions associated with: staff travel, sometimes referred to as ‘the grey fleet’; Council investments; Council procurement; Council pensions; and emissions from the incineration of household waste and waste to landfill.  He asked whether the emissions associated with those activities would be reported back to Overview and Scrutiny so that Members could have a more complete picture. 

The Carbon and Energy Analyst noted the issue of staff commuting and explained it was very difficult to ask thousands of people to change the way that they travelled to work, having no control over what type of vehicle they bought.  She added that to ascertain the emissions associated with commuting would be a huge task, surveying the staff, and also the staff were currently operating in a position between working from home moving towards a hybrid model of working.  She explained that in terms of the other areas of Council activity that had associated emissions there was one element that was reported upon, namely incineration from the energy from waste plant as part of the Council’s waste emissions.  The Carbon and Energy Analyst noted the remaining elements mentioned would fall under “scope three”, emissions that were harder to tackle.  She added that there were procurement plans within the CERP and there were sustainable policies within the Procurement Section. 

Councillor J Elmer noted 502 residents responded to the consultation on the CERP, representing a tiny proportion of the population in the county and noted it was likely many of those responding were already aware of the associated issues.  He noted that a conversation was needed to engage with the wider community in order for people to take ownership of the work and to illicit behavioural change. He asked going forward what plans there were in terms of seriously engaging with residents across the county.  The Carbon and Energy Analyst noted there were a few ways, including the ECO2 Smart programme which went into all of the schools in the county, engaging with children who in turn engage with their parents, very successful over a number of years.  She explained that the 502 residents mentioned were those who had completed an official survey response, however, there had been a lot more people engaged with.  She noted that all Areas Action Partnerships (AAPs) had been engaged with, as well as other groups.  It was added that in future, there was a desire for the conversation to be ongoing, so rather than solely having a consultation events, there would be an ongoing process that would take place in part via the new Climate Change Hub website.  She explained that it would be a place that people could contact the Team and also share information and it was hoped the whole county could get involved in what was a whole county issue.

The Corporate Scrutiny and Strategy Manager, Tom Gorman explained that in relation to transport, and bus services in particular, Members at the recent meeting of the Economy and Enterprise Overview and Scrutiny Committee had made a number of comments relating to those services.  He reminded Members that the issue of integrated transport was identified within the Work Programme for Spring, with a joint session with the Environment and Sustainable Communities and Economy and Enterprise Overview and Scrutiny Committees.  In respect of third party emissions from areas such as procurement, investment, pensions and staff travel, the Corporate Scrutiny and Strategy Manager noted work to organise a session looking at those issues. 

He added that at the meeting looking at integrated transport there would also be the Pensions Manager, an officer from procurement and the Environment and Design Manager in attendance to speak as regards scope three emissions, scope one being Council emissions, scope two being countywide emissions.  The Corporate Scrutiny and Strategy Manager noted in terms of an ‘ecological emergency’, work was ongoing through the Environment Partnership, with any work of the Committee needing to compliment any Ecological Plan that came forward.  The Overview and Scrutiny Officer, Diane Close noted the comments from Members on CERP1 would be fed back to Officers, as well as the questions from the Vice-Chair.  She added that the comments from Members, including key comments from the Vice-Chair, would be collated into a response from the Committee to be shared with Members to be agreed and once agreed subsequently passed to the Low Carbon Team, Portfolio Holder and Corporate Director of Neighbourhoods and Climate Change with a view to inform the development of CERP2.  She added a further update relating to CERP2 would be given at a future meeting of the Committee.

Resolved:

(i)            That the Committee note the progress made against delivering during the second year of the Climate Change Emergency Response Plan.

(ii)          That comments made by Members in relation to the Climate Change Emergency Response Plan be formulated into a response to be shared with the Committee for agreement.

(iii)         That the Overview and Scrutiny response be shared with the Low Carbon Team, Cabinet Portfolio Holder and Corporate Director of Neighbourhoods and Climate Change.

(iv)         That the Committee, at a future date, as part of the 2021/22 Work Programme, receive a report and presentation in relation to the Climate Change Emergency Response Plan 2.