Agenda item

To consider and decide on the recommendations as set out in the associated report.

Councillor Luke Everitt, Cabinet Member for Environment, Sustainability and Carbon Reduction introduced the report as set out in the agenda and Cabinet report and Karin Grey, Sustainability Manager, presented the technical data.

Answers to questions to officers and Councillor Everitt included:

·         Even with ongoing technological advancements, it was not possible to reach zero carbon emissions by 2030 – a certain amount of offsetting was still required, but the Council would reduce emissions as much as possible so offsetting was very limited.

·         The first few years had been about understanding what the Council’s emissions were and setting baselines to get projects running for future years to reach those emissions targets. The Pandemic and increased energy costs had not assisted when it came to funding but it was still feasible to reach these targets trajectories. The projects were now there, it was a matter of finding the funding to deliver them.

·         There was a constant review of emissions to understand where the Council were and then where the best focus was in terms of bidding for grants and any other resources which could be put forward to deliver those projects that reduce carbon emissions.

·         There had been several good examples of public engagement within the Big Green Week, and more detail would be within the Borough-wide plan and was in the early stages but the draft Year 2 Action Plan had a timeline about the rollout of the strategy.

·         Looking at precedents set by other local authorities there were several steps which Councils could take to engage with the public, but some methods were not possible or suitable to replicate in Tunbridge Wells.

·         There was no direct control over Borough-wide emissions, only Corporate emissions. The Council did have influence because of Procurement Policy and public engagement. This type of engagement was able to indirectly influence a reduction of emissions of one third or more. This highlighted the importance of a Borough-wide Strategy.

·         In terms of grants available, there was the Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme which was TWBC’s main scheme provided by the Government.

·         The Net Zero Strategy that was put forward by the Government was decreed by the High Court not to be up to standard as more detail had been requested about how the country as a whole would achieve decarbonisation. The LGA had also requested more information from the Government about what support was needed/given and about funding opportunities and better consistency. Grant funding needed to be long-term, not short-term. Multi-year funding was needed to be able to make long-term projects and upskill the workforce and fund different companies to deliver green infrastructure and investment needed to get to Net Zero.

·         There were many opportunities which needed to be explored to bring in private sector investment, such as companies who were looking at sustainable development goals and the UK Infrastructure Bank who were looking for investment opportunities.

·         The data collected by the Council used equivalents, as it took in to account factors such as methane being much more damaging to the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, but this took too much detail into account when the Council’s goal was to reduce generic emissions, with carbon being the main focus of the Council’s corporate estate, such as heating, lighting etc and what could be delivered by the Council.

·         Current modelling did not do a good job of reflecting the necessary changes which needed to happen for the waste contract in 2027. It was hoped there would be a viable contract available which offered a much lower carbon emission than the current contract, such as a move towards electric vehicles, like Urbaser had done with their electric fleet in London. Whether this would be suitable in a rural borough was not known and needed further examination.

·         All forecasting models created by Laser energy included some carbon offsetting, bar one which involved the construction of a solar farm at significant cost. The model chosen by TWBC involved carbon offsetting and had been approved by CABs, Cabinet and Full Council. As technology and cost benefits improved, future models were likely to provide new answers.

·         Data from the greenhouse gas assessment submitted to Cabinet in September 2022, when compared to 2018/19 data, showed approximately 20% reduction in greenhouse gases. Prior greenhouse gas assessments were conducted in 2013/14 and in comparison, there had been approx. 50% since then.

·         In respect to what tangible new projects or policy initiatives the Borough Partnership had announced other than continuation of existing schemes initiated by the previous Administration, the Portfolio Holder stated it was too early to discuss plans publicly, but that there was a shift in emphasis towards  a Borough-wide strategy which had been put into development since the Borough Partnership came into power.

·         The development of the borough-wide strategy was in the extremely early stages but would later involve public consultation in which parish/town councils would be consulted.

·         Broader discussions were sought with the Planning department regarding environmental standards in new housing. The adoption of the Local Plan would increase environmental standards in new builds, but other Councils had gone further in their own Local Plans and there were adjustments which could be made.

·         The ranking of the Weald Centre among Tunbridge Wells Borough Council’s biggest polluters was unknown once planned improvements had been made.

·         As biodiversity and nature recovery featured as part of the Council’s year 2 action plan, the Chairman recommended KCC’s Plan B initiative which provided blueprints for borough councils to adopt their own Plan B pollinator action strategy. A survey by Kent Wildlife Trust and Bug’s Life which showed winged insect populations in Kent had fallen by 72% in 17 years, and 58% nationally. The Portfolio Holder agreed this would be worth further consideration as the TWBC’s last biodiversity action plan was produced in 2008 and it was confirmed that TWBC was already working with KCC regarding biodiversity and the Kent climate change network.

·         The strategy worked on by the Borough Partnership was required to go through Panels and CABs with time to scrutinise ideas the Portfolio Holder had and the direction he wanted to go in developing the borough strategy.

·         Additional funding allocated for the Weald Centre was put to Finance and Governance CAB and was approved across parties, including by Conservatives.

·         The Climate Emergency Advisory Panel (CEAP) was a cross-party panel which climate emergency related decisions and all related reports were put through prior to CABs and Cabinet.

RESOLVED – That the report was noted, as per the recommendation.