Meeting Details

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Deacon and Jepson and Councillors Byatt and Starling attended as their respective substitutes. The Chair also explained that Councillor Hammond, who had been appointed as a Member of this Committee on 21 August 2024, had submitted his apologies.

Clerk's Note: Post meeting, it was noticed that an apology for absence had also been received from Councillor Molyneux.

Councillors Bennett and Ninnmey arrived at 6.33pm.

Whilst no formal declarations of interest were made, Councillors Gooch and Plummer stated that they were members of the Council's Environmental Task Group and Councillor Byatt stated that he was a member of the Council's East Suffolk's Amazing Task Group.

On the proposition of Councillor Gooch, seconded by Councillor Back it was

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meetings held on 20 June 2024 and 18 July 2024 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Committee considered report ES/2089 the report of the Cabinet Member with responsibility for the Environment. 

The Committee was reminded that, at their meeting in February 2024, they had requested the Cabinet Member to report back on her top three priorities within the Environmental Impact Theme and, at their March 2024 meeting, to follow up on any barriers to partnership working to deliver the Environmental Impact Theme Action Plan, accordingly, she stated that her top three priorities were:

1. Rebranding of the Pardon the Weeds campaign which was now Nature at Work. This had taken a little longer to launch because of procurement matters but the project would begin imminently and involve working with Town and Parish Councils and schools etc.
2. Restoring biodiversity focussing on improving water quality and management.  This priority would involve lots of external partners such as the Deben Climate Centre, Suffolk Wildlife Trust and the Environment Agency.  The finer details of projects that would hopefully deliver good levels of biodiversity, water quality improvements and flood mitigation would be announced at the Environmental Task Group in due course.  Work with the community was ongoing through the Greenprint Forum eg Green Felixstowe, plastic campaigns and bee cafes in Woodbridge with two more instigated in Wickham Market and four installed in Melton with the aim of saving native species and attracting pollinators. There would also be officially designated wildlife meadows.
3. The development of a Tree Strategy following the Tree motion to Full Council in July 2024.  A Working Group involving the Woodland Trust and other stakeholders, including Planning colleagues, had been formed to make sure it was a really worthwhile Strategy going forward. The Council was also working closely with Flagship Housing who had planted a few trees and were keen to work with us on sites they owned.

The Cabinet Member concluded that, whilst these were details of her top three priorities, a lot of positive progress was being made on all of the priorities within the Our Direction 2028 Action Plan.

The Chair thanked the Cabinet Member and the following responses were given to Members' questions:

• A lot of the funding for the projects would come from the General Fund with match funding from appropriate sources.  Grants were available from the Forestry Commission and Woodland Trust etc and Government funding would be bid for.  The Council had been unsuccessful in its first round bid for funding towards the decarbonisation of the leisure centres but another bid would be made for round two.  The Cycling and Walking Strategy was also a key component ambition for this theme.  The Council had allocated funding to deliver the Strategy actions but more would be needed.
• Because East Suffolk had such a large number of NSIPs, Climate Change and the Environment had been split between two portfolios but the two Cabinet Members worked closely together, particularly on climate change.
• There had been a lot of progress in relation to KPIs since the previous meetings and some were included in the report.  It was envisaged that all the KPIs would be fully developed imminently and they would then be uploaded to the Council's website.
• A lot of the larger vehicles in the fleet had been converted to HVO which had significantly reduced emissions.  Many of the smaller vehicles had been changed to electric but there were some issues because of the distance vehicles needed to travel and the lack of infrastructure, so heavy vehicles would run on as clean a fuel as possible and other vehicles would be changed when it was feasible.
• Acronyms used in the document would be reviewed eg RAMS was now Wildlife Wise.
• Natural England was employing new rangers to look after heathland and areas of SSI.
• Hydrogen technology was still being developed and proper green hydrogen was very expensive to make but the Council had developed a Clean Hydrogen Strategy and held two conferences with multiple stakeholders from the sector.  There was also an electroliser at Lowestoft Port, a demonstrator at Lowestoft Power Park and Sizewell C were planning to use hydrogen operated buses.
• The Retirement Living Scheme generated 12% of carbon emissions because the property was used 24 hours per day and needed to keep occupants warm.  As the fleet was decarbonised, emissions would tail off so the Retirement Living Scheme percentage of emissions would increase, therefore, there was a need to find a way to decarbonise the property as soon as possible, perhaps by renewable energy.  This and decarbonising the leisure centres and other Council assets was a high priority.
• There was more work to do with Town and Parish Councils especially with Nature at Work and the Tree Strategy. More consultation would take place with those towns and parishes who wanted to naturalise and the Ground Work East team would help with this as part of our package.
• Whilst the team was working effectively there might be a need to look at additional officer time as part of the budget deliberations, however, the Council was doing the best it could with the current resources available.
• Biodiversity Net Gain was causing problems on a national scale as it could be really difficult to get 10% on site.  BNG Units cost about £50K and the locations needed to be properly thought out. Some developers were baffled about how they would get the percentage in, especially if there was a lot of infrastructure in their development.  Planning officers were working with developers on how to achieve it.
• A Member Briefing session was being held shortly on Simpler Recycling and this Committee would be reviewing the Engagement Strategy for it in due course.
• The Council had scrutinised companies in terms of their green credentials and had opted for Barclays Bank's green investment account.
• The Council worked across county borders to tackle the eight Environmental Impact strategic priorities eg Coastal Partnership East, the Local Nature Recovery Strategy and lessons had been learnt from Essex in relation to the development of the Local Plan, however, it was acknowledged that whilst a lot of collaboration existed within Suffolk that was leading to meaningful change, more could be done cross boundary.
• Data and KPIs were important but environmental issues could be hard to measure in boxes and it was difficult to know what would happen next for climate change.  However, it was agreed that the way data was displayed was key to enabling people to see the baseline data, analyse it easily and see performance progression, annotation explaining and identifying if there were any areas for concern.

