Meeting documents

To consider a report of the Director (PT), (Reference 22/139).

The Chair introduced the report, then invited the Climate Change Programme Manager, Mr Baross, to present.

As a background to the report, Mr Baross reminded Members of the work undertaken by the scrutiny appointed Task and Finish Group on Climate Change, the findings and recommendations from which were subsequently adopted by Council.  In addition, Mr Baross provided a more detailed update   and overview of progress against each strategic objective within the Climate Change Strategy. 

Members were also updated that an in progress application for 51 on-street residential charge-point scheme had been submitted, providing 102 EV bays in the Council’s car parks across the borough. 

The Committee received a detailed PowerPoint Presentation, summarised as follows:-

Borough Carbon Footprint

Ø  483.9tCO2 (4.4per capita) *correction to report stating national per capita as 5.9 rather than 5.2

Ø  Lowest on record

Ø  Lowest per capita in NY

Ø  All sectors declining 

Ø  Land use net carbon sink

Ø  Large electricity decline o Due to the supply side of the national and local grids decarbonising and demand side seeing greater efficiency from business and domestic sectors. o Decline in gas and other fuels for heating but slower as 1.

supply of electrified or hydrogen heating not taken off yet and 2.

Demand for insulation is stunted by costs.

Ø  Trends similar to national picture but faster o SBC moving faster than Uk

§ UK total footprint from 05-15 saw reduction of 36% and SBC 43%

The Officer explained that the large electricity decline was due to several factors such as decarbonised electricity from the national and local grids, and greater efficiencies from business and domestic sector. There was also a decline in gas due to a reduction in gas and other fuels for heating. This was however slower due to cleaner sources like electric and hydrogen not yet being widely available, and higher costs in insulation leading to less demand. Council Carbon Footprint

Ø  20/21 down from 19/20 covid

Ø  21/22 up from 20/21 due to post-covid and addition of the Whitby Pavilion & Scarborough Spa to the council’s assets

Ø  In red shows the figure without the additional assets

Ø  Virtual meetings

Ø  Net emission negated some CO2 due to 100%green energy tariff

Ø  Gas heating reduction due to efficiency, notably window upgrades at Scarborough Town Hall  

HVO Fuel Rollout

Ø  Almost two thirds of the fleet using HVO

Ø  Fuel from waste cooking oils

Ø  90% emission reduction over diesel

Ø  No vehicle retrofit needed

Ø  Seen as a transition fuel

Ø  Sharing experience with others

Community Renewal Fund

Ø  North Yorkshire wide programme

Ø  Expected to be complete in autumn

Ø  Local Area Energy Plan to spatially assess future energy supply and demand

Ø  Hitting Hard project to develop an action plan for hard-to-decarbonise homes

Ø  Local E-motion project developing plans for small sustainable transport hubs

He explained that the Local Energy Plan would calculate the electricity needed and areas of high demand, and identify sites for the development of renewables; and that the hard to decarbonise homes in the Hitting Hard project were Victorian ere terrace housing and rural stone built properties.

Circular Scarborough

Ø  CaVCA led initiative, supported by SBC, LEP, SME’s and residents

Ø  Part of Circular Yorkshire and Circular Coast

Ø  Supporting and celebrating circular economy activities in Scarborough Ø Repair Café 18 July

Ø  Supporting rollout of Net Zero Business Toolkit

Regional and LGR

Ø  SBC supporting the ‘Routemap to Carbon Negative’ for the region

Ø  Climate Change Working Group sits within Corporate Governance in LGR

Ø  Collating strategies and actions while identifying quick wins

Members asked a number of questions as follows:

Cllr Smith asked why the Council had planned to acquire a new set of electric cleaning vehicles rather than converting older assets to hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO) fuel as with other Council vehicles. The Member also requested a full list of electric equipment that was in trial by the Parks service. The Officer explained that the process of transition was carefully planned to prioritise HVO conversion of vehicles that could not be easily transitioned to electric. Moreover, he added that Local Government Reorganisation would ease acquisition in EV’s through greater purchasing power. In regard to park equipment, the Officer was aware that any equipment able to be replaced with an electric version had been considered. The Officer agreed to liaise back with the Parks service and return a list to the Member. The member enquired whether parking services would be considered due to their use of motorbikes. To which the Officer stated that as a rule of thumb older assets were replaced first so as to manage the economic impact of the fleet’s transition.

