52
Ben Plummer, Climate Emergency Project Officer, attended the meeting to present
the report and assist the Panel with its enquiries. The report was based on work that
had been undertaken for Colchester Borough Council (the Council) by the Carbon
Trust, updating the Council’s pathway to net zero emissions.
Oliver Patrick, the Carbon Trust, attended the meeting remotely and appraised the
Panel of the work that had been undertaken in partnership with the Carbon Trust as
part of the Council’s decarbonisation strategy and response to the climate
emergency. The Council had declared a Climate Emergency in July 2019, which
contained an ambitious decarbonisation target to reduce direct operational emissions
to net zero by 2030. This included scope 1 and scope 2 emissions which included
energy consumption from natural gas, diesel from the Council’s fleet, and electricity,
together with wider indirect emissions which were sometimes called scope 3
emissions, and which included business travel, waste and water. It was also
recognised that the Council should use its influence to empower the borough and
drive area-wide emission reductions. The Carbon Trust had provided the Council a
baseline carbon footprint in 2019, and had conducted some emissions modelling to
identify and prioritise decarbonisation projects. The Panel were advised that the
report that had been produced was only a single element of the Council’s response
to the Climate Emergency, which also included Climate Challenge and Sustainability
Strategy Themes.
The Council had been working on several decarbonisation initiatives, and had a clear
understanding of how many of its assets would contribute to the 2030 target. The
Carbon Trust (the Trust) had worked with the Council to conduct a review of The
Council’s assets and approaches and provide an updated pathway projection based
on this review, and conduct a review of offsetting to help inform the Council’s offset
strategy and shape key principles around which this strategy could form. In reviewing
key assets, the Trust recognised that the Council had well established plans in
relation to its fleet decarbonisation and moving towards a wholly electric fleet, and in
relation to the retrofitting of Rowan House which met best practice decarbonisation
standard. The Trust therefore focussed on other areas of work such as the building
management programme and sheltered housing scheme and had made further
recommendations in addition to work the Council had already undertaken. It had
been intended to include Leisure World in this review, however, analysis of the site
had been restricted due to uncertainty over potential operational changes, and it had
therefore been agreed that there was too much ambiguity around the site to be able
to include it in the pathway projection at this time.
As a result of the analysis which had been carried out, the Trust had looked to
quantify the changes in energy consumption that would be a result of the
implementation of the Council’s plans, and this had been possible for three of the
four assets which had been reviewed; the complete electrification of the Council’s
fleet, the retrofitting of Rowan House, and the refurbishment of a number of
sheltered housing blocks. By 2030, the modelling that had been carried out indicated
a reduction of 3,563t of CO2 on the baseline year leaving a residual emission of
2,617t of CO2 equivalent, which was the result of the implementation of Council
projects and effect of the decarbonisation of the National Grid. It was important to
note that the pathway did not constitute an exhaustive list of projects, and
represented a snapshot in time of the current position. What was demonstrated by
this snapshot was that the Council should seek to use its best efforts to now deliver
the electrification of its fleet, as this generated significant savings. Leisure World was
also highlighted as a hotspot, and it was recommended that the Council should now
spend significant resource developing plans to reduce emissions at the site. Over
75% of project-related emission reductions were expected to come from the
electrification of the Council’s fleet, with a significant drop in emissions expected in
2026 when the waste collections vehicles were replaced. The use of heat pumps
was also expected to have a significant impact on emission reductions by 2030,
making up 22% of project-related emission reductions, and the use of heat pumps
would be central to the Council’s decarbonisation. With regard to the Council’s fleet
and sheltered accommodation schemes, it was considered that the Council was
close to maximising its decarbonisation potential by 2030, and to make further
savings would require the pursuit of low carbon heating options in the normal
maintenance cycle. These options would, however, be naturally limited by the fabric
of the buildings being considered.
Even with the implementation of the projects, and under an accelerated
decarbonisation pathway, it was expected that the Council would still have residual
emissions left in 2030 which would require offsetting. There was still uncertainty as
to what the Council’s offsetting strategy would be, and this was largely caused by a
lack of availability of guidance and standards, particularly in relation to public sector
bodies. In the light of this lack of guidance, a workshop was carried out with Officers
to try to identify key principles around which an offsetting strategy could be formed.
