Agenda and draft minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were submitted by David Cornish, Graham Howe and Norman Jorgensen.

Al Neal and Shahid Younis attended the meeting as substitutes.

To receive any declarations of interest.

Andy Croy declared a personal interest as he was a member of the Barkham Solar Farm monitoring group.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting held on 23 May 2023.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 23 May 2023 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair, subject to Member attendance at the meeting being confirmed as:

David Cornish, Andy Croy (Chair), Norman Jorgensen, Charles Margetts, Ian Pittock, Catherine Glover, Graham Howe, Pauline Helliar-Symons (Substitute) and Andrew Mickleburgh (Substitute).

To answer any public questions. A period of 30 minutes will be allowed for members of the public to ask questions submitted under notice. The Council welcomes questions from members of the public about the work of this Committee.

Subject to meeting certain timescales, questions can relate to general issues concerned with the work of the Committee or an item which is on the Agenda for this meeting.

For full details of the procedure for submitting questions please contact the Democratic Services Section on the numbers given below or go to

www.wokingham.gov.uk/publicquestions

Is the aim of WBC to have Wokingham Borough be net zero in 2030 or carbon neutral in 2030? I am asking because I saw in a scrutiny committee document reference to carbon neutral.

Is the aim of WBC to have Wokingham Borough be net zero in 2030 or carbon neutral in 2030? I am asking because I saw in a scrutiny committee document reference to carbon neutral.

Answer

In the current Climate Emergency Action Plan (CEAP), the term ‘net-zero’ (with a hyphen) is mentioned once, ‘net zero’ (without a hyphen) is mentioned 36 times, ‘carbon neutral’ is mentioned 14 times and ‘carbon neutrality’ is mentioned 9 times.There is a danger that the terms are used interchangeably, when they should not be and I am sure the officers will now examine the CEAP to ensure the use of the term ‘net-zero’ in the CEAP is appropriate to those parts of the CEAP where it is used. 

Other papers prepared for scrutiny committee meetings are often prepared by subject specialists rather than by climate emergency specialists, so it is possible that in this process an inappropriate mention of ‘net-zero’ has crept in. 

As with the CEAP as whole, it may well be that net-zero is appropriate for some areas of the plan but carbon neutrality is appropriate for other areas. 

Having said that, I am sure the officers and Executive Member would prefer net-zero, but simply recognise that even achieving carbon neutrality by 2030 is not going to happen without a step change in financial and legislative support for local authorities from central government. 

It is also worth mentioning that the original goal 2030 was ridiculously ambitious and set for political messaging purposes rather than planning purposes.

Thank you for drawing this to our attention – we will draw it the attention of the officers and the Executive Member. 

Supplementary Question

I’m sure you will agree that providing intentionally or unintentionally misleading information reduces the credibility of that information and also the group publishing it.  

The difference between net zero and carbon neutral, as an example, is taught to Geography students in school and any students would know that stating net zero for 2030 is unrealistic and unachievable. It should immediately in their minds bring doubt about the plans.  

There are housing developers, even in Wokingham borough, using “sustainable development” as a description of their developments in order to sell them, probably for more money.  An EV charger on the front of a house does not make it sustainable, nor the odd bug box scattered about.  A house with solar panels is not carbon neutral let alone net zero or sustainable.  A sapling planted now will not capture significant carbon for 20 years (if it even survives).  

It’s important that WBC get their message right and that these very emotive terms are used correctly, especially where others play fast and loose with these terms.

Can you explain what controls are in place and what scrutiny is made of policy, documents and newsletters to ensure they are accurate, that they are not misleading, that they are even achievable, and that the correct terminology is used to ensure everyone is on the same page with regards  ...  view the full minutes text for item 141.

To answer any Member questions.

There were no Member questions.

To consider the fourth progress report on the Council’s Climate Emergency Action Plan (CEAP) prior to its submission to Council in September 2023.

The Committee considered a report, set out at Agenda pages 13 to 178, which comprised the fourth progress report on the Council’s Climate Emergency Action Plan (CEAP). The report summarised the Borough’s current carbon emission profile and progress towards its 2030 carbon neutrality goal achieved in 2022/23.

Sarah Kerr (Executive Member for Climate Emergency and Resident Services) attended the meeting to present the report and answer Member questions. Councillor Kerr was supported by members of the Council’s Climate Emergency team and officers from a range of different technical and service areas.

The report stated that the CEAP contained 10 key priority areas for carbon reduction together with over 100 actions. The latest assessment stated that the Borough’s carbon footprint was 505 ktCO2e, with a current projected shortfall in 2030 (after all the actions had been delivered) of 240ktCO2e. Consequently, in order to meet the 2030 carbon neutral goal, further actions and resources, as well as strategic embedding of Climate Emergency considerations, would be needed.

Sarah Kerr stated that the fourth iteration of the CEAP looked significantly different to earlier versions. Councillor Kerr thanked the Members and officers who had worked to deliver the latest iteration of the CEAP. For the first time, an action plan had been included in the CEAP to support the development of an Adaptation Plan for the Borough. The CEAP would also be improved to make it more accessible for residents with visual impairments. The final version of the CEAP would be submitted to full Council in September 2023.

Andy Croy suggested that questions and comments on the CEAP be grouped into the 10 priority areas.

In the ensuing discussion, Members raised the following points and questions.

In relation to the Emissions Trajectories diagram on page 26, what tools were used to measure if progress was being achieved? It was confirmed that the CEAP was the monitoring tool. Progress against the 100+ plus actions was set out in the Annual Progress report. The RAG rating indicated progress and areas requiring further improvement. It was confirmed that the data in Figure 1 – WBC 2020 Emissions – was based on three year old data provided by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ).

Figure 2 (page 26) – WBC 2030 Emissions Trajectories – used the acronym BAU (Business as Usual). This was a business term which could be misleading for the wider public. Could a more meaningful term be used? It was confirmed that officers would review the content of the chart.

Priority 1 – Transport

Feedback from residents indicated interest in the three cargo bikes purchased by the Council and available for deliveries. How did residents/businesses go about hiring the cargo bikes? It was confirmed that details of the cargo bikes had been included in the Business Matters newsletter. Further consideration would be given to additional communications about the cargo bikes.

CEAP 1A.3.5 – Bus stop infrastructure works to support North Arborfield SDL Bus Strategy – the descriptor need to be amended – there  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

To consider the Committee’s Work Programme for 2023/24. Work Programme items to be identified after discussion of the CEAP progress report.

The Committee considered its work programme for 2023/24. The Chair stated that the discussion on the draft CEAP would help to generate issues for inclusion in the work programme.

It was suggested that progress on the delivery of Solar Farms be a standing item for future meetings.

The Chair suggested that Members consider progress on the CEAP and suggest items for inclusion in the work programme after the meeting.

RESOLVED That:

1)     progress on the delivery of solar farms in the Borough be a standing item on future Agenda;

2)     Members submit ideas/issues for consideration at future meetings to Andy Croy or Neil Carr (Democratic Services).