Agenda item

This report provides the Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee with an update on the Council’s Climate and Ecological Emergency Programme.

Councillor Muhammed Butt (Leader of the Council) presented a report that updated the Committee on the Council’s Climate and Ecological Emergency Programme, which included updates on both the borough-wide 2022-24 Delivery Plan and specific Green Neighbourhoods action plans. Firstly, the Leader thanked Mr Saville and Ms Simpson for presenting their deputation and provided reassurance that their deputation would be received by the Cabinet Member for Environment, Infrastructure and Climate Action. In emphasising that the Climate Emergency Programme remained a priority for the Council, Councillor Muhammed Butt outlined the actions contained within the Delivery Plan and highlighted the implementation of a previous Committee recommendation of creating a Climate Data Dashboard. Moreover, it was detailed that the Council was ensuring that the climate and ecological emergency resonated across the Council by including climate considerations in all corporate reports and by pursuing the utilisation of Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy (SCIL) funds where possible to support the climate programme. However, the Leader emphasised the importance of partnership working to meet the Council’s goals and ambitions, given that one agency could not deliver the required interventions and resources would need to be efficiently pooled and targeted.

Following the initial overview of the report, contributions, comments and questions were sought from the Committee, with the subsequent discussion summarised below:

•         Members noted that the Food Strategy was currently in development and consultation, with officers explaining that an update would be provided at the appropriate time.

•         In response to a query regarding changes introduced to the Council’s investment strategy, supply chains and procurement models to reduce the Council’s carbon emissions, the Committee was advised that a sustainable procurement model was developed as part of the 2021-22 Delivery Plan which provided the Council with greater influence over local supply chains. Members also noted that the Council’s procurement strategy was due to be refreshed, with sustainable procurement being a key pillar in the new strategy. Furthermore, it was detailed that every contract bidder had to supply the Council with comprehensive climate related information and the West London Coalition, in which Brent were members, had developed a Climate Commitment Charter in which bidders had to agree to. Concerning the Council’s investment strategies, it was explained that the Pension Fund had recently altered its Investment Strategy to better consider the carbon emissions of investments. However, the Committee heard that the Pension Fund was restricted to investing through the London CIV, the London pension fund pool, although at the time of the meeting London CIV were investing in line with the Council’s climate commitments.

•         Members noted that a response could be provided which detailed the monetary amount that the Brent Pension Fund had invested in water companies.

•         The Committee questioned the omission of themes addressing renewable energy, food and investment strategies. In response, it was explained that these topics, whilst not having dedicated themes, were covered in the five themes of the Climate & Ecological Emergency Strategy. For example, renewable energy was covered in Theme 3 ‘Homes, Buildings and the Built Environment’, discussed under the latter phases of retrofitting. Regarding food, it was recognised that communications relating to the Food Strategy required improvement, but members were informed that projects such as the Community Cook Book and food webinars had been successfully delivered.

•         In response to a comment questioning the proactivity of the Climate & Ecological Emergency Programme, the Committee noted that the Council had a dedicated Funding and Bid Writing Manager who explored external funding opportunities to ensure a sufficient funding stream to support the Council’s efforts and therefore it was stated that officers were being as proactive as possible given the resources available.

•         In discussing the support provided to businesses to assist them with improving their sustainability and adapting and mitigating poor climate practices, members were informed that organisations could benefit from signing up to the Brent Climate Charter and Brent and Camden Climate Challenge, which both provided access to carbon emissions foot printing tools to identify the most polluting elements of the business and offered grant funding to carry out the necessary changes to reduce emissions once carbon foot printing had been completed. However, it was detailed that only 15 businesses had received grant funding to operationally reduce carbon emissions, which was attributed to a lack of funding. Nevertheless, other schemes such as the Cargo Bike Business Scheme and events such as the Business Summit held in November 2023 were highlighted as successes. Although commending the efforts of the Council, the Committee outlined the steps the Council could take that did not require funding, such as coordinating business and community groups and providing more in-depth climate information, with a suggestion to implement an information hub to further support businesses to reduce their emissions.