The Chair thanked the Cabinet Member and Officers for their responses and invited the Committee to debate any potential recommendations.

Councillor Starling stated that it was a good report with the exception of polishing off the way in which the KPIs were displayed. 

Councillor Byatt agreed that it was a good report but pointed out that some KPIs were coming from Government (such as around recycling) so he queried whether the Council should include them in detail within the Council Strategy or just accept that in the Action Plan it simply stated the KPIs were coming.  He added that the Cabinet Member's three priorities were wise, however, he suggested that how the Council would deal with the waste changes should be more of a priority and he queried if the specific implementation date everything had to be brought in by should be built in, just in case the Government did not go down that route, as this would reflect that the Council was already committed to it.  The Cabinet Member agreed to review the Action Plan in light of the comments regarding the KPIs and the Simpler Recycling implementation dates.

Councillor Gooch agreed it was a good report but expressed concern about capacity for the team and she suggested employing apprentices.  Councillor Byatt agreed, adding that it was a small team with a large amount of work.  The Cabinet Member stated that the team already had one apprentice and that all staff resourcing options were being looked at as it was recognised that there was a need to resource the amount of work being undertaken.

Councillor Ninnmey stated that there was a need to be careful with the number and type of KPIs the Council had.

Councillor Plummer praised how much work was being undertaken by such a small team and how many service areas were involved in this Action Plan who were working together.

Councillor Bennett stated that performance was one thing but the Council would be judged on the “impact” of this theme.  The Cabinet Member stated that this Council was determined to be bold and make an impact, eg plant more trees and make progress on the rivers, all of which would be recognisable to the public.  Councillor Bennett acknowledged that this was the Council's intention but reiterated that there was a need to try to predict what impact all of this work would have so the Council could pinpoint what had been done and show how it had achieved an impact.

Councillor Lynch stated that without knowing exactly what the KPIs were it was hard to judge how much resources were needed.  Councillor Bennett agreed, adding that it was not all about KPIs but was about measuring performance and data and also capturing how residents felt and their experience.  It was noted that the current KPI dashboards were available on the intranet ahead of them being published online this year.

Councillor Ninnmey queried if new KPIs would be established for the environment and it was noted that there were some KPIs in the Strategy, some were due to go live shortly and some were still in development.  Councillor Ashton stated that a lot of work was taking place on KPI dashboards across the whole Council and these were being reviewed by this Committee next month.  He added that he would ensure they would be in a suitable form in accordance with this Committee's comments.

In response to Councillor Byatt's query, the Cabinet Member for the Environment acknowledged that it was likely more staffing would be needed to deliver against the KPIs.

On the proposition of Councillor Ninnmey, seconded by Councillor Plummer it was

RESOLVED

1. That the report be noted and the direction of travel for the Environmental Impact Theme be supported, however, given the concerns expressed, the Cabinet Member be requested to review the staffing levels ASAP to ensure that the Council's ambitions for this theme could be met.

2.  That the Cabinet Member and Officers be requested to review the way the KPIs were presented, ensuring that the "impact" was also measurable.

3.  That the Committee be provided with line by line funding details for each of the Environmental Theme's priorities as a matters arising to the next meeting.

The meeting adjourned at 7.45pm and reconvened at 7.58pm.

The Chair explained that Councillor Daly, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Energy and Climate Change was the last of the 2023/24 round of Cabinet Member Sessions and he invited him to give details of the direction of travel for the services within his portfolio.

