Agenda item

Purpose of the report: To provide the Communities, Environment and Highways Select Committee with a detailed report on the findings and recommendations of the Greener Future Task Group which was set up to consider the council’s role in tackling climate change.

Declarations of interest:

None received.

 

 

Witnesses:

 

Esme Stallard – Climate Change Project Manager

Simon Griffin – Partnership Lead. Strategic Commissioning

Colin Kemp, Deputy Leader

Mike Goodman, Cabinet Member for Environment and Waste

 

Key points raised during the discussion:

 

1. The Vice-Chairman summarised the work and final report of Surrey’s Greener Future Task group explaining that in light of the declared climate emergency and Surrey’s Community Vision, the Task Group had explored actions that the Council could take to tackle climate change. It had been concluded that Surrey County Council’s current policies were inadequate and would not help realise the county’s net zero carbon by 2050 target. The Vice-Chairman stated that the ‘call to action’ summarised the recommendations of the Task Group and what the Council should act on in order to develop a more detailed strategy. It was also specified that further and more extensive research would need to be undertaken in collaboration with partners and residents to form a realistic, costed and inclusive strategy to deliver net zero. To achieve this, it had been suggested that a member reference group be established with involvement from Cabinet.

 

2. Committee Members reiterated that whilst the report had a strong evidence base and had communicated well the scale and seriousness of the challenge, it was broad in its outlook and failed to set out in detail what actions needed to happen to meet the climate targets.

 

3. Members suggested a bottom-up workshop approach to engage the public in concerted positive action to fulfil the vision of the Task Group. Members asked the Cabinet Member how they might engage the public and empower them to work together to form part of the solution.

 

4. A Member questioned whether the Task Group had public acceptance of what it had suggested and asserted that residents must come first. It was suggested that involving schools would be beneficial as engagement of children can encourage adult engagement.

 

5. Members of the Task Group stressed that there also needed to be a cultural shift within Surrey County Council itself and that all officers and councillors should make positive behavioural changes.

 

6. It was suggested that engagement with Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) and with central government to clearly establish Surrey County Council’s aims and the cost of meeting the targets of the Greener Future project would be helpful. Concerns were raised that unless enough money was invested, the work of the Task Group would simply remain a report and not be acted upon. Members agreed that significant financial support would be needed to achieve many of the recommendations presented by the Task Group.

 

7. Members of the Committee stated that there needed to be a modal shift from private to public transport, but this had been inhibited by buses being run by the commercial sector, which lacked incentive to achieve climate and air pollution targets. It was suggested that it would be beneficial to give local authorities the means to implement how buses run and this was something that central government should look at.

 

8. The Cabinet Member for Environment and Waste thanked the officers who helped the Task Group compile evidence and write the report. He reiterated short-term future action should be twofold: developing a costed strategy, with the Surrey Environment Partnership helping to coordinate work across Surrey’s local authorities, and encouraging and enabling residents to take positive action.

 

9. The Vice-Chairman noted that Mr Essex had put a considerable amount of work into the Task Group and recommended to Cabinet that it should involve Mr Essex in all stages of work regarding Surrey’s climate strategy.

 

10. Officers informed the Committee that in September a joint Surrey Leaders and Chief Executives meeting had made a commitment to work together. A working group was set up to establish a shared set of targets for tackling climate change that the 12 local authorities could then endorse. The committee were also told that there was a shortlist of ten ideas to tackle the community design challenge that had been raised in the Greener Future project.

 

11. A Member stated that they could not fully support the recommendations made by the Greener Future Task Group in their current format, in particular items seven, nine, ten and twelve, as he did not think that these were achievable. Another Member also disagreed with the recommendations of the Task Group and gave his support to a suggested amendment to the recommendations. The Chairman asserted that it was not possible procedurally for the committee to change the recommendations of the Task Group. He emphasised that the report was evidence based and underpinned by expert recommendations and witness sessions with officers and therefore the Task Group had agreed the recommendations to take forward to Cabinet. It was also stated that there would be an opportunity for debate on the call for action at the Council meeting in December and the Cabinet meeting on 26 November.

 

12. The Cabinet Member for Environment and Waste endorsed the recommendations of the Task Group because he agreed with the level of ambition in the action plan.

 

 

 

[The meeting adjourned for five minutes at the Chairman’s request]

 

 

13. Following the meeting recommencing, the Chairman invited Committee Members to make amendments to the proposed Select Committee recommendations as follows:

 

a)    Endorse the Task Group’s findings;

b)    Recommend the Call for Action on page 37 to Cabinet and Council for approval;

c)    Recommend that further work is undertaken by Council officers to test the viability and appropriateness of the recommendations listed in Annex 1 and develop policy as a result.

 

 

14. A Member stated that if the council simply did what it considered achievable with respect to the declared climate emergency, then it would not meet its targets. The Member asserted that the call for action should be ambitious and subsequently suggested that the third recommendation of the committee be strengthened. He also stated that the plan needed to be viable and appropriate to the county of Surrey.

 

15. Mr Furey suggested alterations to the committee recommendations, namely the addition of:

a)    The report and call for action as endorsed by this committee should be reviewed to determine achievable and sustainable outcomes with a timeline to delivery, as an urgent item.

b)    Scope the delivery areas that are government led and achievable, accordingly. The general population be reviewed in terms of how the council can work with them to achieve the desired outcomes.

 

16. The amendment was seconded by Mr Bennison. A vote was taken and the amendment was lost.

 

17. Mr Essex proposed that the third recommendation be amended to include the word ‘sufficiency’, and this was agreed.

 

18. The recommendations were agreed with the addition of the word sufficiency to the third recommendation.

 

19. The Chairman stated that the call for action would go to full Council and be debated by all 81 members.

 

 

[Fiona White left at 12pm]

 

 

Actions/ Further information to be provided:

 

1. Feedback on district and borough engagement with respect to how they will all work together to achieve the climate change targets to be provided by the Cabinet Member for Environment and Waste.
2. Establishment of a benchmark for Surrey’s performance with respect to the climate change targets

 

 

 

Recommendations:

1. Endorse the Task Group’s findings;

 

2. Recommend the Call for Action on page 37 to Cabinet and Council for approval;

 

3. Recommend that further work is undertaken by Council officers to test the viability, sufficiency and appropriateness of the recommendations listed in Annex 1 and develop policy as a result.