Agenda item

The O&S Board is asked to scrutinise and comment on the report and if required make recommendations or observations as appropriate.

Cabinet member invited to attend for this item: Councillor Mike Greene, Portfolio Holder for Sustainability and Transport

The Cabinet report for this item is included with the agenda for consideration by the Overview and Scrutiny Board.

The Chairman explained to the Board the process for consideration of the items for this meeting. The Climate Change Enquiry would be addressed in three sections. The Climate Action Annual Report which was due to be considered by Cabinet on 12 January 2022 would be dealt with in the normal scrutiny form. The meeting would then move into the informal information gathering session. The Chairman thanked senior officers for being in attendance for this session. The final part of the session was primarily for board members to reflect on the discussions which had taken place.

Climate Action Annual Report – The Portfolio Holder for Sustainability and Transport presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each member of the Board and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'A' to these minutes in the Minute Book. The Portfolio Holder and officers addressed a number of points raised by the Board including:

·       Measuring carbon usage – The IT changes which had been made increased carbon efficiency from a buildings point of view but there was no recording of potential increased carbon emissions of those working from home. The Portfolio Holder was asked whether staff would be encouraged back into work from working from home so that the Council was not heating empty offices. The Portfolio Holder advised that it was difficult to measure some of these issues but the way that Council had developed would allow for more efficient use of buildings whilst officers continued some work from home.

·       Staff Commuting – It was noted that not all staff could be home-based and the Portfolio Holder was asked what consideration had been given to how staff commuted, particularly care workers, for example whether they had the ability to use co-wheels electric cars to reduce their carbon footprint. The Portfolio Holder advised that issues around car clubs needed further consideration as there were issues with this when the local authorities were merged. Co-Wheels was very Bournemouth based, but the car club strategy needed to be developed.

·       Investments – Concerns were raised regarding how the Council’s investments were justified under the declared environmental emergency as BCP was using services from one of the most environmentally unfriendly business in the market. A Board member asked whether there were problems with the procurement and tendering process in this regard or the market in general. The Portfolio Holder advised that he felt this issue had already been addressed. There was a sustainable procurement section and policy within the Council’s procurement regulations. The Chief Financial Officer advised that there had already been an extensive dialogue with relevant members and officers. The company was a significant local employer and followed its own standards and those set out legally. The Board member commented that concerns remained regarding the company’s funding of coal infrastructure, fossil fuels, artic digging, etc.  The Portfolio Holder responded that it was important to address things in a pragmatic way and weight issues appropriately rather than letting one issue dominate everything.

·       Future Car Use – A Board member asked about the direction of urban development, whether it was realistic to expect people to maintain a car-free lifestyle in this area and whether the current public transport was a realistic alternative. It was noted that there was a dependency on access to private cars and improving bus services presented a vicious circle which the Council would need to address. Car-free or car-capped developments would need to be accompanied with parking restrictions and those choosing to occupy the developments would need to be encouraged to use public or micro transport as it would be difficult to own a car. If car use continuous the as currently there would be increased problems with an already congested network.

·       Parking SPD – The report affirms that this would create a model shift to sustainable transport and the Board asked what evidence there was for this. There was a lot of evidence from other areas that this would have an effect. In order to make it work well the Council would need to look at parking restrictions and parking zones. However, a Board member noted that national transport statistics were skewed by the well-developed transport infrastructure in major cities, which Bournemouth did not have.  The greater density being created should make the area more cyclable than areas which may sprawl outwards. The Portfolio Holder commented that the area lacked a central business district where a majority of journeys started and ended which made public transport infrastructure more difficult.

·       Procurement Mechanism – A Board member asked what percentage of the scoring matrix was allocated to environmental scoping criteria and whether there was a legal maximum for this. The Portfolio Holder commented that whilst the Council had obligations to oppose fossil fuels it also had other responsibilities, particularly to the Council Taxpayer, The Chief Financial Officer advised that the Council’s financial regulations had provision for a 10 percent proportion within the scoring criteria which was in line with the sustainable governance provided by government. However, at this time the information was not available on what the tolerances were, under which the Council could operate on this issue.

·       Home Working – A concern was raised that although carbon emissions had reduced, home working had not been taken into account. It was noted that it would be possible to work this out as the amount of gas and electricity usage by homes in the BCP area was known. The Board questioned why something so important had not been included within the report.

·       Carbon Emissions by Sector – It was noted that it was difficult to ascertain the proportion of emissions outlined in the pie chart within the report. Officers undertook to include a full inventory table which would be supplied to members and included within the report to Council. A Board member advised that they would be interested to know how the aviation and water-based elements were calculated, in particular why the Port element was so low, they were advised that full details of this could be provided.

·       Impact of Pets – A Board member asked whether any consideration had been given to the carbon footprint of pets as the target could not be met without addressing the issue at some point prior to 2050. The Board was advised that the Council would be looking to ensure that the trajectory was correct to come down to net zero. If there happened to be some areas which had been omitted the scope of emissions could be widened as further information came forward.

·       Impact of Electric Vehicles - Issues were raised around their carbon neutrality and also their lifespan and disposal. There were serious considerations concerning this, both with the parking policy but also on the formula used to measure carbon savings.

·       Scope 3 Emission Types – Further questions were asked about why this included the grey fleet, commuting and travel of staff but didn’t include carbon emissions from working from home. It was noted that the Council paid for the grey fleet for travel but did not pay contributions for working from home.

·       Reporting Issues – It was noted that cafes had not responded with end-of-life costs which presented a problem with accuracy of the information. It was questioned whether there could be a system where data was collected, in a more automated way rather than relying on people completing a return. It was reported that this may be possible, but the impact was very small.

·       Climate Action Plan - As 153 items were prioritised originally, the Portfolio Holder was asked whether it was possible to see a list including which items were being progressed and which had not been. The Portfolio Holder advised that it was easy to look at previous climate action plans against the current action plan. It was expected that this would continue year on year, and they responded that this was fully transparent.

·       Climate Action Steering Group – It was noted that this was different from the Climate Action Board. The Steering Group was made up of senior leaders within the Council and met every two months to take things forward. A Board member commented that it would be helpful to know who was on this group and asked if a paragraph could be included within the report on this issue

·       UK 100 – A Board Member questioned why this had only recently been considered and why there wasn’t a commitment to join. The Board member asked that if the Council did join, that records were kept up to date as this had not been the case with the compact of mayors. A Non-Board member suggested that recommendation ‘c’ of the report should be changed to make a commitment to join UK 100. The Portfolio Holder advised that he wanted to look further into what needed to be done to join and how it was hoped to be achieved before making a commitment. It was also suggested that the Council should be joining the UN’s Race to Zero Pledge.

·       Council Homes – It appeared from the paper that nothing had been done to improve any Council homes in terms of carbon emissions over the past year, a Board member asked if this was correct. The Board was advised that there had been changes made but it had not been possible to measure these. It was noted that the amount would have gone down but as it was not possible to record this accurately so the figures remained unchanged. It was suggested that it would be sensible to add a line on this basis to explain the situation.

·       Carbon Offset – In response to a query regarding the 6,600 tonnes which were from hard to reduce sources the Portfolio Holder advised that carbon offset had to be the last of all possibilities to achieve net zero.

·       Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards – The Chairman questioned how these standards would be enforced in the private sector and how the Council would ensure that buildings exceeded the building regulation requirements. In terms of building regulations this would be down to guidance which would sit underneath the local plan. By 2025 there would be a requirement that all private rented properties had to achieve an EPC rating of C or greater. The Council had a duty to ensure the private sector complied with this.

The meeting adjourned at 3:54pm and resumed at 4:04pm.