Agenda item

The Committee received a presentation from the Head of Environment that provided an overview of the Climate Emergency Response Plan (CERP) that had been requested by members to understand the Council’s aspirations in lowering their carbon omissions and the risks and issues associated with that commitment (for copy see file of minutes).

The Head of Environment gave a detailed presentation that focused on the key strategic issues and risks and did not focus on the individual projects that the council had delivered or planned to deliver in relation to climate change. He noted that evidence showed that average temperatures were getting hotter in Durham but climate change was not just about rising temperatures but also about severe weather events that had an impact on the environment, the eco system, biodiversity, public health, the infrastructure and the economy.  

It was highlighted that the only statutory target set for the UK was to achieve net zero by 2050.  Durham County Council had two targets - one for the council itself that had been agreed by Members in 2008-09, which was to reduce the councils carbon emissions by 60% by 2030. This had been exceeded as the council had already achieved 61% therefore the stretched target was increased to deliver a reduction of 80% by 2030. 

The Head of Environment stated that the council’s activity in terms of carbon emissions for the county was only 3% of the overall carbon emissions in County Durham, with households, road users and businesses accounting for the remaining 97%, which was not in the council’s direct control.

The Councils second target was to work with partners to bring about net zero emissions by 2045.  At present, performance sat at 54% but this was not just down to the council. It was the responsibility of everyone who lived and worked in the County to contribute towards achieving the target.  He explained that the measurement of emissions was a complex calculation – including a number of scopes.  Scope one measured all emissions from the activities as a council i.e. driving vans, the second scope looked at the use of gas boilers in heating buildings that used fossil fuel and the third scope looked at emissions from the supply chain in waste activities or contracts the council had with other organisations. The main challenge was with transport.

The Head of Environment advised that the council were moving away from gas boilers to air source heat pumps, that it had introduced LED streetlights as part of the SLERP (Street Lighting Energy Replacement Programme) that had changed the provision of light to save money so that the investment would pay for itself.  The Morrison Busty depot had been upgraded to low carbon that ran the winter maintenance programme, waste recycling facilities, a solar farm with battery storage with a fleet of electric vehicles to wean off fossil fuels.  There was a programme to commercialise electric vehicle charging points to bring money back into the council.  There were tree planting and peat restoration programmes. 

All the projects delivered by Durham County Council created opportunities to access grant funds both regionally and nationally as the council did not have the resources to tackle climate change without leveraging additional external grant.  It was highlighted that the achievement of the targets was dependent on technology improvements to address climate change measures. Achieving Net Zero was expensive and the lack of funds prevented the council from making necessary adaptations but local budgets were deployed on projects to invest to save and on capitalised maintenance when they improved buildings.

It was highlighted that the Committee for Climate Change monitored the government’s comprehensive report but there was a lack of urgency.  There was a need to stay firm on commitment as this would not go away.  Local government finances were tight but there was a need to maintain focus.  He noted that a report was to be presented to Cabinet in July 2024 to incorporate the actions set out in CERP3 to reduce risk and meet targets. 

Councillor A Watson asked if planning policy was featured within the CERP.

The Head of Environment responded that the CERP impacted across the board for the council and that included planning policy that encouraged alternative sources to heat buildings to move away from using fossil fuels.  The local planning authority could only do so much within its existing powers, with legislative changes required at a national level.

Councillor A Watson acknowledged that it was a huge agenda.

Councillor T Smith mentioned that she had owned an electric car for the last five years and Durham County Council had done a lot of work around electric vehicle charging points in public car parks but there was a need to do more for people to charge their cars at home.  She had contacted Karbon homes to see what their policy was as there were also safety issues when cables ran across the pavement.  She queried if developers could add more points when estates were built going forward.

The Net Zero Manager responded that new developments were required to install electric vehicle charging points as part of the latest building regulations.  This was demonstrated in the new development at Sherburn Road in Durham.  The council had carried out work with housing providers around electric vehicle charging points but it was complicated when it came to the legal requirements over land ownership. It was straight forward to install them if land belonged to the council but it was more complex with lease agreements if land belonged to someone else.  He advised that the council was part of a Kerbo scheme that had been piloted with 20 homes in Durham.  The scheme cut grooves into pavements big enough to site charging cables to ensure they were flush with the ground to stop them being trip hazards. The scheme had proved very successful, residents were full of praise for the council and the concept had been featured on Dragons Den.

The Head of Environment stated that charging electric vehicles at home was a challenge but the Kerbo pilot was a good scheme that needed to be scaled up.

Councillor T Smith declared that there should be boundaries for land owners to take responsibility to work with builders of new properties to ensure the need for electric vehicle charging points was met.