The workshop determined that attendees had an agnostic approach to offsetting
methods, but did consider that the Council’s offsetting strategy should be aligned to
a decarbonisation target and that any strategy should prioritise offsets within the
Council’s sphere of influence and the local borough (known as insetting). The Panel
were advised that there was a distinction between removal offsetting and reduction
offsetting, with removal offsets serving to actively take carbon from the atmosphere
via methods such as afforestation, while reduction offsets sought to reduce the
impact of every day function on emission levels through methods such as introducing
solar powered energy provision. By the decarbonisation target date, all residual
emissions should be offset using removal methods. The workshop provided a very
clear preference for the use of insetting, and the Panel were advised that this would
require additional research, as typical offset providers would be unlikely to have
offsets available in the local area. Although there would be challenges to insetting,
the Council was in a strong position to deliver benefits of the strategy to the local
area, and the Trust therefore recommended that any offsetting strategy should
initially prioritise offsetting within the Council’s sphere of influence.
The Carbon Trust made a number of recommendations to the Council as a result of
their study in respect of the review of key assets and pathway projection:
- Consolidate existing plans that realize significant emission reduction, such as
the decarbonisation of the Council’s fleet, which would be a key driver behind
the Council’s decarbonisation
- Embed carbon reduction in existing Council operations.
- Maintain an active view of the market with a view to taking advantage of
favourable developments in technology which would support a reduction in
emissions
- Seek clarity over unaccounted hotspot emission sources, such as Leisure
World.
Recommendations had also been made with regard to the Council’s approach to
offsetting:
- Await further guidance and remain informed of any changes to best practice
or emerging technology to ensure that the Council was able to remain agile
and adapt any strategy as appropriate
- Consider local offsetting
- Target setting, to ensure certainty in the Council’s targets and decarbonisation
ambitions.
Andrew Tyrrell, Client and Business Manager, attended the meeting remotely to
address the Panel, which was advised that the Council had a pathway to net zero
emissions in place following the declaration of a Climate Emergency in 2019, and
there were still eight years to go down this path. The Council’s carbon emissions had
already been reduced by 3,563t, leaving the Council to find the final 2,617t of carbon
reduction required over the coming eight years. It had always been known that some
offsetting would be required for the Council to achieve its targets, however the
reductions that had been made to date, and would be made in the future, would
reduce the final offsetting amount which was required.
In terms of the next steps along the pathway, the Council would now create a
Carbon Management Plan which would demonstrate how the reductions from the
Council’s assets would be maximised, and the Climate Emergency Action Plan
would be maintained and modified as necessary. It was intended to implement all
previously agreed sheltered housing plans within the HRA Business Plan, which was
to be presented to Cabinet in January 2022. A large amount of work had been
carried out in respect of the Council’s sheltered housing stock in recent years, and it
was considered that the best approach to be taken was to insult the fabric of
buildings to minimise heat loss before introducing technologies which provided a
lower carbon energy source, because heat would still be lost from the buildings.
Three schemes would be completed before 2030, and a further scheme would be
completed after 2030 and the heating system in a building which was already well
insulated would be replaced with a system with a lower carbon heat source. The
Panel heard that central government would also be lobbied by the Portfolio Holder
for Housing and the Portfolio Holder for Environment to seek additional funding to
support housing modification, as all councils would be placed under significant
pressure in this regard. The Council was in a strong position with regard to the
energy efficiency of its housing stock, and registered in the top quartile of efficient
stock. New projects would be continually sought, and a key project would be a
detailed consideration of the Leisure World facility to seek improvements in the
energy efficiency of the site. Leisure World had faced an uncertain future with the
restrictions which had been placed upon its operation by the Covic-19 pandemic,
and the first priority of the Council had been to get the site reopened for the benefit
of both the Council and the public.
Councillor Cory noted that the target which had been set for the Council was to
achieve net zero emissions, but he now felt that the aspiration should be to achieve
carbon neutrality, as he had some reservations about the use of offsetting. He would,
however, support local offsetting which removed carbon from the atmosphere, and
hoped that this Panel would work closely with Cabinet over the coming years to
ensure that the right investments were made to support the Council’s
decarbonisation aims. He asked whether the Carbon Trust could give examples,
either nationally or globally, of leisure centres and crematoriums which had been
constructed or managed on a carbon neutral basis. The Panel were advised that a
leisure centre had recently been built in Exeter, which was the first ever to have been
build to ‘passive house standard’, which was considered to be best practice in terms
of energy efficiency. With regard to Leisure World, the fabric of the building itself
would have a large impact on the type of work which could be undertaken, and
reducing the emissions from the site would likely focus on reducing the use of fossil
fuels as much as possible. The fact that the site would require retrofitting was an
added complication which potentially limited the efficiencies which could be made
there. The Panel were not made aware of any crematoriums which had been
constructed or managed in an energy efficient way.
