Agenda item

that the report be noted. It was also recommended that:  SMART targets should be encouraged where this was possible;  the matrix for prioritisation should balance cost, the likely carbon reduction impact and equalities (in order to support the most vulnerable and to emphasise the importance of social justice);  an easier read version of the plan would be welcome (as would updates to the information on the Council’s website incorporating the actions that individuals could take to reduce their household impact); and there should be greater integration of the annexes to better demonstrate how they relate to one another (to include clarity about what is and what is not within the Council’s control)

6.1    Martin O’Brien (Head of Climate Resilience) introduced the report. Martin outlined the progress that had been made since the declaration of the climate emergency in 2019. He also outlined some of the key successes and challenges in the previous years as well as those anticipated for the future. Martin also set out the amendments that had been made to streamline the action plan.

6.2    Martin O’Brien responded to questions from the Committee – the following key points were noted:

·         Further work would take place to consider how to prioritise the actions in the plan – this was a complex piece of work. It was acknowledged that net zero by 2030 was an ambition (rather than a target) given that the Council did not have the resources to deliver net zero by itself.

·         A distinction had been made in the plan between the emissions that the Council had control of and those it did not.

·         For those areas within the Council’s control - work was taking place to determine how to achieve ambitions in these areas.

·         There was a net-zero board which was chaired by the Executive Director for Place and coordinated work across the Council.

·         The key performance indicators were not part of the original action plan – they had been chosen to demonstrate progress. It was recognised that the impacts of the climate emergency would fall disproportionately on the most vulnerable.

·         Where Council funds were being spent,  this should be prioritised to support the most vulnerable.

·         Given the scale of resources needed the Council had to be agile and make effective use of funding as it became available.

·         A lot of the funding available was one off, time-limited and piecemeal.

·         It was difficult to make all of the actions specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and timebound (SMART) due to the availability of the data, the inconsistency of funding and the scale of ambition of some of the actions.

·         The figures that were available were not perfect – they were produced either from information collected by the Council or from Government data.

·         For each of the actions, a narrative which combined the available data with the overall ambition would likely be the most effective way to monitor progress.

·         The set of key performance indicators and actions was not fixed.

·         A more user-friendly version of the action plan would be developed and published alongside the report to Mayor and Cabinet.

·         There were a range of different actions in the plan: some with low impact and high cost, some with low impact and low cost and some with low cost and high impact. Those with the highest impact were those which required large numbers of people to make changes (and potentially take on some costs). Those with the highest cost were those relating directly to Council buildings, fleet and services.

·         Consideration would also be given to the information that was available on the Council website.

·                Climate literacy training had been made available for councillors and Council officers – in order to provide a foundation of understanding about the climate emergency.

6.3       In Committee discussions the following key points were also noted:

·         Members would welcome further SMART targeting of the key performance indicators (particularly in relation to the timescale in which they would be achieved)

·         Consideration was required to prioritise actions to support the most vulnerable residents (who would be disproportionately impacted by the climate emergency).

·         That greater emphasis should be placed on the social justice objectives in the Council’s climate plans.

·         Further information would be welcome on the number of car free developments in the borough – and the proportion of car free households in the borough.

·         That the annexes should work together/should relate to each other.

6.4    Councillor Krupski was invited to address the committee – it was noted that:

·         There were people who chose not to have a car for cost, lifestyle or environmental reasons.

·         All of the actions in the plan were viewed through an equalities lens.

·         It was recognised that effective communication was an important part of the programme – there had been some successes recently.

6.5    Resolved: that the report be noted. It was also recommended that:  SMART targets should be encouraged where this was possible;  the matrix for prioritisation should balance cost, the likely carbon reduction impact and equalities (in order to support the most vulnerable and to emphasise the importance of social justice);  an easier read version of the plan would be welcome (as would updates to the information on the Council’s website incorporating the actions that individuals could take to reduce their household impact); and there should be greater integration of the annexes to better demonstrate how they relate to one another (to include clarity about what is and what is not within the Council’s control)