Councillor P Heaviside noted that he had requested two electric vehicle charging points to be installed at a community centre and a car park in his division but the community centre was refused as it was deemed too expensive and the car park was still just a box. He queried how many would be delivered in the next round of funding as he had been told that there had only been 60 out of 200 delivered and questioned whether the target should be lowered.

The Net Zero Manager confirmed that 150 had been delivered and queried whether the information that Councillor P Heaviside had been supplied with was regarding a different scheme.  He advised that in the next round of funding they aimed to deliver 250 but there would issues with National Power Grid (NPG) to get the charging points connected to the grid as it cost between £15,000 to £20,000 to connect to the grid. The council had a good working relationship with NPG with council staff being members of their Advisory Board that looked at figures and data to improve the infrastructure.

P Darby noted that the national policy would drive subsidy to make connections as an incentive for the government to do more.

Councillor B Kellett asked why measurements of carbon dioxide were not readily published and why they had increased.

The Net Zero Manager responded that carbon dioxide was measured in parts per million and there was a detailed scientific method on how they did that.  Graphs indicated that carbon dioxide had increased and it now measured 400 parts per million as opposed to 200 parts per million in previous years.  Measurements had never been higher.  He confirmed that data was available on the amount of carbon dioxide that was in the atmosphere.

The Head of Environment stated that there were many different gases measured not just carbon dioxide.  Methane was an important gas to monitor that was emitted from all land fill sites. Methane was 34% worse than carbon dioxide.  A scheme at the Coxhoe Landfill site was highlighted where the gas was extracted and burned to produce electric that could be fed back into the national grid, generating revenue. 

Councillor B Kellett referred to the graphs in the presentation that indicated that climate change was getting worse with lots of peaks and troughs.  He thought that a straight-line trend would highlight a simpler version of the data.

The Head of Environment confirmed that the presentation had included the straight-line graph also and directed Cllr Kellett to the appropriate slide. He noted that the information came from Durham University and that the graphs plotted the average and another that gave a simpler version. He noted that both were from two different sources that influenced the different graphs.

Mr C Robinson asked what the key risks were with technology and what technology was being referred to.

The Head of Environment responded that technology was in relation to electric vehicles. He confirmed that the technology was good in smaller vehicles but not so good in the bigger refuse vehicles as batteries needed to be stronger and last longer but at affordable prices.  The council had tested a bigger electric refuse vehicle but the technology and price were not reliable so there was a need to wait until the technology was dependable at the right price.  It was proposed that in two years time the council would need 31 food waste vehicles therefore technology was being monitored.

The Net Zero Manager noted that the biggest issue affecting the country was the change required to move to alternative methods of heating away from a reliance on gas boilers. This presented a huge national challenge.  Air source heat pumps were now a cheap technology that could be used as an alternative and they were proven technology. Gateshead Council were leading the way with a District Energy Scheme that used geothermal energy sources that created a great opportunity to harness the temperature of the earth that was decarbonised to be utilised for heat and electricity.

Mr C Robinson was unclear on what risks were involved in meeting the climate change targets.

The Head of Environment replied to Mr C Robinson that as a Council there were two targets set one for the council itself that it could control and one that addressed the county that was out of the council’s control.  The risk was more weighted towards the council in its role as partnership influencer and technology was geared to both.  He added that the council had operations controlled and had influence over CERP3 (Climate Emergency Response Plan 3) that highlighted areas to ask the Government’s Climate Change committee to highlight things that needed to be rectified by the government.

Mr C Robinson asked if the new Mayor of the North East Combined Authority (NECA) had influence over climate change targets.

The Head of Environment confirmed that the new Mayor would have influence in two ways one that would bring responsibility for local authorities closer together. He advised that the Net Zero Manager sat on the net zero group that shared information and best practise.  Secondly all investment plans from the environment and economy portfolio candidates wanted a greener region. If investment plans showed fruition they would provide influence to all policies to aid support on transport.

Mr I Rudd was interested in the case study on the pooled resources at Morrison Busty but was sceptical that someone would want to invest to save for 16 years.  He did not think this would be viable even if the desire was to be green there was still a need for value for money.

The Head of Environment advised that the invest to save schemes were over long stretches of time but there were more hoops to go through as there were no discounts and risk assessments were required.

P Darby stated that there were longer terms for invest to save.  It was a challenge to invest to save over 16 years as you needed to convince someone to invest for that length of time.

The Net Zero Manager added that the council had invest to save deals from 2013 in building distribution heating systems where developers looked for 40 year concessions and pay back in 20-25 years which was standard for decarbonisation activities.

Resolved:

That the presentation be noted.