•         Concerning planning restrictions which increased the difficulty of retrofitting properties in certain areas, such as conservation areas, it was reiterated that the Council wanted to upgrade and retrofit as many properties as possible, however planning conditions were needed to ensure quality control. Nevertheless, the Committee was advised that Local Plan policies were scheduled for review at the end of 2024, in which reviews of planning restrictions could be considered.

•         In response to a query regarding the accountability and measurability of the Delivery Plan, the Committee heard that the newly introduced Data Dashboard was designed to address hard to measure outcomes and updates were provided to both the Committee and Cabinet in efforts to be transparent regarding progress.

•         The Committee sought further information regarding the current state of the Brent Environmental Network, in particular whether regular meetings were being held. In response, it was detailed that the Council had attempted to convene a representative Network drawn from all communities within the borough. However, the desired community engagement was not achieved as many residents did not identify with Brent but rather their local areas. Thus, officers were now exploring the possibility of holding regular local meetings based on the Green Neighbourhoods areas.

•         In discussing the lack of involvement from faith communities, members were advised that work to improve engagement had commenced a number of years ago through the Faith Climate Exhibition in which officers met with community leaders who expressed a degree of uniformity in wishing to protect the environment. The feedback collected via the Exhibition formed part of the Faith Climate Action Plan that was intended for faith organisations to use to conduct climate audits of their operations, with a Faith Leaders Roundtable currently scheduled to further discuss the Action Plan. Given that 82% of Brent residents stated that they followed a faith, the importance of improving engagement from faith communities was emphasised.

•         Concerning the identification of those most at risk from the impacts of climate change and the assistance provided in response, members were advised that the holistic Equality Impact Assessment for the Climate & Ecological Emergency Strategy, which identified key characteristics most at risk, was used as a reference point for projects, actions and delivery plans. Moreover, it was explained that another review of equalities impacts was jointly undertaken with Public Health a couple of years ago in which the latest Delivery Plan was centred on, attempting to address disproportionate impacts as a result of the cost of living crisis through schemes such as Brent Well and Warm and The Library of Things. In concluding, officers reiterated that, for a variety of reasons, climate change often disproportionately impacted children, disabled, older people and ethnic minorities.

•         In response to a question that asked whether the Council would meet its 2030 target of net neutrality, members heard that the Council relied on central government support and therefore the Council was doing what it could within its dedicated remit and financial restrictions. Despite the difficulties presented as a result of cumulative budget cuts, inflation and a poor performing economy, the Committee noted that schemes such as School Streets and Green Neighbourhoods had been implemented and the Council was actively applying for grant applications in an effort to increase capacity.

•         In highlighting that some community campaigns and initiatives were labelled as ‘inactive’ and ‘unlikely to complete’ in the Progress Update attached as Appendix B of the report, members sought further information on the reasoning for these labels, especially given that the role of communities in achieving the Council’s goals had been emphasised. In response, members were informed that the action to promote the GLA Solar Together Scheme was labelled as inactive as the Scheme had been stopped by the GLA. Furthermore, it was explained that the Environmental Street Champion was unlikely to be completed due to a lack of resources and capacity, the net zero new build was unlikely to be completed due to increased costs in the housing sector and the community growing scheme in Kingsbury was unlikely to be completed within the current Delivery Plan due to the significant length of time required to implement the scheme.

•         In addressing the language used in paragraph 7.7 of the report regarding the changes to the waste and recycling service, officers reassured the Committee that the Council still expected the changes to achieve the predicted results, with a further update to be provided at the appropriate time.