Councillor Chillingworth considered that there should be a national definition which
the Council could adopt with regard to whether it was aspiring to be carbon net zero,
or carbon neutral. He supported the idea of local offsetting, and considered that the
Council should explore the possibility of using a solar farm for this purpose, possibly
leasing Council land to an operator on which to establish a solar farm. Oliver Patrick
explained to the Panel that when Climate Emergencies were being declared, the
terms ‘net zero’ and ‘carbon neutrality’ were often used interchangeably. It was,
however, possible to obtain certification against a publicly available standard called
PAS 2060 in respect of carbon neutrality which would allow an organisation or
product to state that it was carbon neutral. There were now also emerging standards
for organisations to use in aspiring to become net zero which had recently been
agreed with the Science Based Targets initiative, and the Carbon Trust
recommended that organisations seeking to become carbon neutral aligned
themselves to these standards. There were key differences in the meanings of the
two terms being used, with an organisation only have to have a carbon management
plan in place, together with an unspecified carbon reduction target to become carbon
neutral, with the rest of its emissions being offset. To be considered to be net zero,
the Science Based Targets initiative specified that an organisation should have a
short term and a long term decarbonisation target, and these should be aligned
specifically to a 1.5 degree warming scenario. It was important that there was
transparency when using the terminology, and in particular when referring to key
criteria. There was a further complication for the Council in relation to being certified
as being a ‘net zero’ organisation, in that the Science Based Targets initiative did not
provide this certification for public bodies at this time, although this may change in
the future. It was considered that the accepted standards required for achieving ‘net
zero’ were the most credible and robust that were available and these also had
relevance to the public sector. The Panel heard that Solar PV could be claimed as a
carbon offset as it displaced the need to use less energy efficient sources of
electricity, and the ownership of the site itself did not matter if the Council was
funding this through an offset fund.
Councillor Jowers noted the large expense which was associated with making the
Council’s housing stock more energy efficient, and requested some more detailed
costings in relation to this so that expenditure could be prioritised. He considered
that retrofitting properties to fit heat pumps was a costly and difficult endeavour. He
further considered that more consideration needed to be given to lager rural centres
in the Council’s thinking. Andrew Tyrrell confirmed that a significant piece of work
had been carried out in respect of the Council’s stock, which would be presented to
Cabinet as part of the HRA Business Plan. It was estimated that there would be a
requirement for between £82m and £102m of work to be carried out across the
Council’s approximately 7,000 housing stock properties to reach net zero. The
approach in the short term was to focus on the fabric of the buildings, and the
Council currently had 991 properties below an energy efficiency rating of C. the
national target was to have all properties brought up to this rating by 2035, however,
Colchester Borough Council would achieve this by 2030. The energy efficiency of
buildings could be improved by the use of common and tested methods such as loft
and wall insulation which could be implemented by any builder, however, when
technology was being considered to achieve the same result, it was important to
remember that this represented a niche market and was improving and becoming
cheaper all the time. It was therefore considered more efficient to focus on the
building fabric first, and consider other technological solutions as these were further
developed and became cheaper in the future. The Panel heard that replacing a
boiler with an air source heat pump would cost many thousands of pounds more
than simply buying a replacement boiler, and would require changes to the
infrastructure of the property in which it was installed. It was therefore considered a
risk to carry out this sort of work ahead of improving the building fabric, as
investment in technology which although new now, could became obsolete in a
relatively short time period would be a waste of resource.
Councillor King considered that the Council needed to consider what changes could
be made, at what pace, using what technology and which would be financially
prudent. He believed that investments which were overtaken by events or which
were destructive of the Council’s other priorities, would not be helpful in encouraging
the people of the borough to follow the Council’s example and make the positive
changes that were necessary. He supported Councillor Jowers’ comments around
costings, and thought that any investments that were made needed to be very
carefully considered to ensure the optimum return. There was, for example, little
point in making a major investment into heat pumps which would become obsolete
within a few years time, having been replaced by newer technology which would be
significantly cheaper.
Councillor Young considered that the Council should take whatever steps possible to
educate the public, and applauded the work that had been undertaken by the
Council to reduce emissions. She noted the expense associated with replacing a
boiler with an air source heat pump, and considered that this expense would be
beyond the reach of most people, or would not be something that they would
prioritise. The Council should help and encourage the public as far as possible
towards insulating their properties to increase energy efficiency.