The Cabinet Member stated that most of his time was taken up by the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) such as Sizewell C, as well as nine offshore projects, seven of which would directly impact on East Suffolk and two that would not have a direct impact as they did not make landfall in this district.  He added that it had been a steep learning curve since he had taken up the post but he was well supported by the Energy Team.  He stressed that his goal was to achieve the minimum environmental damage and maximum social benefit because the amount of activity generated was going to be extremely impactful on the district. He explained that each project was at a different stage and the team would scrutinise and engage with the developments before the application was presented to the Secretary of State to ensure the developer met the needs of the district and communities.  The Team also looked at the discharging of various obligations as they had to be signed off and the developer held to account if they had not complied with the DCO.  He stressed that it was important for the Council to engage with developers and a large part of his job was to respond to challenges and worries from the community that things should be done differently; ensure more information was given if needed; or liaise with the applicant if they were not doing things in the agreed way, eg noise, dust, environmental impacts, closing off roads and lanes etc. 

The Cabinet Member also gave details of two projects in the pipeline for the district, Nautilus and Sealink.  He added that the cross party NSIPs Working Group had recently met with National Grid representatives on areas they should review before the development consent application was submitted next year.  The Council also worked with Suffolk County Council and the most affected Town and Parish Councils, as well as campaign groups. 

The Cabinet Member stated that his goal for the year was to make a reality of Community Energy and he had secured funding to examine locations for potential projects similar to the one at Charsfield where communities identified land or buildings for wind turbines and solar panels to reduce their carbon emissions and bills and become more independent.  He explained that he was also looking at various ways of introducing net zero on the Council's own estates, including working with the County Council on projects such as EV charging and solar panels as they had their own funding.  He concluded that Energy and Climate Change were an integral part of the Environmental Impact theme of the Strategic Plan.

The Chair thanked the Cabinet Member for his presentation and the following responses were given to Members' questions:

• The Cabinet Member acknowledged that a lot of his time had been taken up with getting to grips with NSIP's but he hoped the new NSIP Working Group would free up some of his time so he could focus on other areas of his portfolio.  He added that if the right individual came along who could add energy to the portfolio then he would be happy to have an Assistant Cabinet Member.
•  The Norwich to Tilbury pylons would not cross into East Suffolk so there would be no direct impact on the district.
• The Council's responses to the current project consultations were available on the website and it was being suggested that masterplans of the sites be created to seek to achieve greater co-ordination between the different projects.
• It would be up to each community to decide how many wind turbines, solar panels or ground source heat pumps they wanted in their area and it was hoped that larger areas could achieve almost free energy once the infrastructure was paid for.
• Discussions had taken place with Jenny Riddell-Carpenter MP regarding NSIPs etc shortly after she had been elected and these would continue.
• The Council did not have any joint wind or solar projects with the County Council yet but this would be added to the agenda for future discussions.
• The initial barriers to community energy were community buy in.  The new Government was pro community energy and there were positive indications that funding might become available.
• There were issues with connection to the grid so discussions were taking place on batteries and it was hoped that the model would be based in what they had in Scotland so if it did not go into the national grid it could go into a closed grid.
• In relation to climate change and encouraging people to make lifestyle changes, the Council had to show people that their positive actions would benefit themselves as well eg employing technology would lower their carbon footprint and reduce their bills and hopefully if some changed then others would follow.
• Having solar panels on the Council's car parks seemed to be a win win situation and there were various funding streams available to make this happen.  The pilots would be part of the leisure decarbonisation programme.  The Council would also be looking at solar panels on its housing stock and other buildings.
• Climate change was also about farming and the amount of meat and dairy eaten, together with the subsequent impact on health, such as diabetes/heart disease, and the cost to the NHS.
• Councillors were asked to reassure communities that the Council was working on their behalf but, as the NSIPs were a national priority, still had to engage with developers to ensure there were maximum benefits for residents.  Every element of a project was scrutinised and communities could help shape the discussions before a DCO was made.
• Regular press releases were made and Councillors, both District and Town/Parish Councillors, were urged to disseminate the information to ensure residents knew what was going on.

It was suggested that the Cabinet Member should facilitate a Member Briefing on the energy projects and for the NSIPs Working Group to be recorded to enable all Councillors to know what was going on. 

The Chair stated that, since the Work Programme had been agreed, it had been suggested that the Cabinet Member Sessions for Councillor Yule, Cabinet Member for Planning and Coastal Management, and Councillor Wilson, who had recently taken over from Councillor Hammond as the Cabinet Member for Economic Development and Transport, scheduled for 17 October 2024 and 21 November 2024 respectively, be postponed to the 2025/26 Municipal Year.  

The Chair confirmed that the change to the 17 October 2024 meeting meant that the only item on the agenda would be a review of the Council’s performance.  He also reminded Members that there was a Budget Scrutiny Training session on 3 October 2024.

On the proposition of Councillor Lynch, seconded by Councillor Thompson it was

RESOLVED

That the proposal to postpone the Cabinet Member Scrutiny Sessions for Councillors Yule and Wilson be agreed and the Work Programme updated accordingly.