•         The Committee detailed that 65% of the borough’s carbon emissions related to transport and housing and therefore members called for greater focus to be placed in this area given that delivering transport and housing carbon reductions would make the biggest difference in addressing the climate emergency. Furthermore, members queried why Brent did not make a higher bid to the Social Housing Decarbonisation Fund (SHDF) seeing as housing was attributed to such a large percentage of the borough’s carbon emissions. In response, it was explained that the SHDF required match funding and thus £1.3m was the maximum that the Council could commit to investing. However, members noted that officers were exploring alternative ways to fund decarbonisation projects, such as the use of municipal bonds.

•         Regarding the political will and ambition of the Council to reduce carbon emissions and combat the climate emergency, the Leader of the Council acknowledged the need to have further conversations surrounding issues such as controlled parking zones, but it was reiterated that many schemes required a whole borough review and the procurement of consultants which further reduced the already stretched climate budget. Moreover, the Committee emphasised the influence that the Council had regarding the travel choices of residents and visitors through setting parking prices, implementing school streets and installing bike hangars, which opposed the view taken in the paper which stated that the Council had ‘limited direct influence’ over travel choices. Nevertheless, it was recognised by both parties that the negative equalities impact of any proposed change would need to be mitigated prior to implementation and further conversations on the issue were welcomed.

•         In discussing controlled parking zones in more detail, members suggested that car-free developments would mitigate some negative impacts of the scheme as it would mean that all residents were impacted equally. Furthermore, the Committee indicated that resident appetite for controlled parking zones was larger than currently thought. In response, members heard that there was a large disparity between the number of controlled parking zones in the south of the borough and the north, with more parking pressures present in the south resulting in more controlled parking zones. Members also commented that previous decisions, such as taking a lenient view regarding the paving of driveways, also contributed to the situation in which the Council found itself in today. In concluding the discussion on controlled parking zones, the Committee was advised that there was a legal basis that allowed local authorities to introduce variable parking charges related to the size, weight and engine size of vehicles.

•         The Committee noted that any expansion of free bus passes would need to be funded from increased revenue streams and that officers would need to be satisfied that the passes would be sufficiently used.

•         Members highlighted that Brent had a relatively low percentage of car owners compared to other London boroughs and therefore stated that privileging car owners meant that a small percentage of the population would receive the benefits stemming from the absence of suitable measures discouraging car usage.

•         The Committee referenced the Mayor of London’s ‘Retrofitting vs Rebuild’ report from February 2024 that outlined that 68% of London’s carbon emissions were related to buildings, which included emissions arising from construction and development. Consequently, it was suggested that to meet the Council’s net zero target, properties would need to be retrofitted at a much faster rate and the Council was called upon to support the Mayor of London in lobbying central government to adopt the recommendations outlined within the report. In response, it was detailed that the Council had introduced a Sustainable Environment and Development Supplementary Planning Document which ensured that developers both understood and committed to reducing climate-related implications of developments. Furthermore, members were advised that the Council had been undertaking retrofitting work where possible, such as installing heat pumps and upgrading insulation. However, it was emphasised that the Council would need to invest £60 million to upgrade housing stock to the highest standards which would ultimately fall upon residents to fund through the Housing Revenue Account. Thus, reservations were held regarding the feasibility of conducting this work. In light of this information, the Committee requested that officers focussed on securing external grants where possible to generate the necessary income to deliver the required works.

•         Regarding the EPC ratings of schools, it was explained that the Council had data concerning EPC ratings, although it was explained that it was the responsibility of schools to ensure that certificates were renewed.

•         In discussing stock condition surveys, the Committee was informed that surveys could not all be completed at once and therefore surveys were continually being conducted. It was explained that stock conditions surveys were valuable as they provided information such as EPC ratings, with the Council utilising the SHDF to assist with undertaking surveys.