Mandy Jones, Assistant Director – Place and Client Services, advised the Panel that
the ambition that the Council had was to be a carbon neutral organisation, with
operational net zero emissions within the areas which it could directly control, being
scope 1 and 2 emissions. It was considered that government grants would be
forthcoming for the retrofitting of properties, and the Council was taking every
opportunity to seek these forms of funding to assist the public.
Maggie Ibrahim, Sustainability and Climate Change Manager, attended the meeting
remotely and advised the Panel that the Council did not have to wait until 2030 to
begin introducing offsetting schemes, and it could be developing and implementing
these now. Schemes such as the e-cargo bikes scheme were a way of assisting
businesses to reduce their emissions, as well as providing income which could be
used to support further offsetting schemes such as solar farms. It was not suggested
that the remaining deficit of 2,617t of carbon emissions would all be dealt with by
offsetting, and work would continue to reduce emissions as far as possible, although
residual emissions which would remain would need to be offset. The Panel heard
that the report demonstrated that the Council was on the best practice trajectory with
a predicted 5% reduction in emissions yearly.
Oliver Parker advised the Panel that he believed that any offset scheme put forward
by the Council should be the subject of very careful scrutiny to ensure that it was
held to very high standards. Any scheme should also represent additional offsets
from either the private or public sector to avoid claims of ‘greenwashing’ being
levelled at the organisation. With regard to domestic buildings, heat pumps were
considered in the industry as the best current option, and Oliver considered that their
installation should be prioritised for development, as he felt that waiting for other
energy efficient technologies to come forward would delay taking action now to
reduce emissions. With regard to locally based offsets, the Council could consider
supporting skills training to develop the expertise in the borough to install and
maintain new energy efficient heating systems.
Councillor Cory acknowledged that the cost of acting now was high, but considered
that the cost, both locally and globally, of not acting to reduce emissions was far
greater. The Council had to lead, and accept that leading had an associated cost. He
considered that it was better to act now and install heat pumps to generate
immediate emission reductions, even if these pumps had to be replaced over the
coming years. He would welcome greater regulation from government to ensure that
developers delivered carbon neutral housing, even if this were to cost some of their
profits. He advised the Panel that the major housing development companies in the
country had made billions of pounds in profit over the pats two years, and should be
required to use these profits to build houses which to a much greater ecological
standard.
Councillor Young wondered whether it would be possible for the Council to set
requirements for developers in terms of the installation efficient heating systems,
possibly through the Planning regime? Mandy Jones confirmed that the Council’s
Planning requirements had already set down markers for developers in respect of
the ecological standards which were expected, and work was ongoing to see
whether or not these could be improved. She confirmed to the Panel that the
Council’s emerging Economic Development Strategy was likely to focus on green
sector development, with strategies aligned with Essex County Council. Funding had
been obtained as part of the Additional Restrictions Grant to support local
businesses, and it was suggested that some of this be devoted towards helping
these businesses improving their green credentials. Councillor King reiterated his
desire to receive more information on the decisions which would be taken around
emission reduction in the future, together with the cost implications of those
decisions and the carbon reduction benefits that were provided, in order that the
benefit obtained from any money invested was maximised.
Councillor Chillingworth expressed sympathy with Councillor Cory’s stance, but
considered that the Council had no control over housing developers, as this was
achieved by Building Regulations which were set centrally. He had personally
installed a heat pump in his home, which had been expensive; however, even with
the increased consumption of electricity that the pump required, it was still cheaper
to run than his old oil system.
Councillor Barber noted the cross-party support for the Council’s aim to reduce
emissions, and agreed with Councillor Cory that the cost of the Council doing
nothing was greater than the costs of acting. He noted that even at a local level,
there had been an increase in flooding which had impacted on budgets, habitats and
lifestyles, and considered it vital that as an organisation, the Council used its
influence to try to encourage private sector businesses to follow the example which
was being set.
The Panel was directed to a case study which had been included in the papers
presented to it, which was The London Plan 2021 which stated that a minimum of
35% of on-site carbon improvement on national Building Regulations must be met by
developers, with any shortfall being offset with a cash payment to the relevant
London Planning Authority to be used in carbon offsetting projects in the relevant
borough. The Panel would welcome any further information on this Plan, and
wondered whether a similar arrangement could be introduced in Colchester.
RESOLVED that: the contents of the report be noted