Cllr Cockerill enquired into the cost per litre and miles per gallon of HVO fuel and whether this was a cost effective solution that reduces carbon. Moreover he asked whether the supply of HVO fuel was sustainable. The Officer was confident in the supply chain of HVO as a fuel suitable for the Council’s level of demand. The cost of HVO was 196 pence per litre, which was higher than diesel however the total cost of the scheme was £170,000, much cheaper than an option to transition bin lorries which cost in the region of £500,000 per vehicle.

Cllr Jeffels questioned what options there were for rural communities. The

Officer specified that for stone built houses with poor insulation, projects like Hitting Hard provided advice on how to retrofit insulation and improve efficiency. On wider matters the officer signalled options such as land use, biodiversity, improved EV charge points.

Mr Burkinshaw expanded on land use such as the creation of new woodland which sequesters carbon, farming practices that allow soil to hold more carbon, regenerative farming, and reducing carbon footprint of farming fleets. He added that the National Farmers Union were working closely with the LEP on future farming and circular farming, such as using waste material like straw as a biofuel. The Council could use its influence to varying degrees such as engaging with tenants of Council owned farmland to encourage carbon friendly farming methods. The larger private market was also home to companies that wanted to partner with land owners as a means to offset carbon through sequestration. There was also new advice from DEFRA on stewardship schemes for farms that would encourage nature and climate friendly methods of farming. 

The Chair queried the Hitting Hard scheme and the extent it had been carried out. Mr Baross clarified the scheme was based on the UK Climate Change Committee’s Fit for Housing Report and Carbon Budget report that indicated the cost of retrofitting a ‘standard’ property akin to a 1980’s built semi-detached house at £10,000 per property. However properties that were typical of SBC cost more to retrofit due to factors like lacking cavities in walls or a limitation of options due to heritage or road side locations. These issues raised the costs upwards to between £28,000 and £80,000. The Green Homes Grant Local Authority Delivery Scheme provides £10,000 per measure which when delivered by the White Rose Home Improvement Agency has produced effective results such as introducing heat pumps and insulation. Unfortunately the harder to retrofit properties were harder to address with the same amount. An additional challenge was a shortage of local skills which meant a further cost would be accrued as labour would be brought in from further away. The Green Skills Village would go some way to mitigating the shortage.

Cllr Smith asked what plans there were for the Peasholm glen relative to maintenance and rejuvenation. Mr Burkinshaw explained that in general terms the management of trees was an on-going policy not strictly connected with the climate policy. The Officers would contact the team at the Parks and Countryside service for further information.

The Chair further commented on HVO fuel and whether the small reduction in 21/22 was because the scheme was in its infancy and not yet reflected in the figures. Moreover, what proportion of the fleet had been converted to HVO fuel? Mr Baross clarified that the figures did not reflect a reduction as the scheme was recently implemented. He also confirmed that two thirds of the whole fleet were on HVO fuel and that vehicles were converted once they had approval from the manufacturers and insurers. Some of the vehicles also carried the HVO logo and a ‘white on the outside, green on the inside’ slogan on its side and had been reported on by the Council’s communications team as a good news story.

On the Circular Economy, the Chair questioned whether collection of food waste from 2023 was on schedule. The Officer clarified that as it was a change in government regulation it was necessary to have ready to roll out, and that the work was carried out by an LGR work stream for waste collection. The Chair further asked how the HVO fuel was collected. The Officer replied that the Council acquired the fuel through a private supplier as local supply chains did not yet exist but could be investigated and developed in future.

RESOLVED:

1.    That the item be noted by Committee.

2.    That the Climate Change Programme Manager liaise with the Parks and Countryside team in acquiring a list of electric equipment in use, and the service’s plans pertaining to the management Peasholm glen.