•         In response to a query relating to the delays in awarding Carbon Offset Funds to organisations, members were advised that it had become a much longer process than officers had originally anticipated due to the need to procure contractors and sub-contractors, conduct surveys and establish legal agreements. Moreover, the implementation of the Fund had been further complicated as a result of some organisations leaving the cluster. Nevertheless, the Committee was reassured that some organisations were close to completing scheduled works and officers were working to resolve issues which were blocking progress. Overall, members noted that the Council had learned from the current iteration of the Carbon Offset Fund, which would inform any future versions of the programme.

At this stage in proceedings, the Committee agreed to apply the guillotine procedure under Standing Order 62(c) in order to extend the meeting for a period of 15 minutes to enable the remaining business on the agenda to be considered.

•         The Committee questioned when the last bin audit was conducted and how the Council addressed issues concerning the supply of bins. In response, it was detailed that bins were distributed in line with the Council’s understanding of demand during the waste collection refresh undertaken a few years ago. However, officers, in conjunction with the Veolia, were reviewing the supply of bins on a week by week basis to counter contamination and redistribute any excess bins. Additionally, members heard that residents could report issues via the Council’s app, which was supported by proactive work taken by the Council to further understand the differing needs across the borough, which included reviewing data on the number of tenants per property and adjusting the supply of bins in response to flat conversion applications.

•         Members noted that the Council could explore utilising landlord licensing to introduce requirements regarding improving the energy efficiency of properties and retrofitting.

•         In discussing instances in which Brent Housing Management owned estates did not have a sufficient number of bins, members were advised that, whilst officers could revisit areas of specific concern, the Council were actively looking to plug any gaps in provision, which included blocks served by communal bins. Moreover, It was explained that some bins may have been removed due to misuse, however steps were being taken to replace bins where necessary.

In bringing the consideration of the item to a close, the Chair thanked officers and members for their contributions towards the scrutiny of the item, before inviting Mr Saville and Ms Simpson back to the meeting to provide any closing comments. In highlighting that the Committee felt rushed during the consideration of the item, Mr Saville reiterated the benefits of establishing a devoted climate scrutiny committee, which would allow the necessary time to sufficiently scrutinise the Council’s response to the climate emergency. Additionally, Mr Saville stated that many organisations in ACE Brent could support the Council with implementing ideas, emphasising that community groups should be seen as a resource. Finally, although expressing concern regarding the likelihood of the Council achieving its net zero target, Ms Simpson praised the Committee for speaking on the need to have greater ambition to effectively respond to the climate emergency.

Following the conclusion of the agenda item, the Chair summarised the outcomes of the discussion and suggestions for improvement, which were AGREED as follows:

Suggestions for Improvement

Please note that both the suggestions for improvement and information requests were finalised following the Committee meeting and therefore may slightly vary from the general discussion above.

(1)      To update the Brent Climate Action Data Dashboard to include comparable benchmarking for Theme 4, Nature and Green Space. Additionally, to identify additional data points that illustrate a more complete picture than a comparison between Inner and Outer London, to include Healthy Streets Scorecard measures such as the number of 20mph zones, and include the number of schools meeting EPC targets.

(2)      To explore whether the current controlled parking zones (CPZs) are assisting the Council to achieve its climate commitments, and if not, explore whether an expansion to the zones could in fact help achieve these goals.

(3)      To Explore whether an expansion to the CPZs in the borough is likely to result in additional income that could be used to fund freedom passes.

(4)      To explore ways to reduce the timeframes of implementing CPZs in the borough/

(5)      To Review parking charges and, if possible, introduce variable charging that accounts for the size, weight and emissions of vehicles to encourage sustainable travel.

(6)      To explore options to amend planning restrictions that minimise obstructions (e.g., solar panel restrictions in conservation areas) in installing climate-friendly housing upgrades.

(7)      To develop an information hub for local businesses to support them in becoming more sustainable and eco-friendlier. This hub should be promoted widely, including through the town centre management operations.

Information Requests

(1)      To provide detail on the Council’s pension fund investments in water companies (if any), and information on whether these investments are considered worthwhile.