Minutes:
(A)
MR
HUNT asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:
“Green House Gases (GHG) and Contracts:
1.
The
Council has set a target to reach Net Zero for its own operations. Why is
it then that we don’t know the carbon emitted from our own multi-million pound residual waste contract recently awarded to
Biffa?
2.
Why is
this contract excluded when calculating GHG emissions from our own operations?
3.
What is
stopping the County Council requiring contracts to submit carbon and other GHG
emissions figures as part of the procurement process in future?
4.
According
to the statutory Climate Change Committee, one of the greatest threats to
climate change comes from GHG (notably methane) from ruminant animals, mainly
sheep and cattle. As a predominantly rural county is it time to count the
cost of these emissions in Leicestershire?”
MR PAIN replied
as follows:
“1. The
County Council did not require Biffa to submit carbon emission figures as part of
the procurement process, so a specific carbon saving has not been calculated.
However, we are confident that a carbon saving will be realised. The location
of the new facility means that the total haulage miles will be reduced leading
to a carbon saving. In addition, the Newhurst plant
will be one of the most technologically advanced Energy from Waste facilities
in the UK. The reported electrical efficiency of the plant means that carbon
emissions per tonne of residual waste should be notably better than landfill.
Emissions from the disposal and treatment of household waste are
currently outside of the scope of the County Council’s target to achieve net
zero for its own operations by 2030.
2. I
would draw Mr Hunt’s attention to the following statement from the Council’s
annual greenhouse gas report:
‘The council has excluded greenhouse gas emissions from schools (all
scopes) and contracted services such as waste disposal and business travel by
public transport (scope 3), due to the cost of data collection and/or its
availability. The council has also excluded the emissions resulting from
activities undertaken by contractors, due to the limited requirements for
contractors to annually monitor energy and fuel usage within existing
contracts.’
3. The
Council does now ask suppliers, where proportionate, to support us in
transitioning to net zero. The Government has a Carbon Reduction Plan template
which has been created to collate the required information in one place for
ease of use, and to minimise the burden placed upon suppliers. The Council is
reviewing this template along with a Sustainable Procurement Policy and ways to
measure greenhouse gas emissions from our suppliers in a way that is
proportionate.
4. Agricultural
emissions for Leicestershire are included within the baseline emissions in the
2045 Net Zero Leicestershire Strategy alongside actions to begin to address
these emissions within the Nature and Land Use section of the Net Zero
Leicestershire Action Plan.”
Mr HUNT asked the following supplementary
question:
“My first supplementary
is concerning emissions from the new residual waste contract which weren’t
available within the contract. Why
didn’t we ask for them?
My second question
on this topic is, whilst it is said that we ask contractors to submit details
of emissions figures ‘where it is proportionate,’ what sense does it make to
have a net zero target when we aren’t counting all the emissions as indeed it
appears.”
MR PAIN replied as follows:
“Firstly, I refer
Mr Hunt to the answer which has already been given to question 2 of his four
original questions. It comes down to
timing. This contract procurement
started over three years ago before the Council had declared a climate
emergency and as in the answer to question 2, we have already stipulated that
we don’t require schools and waste contracts to provide that type of
information.
I am not sure if
the second question is entirely clear, but my understanding is that we do count
the emissions in the total emissions emitted by Leicestershire in accordance
with BEIS [Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy] data.
(B) MR HUNT asked the following question of the Leader or his
nominee:
“Charnwood Local Plan:
1. The Charnwood Local Plan to 2037 is now going to Examination
in Public early next year. The Inspectors latest report has affirmed that
the process should proceed without waiting for a Strategic Transport
Assessment. When will the Strategic Transport Assessment be completed?
2. Will we, as the local highway authority, in
spite of the latest financial strictures continue to support the current
highways and transportation mitigation package as quoted in Cabinet last June?
3. Can the leader confirm that the County Council cannot be
expected to commit to constructing new infrastructure in the Charnwood Local
Plan unless the receipt of funds from developers or external sources are
guaranteed to meet the full cost and, if so, how can these costs be assured
over the lifetime of the plan?
4. On 24th June 2022 in response to the Charnwood Local Plan, the
Cabinet agree that “unless significant changes occur in societal behaviours and
expectations, there are significant limitations as to the extent to which the
impacts of growth on the County’s transportation system can be mitigated in the
future”. What societal changes is the Cabinet waiting for before mitigating the
impacts of growth in the Borough and what would that mitigation look like?
5. Given that we cannot be reliant on the delivery on Road
Investment Strategy Pipeline Projects, is it time to drop the plans to increase
the speed and capacity of the A6 through Loughborough and focus on developing
active travel solutions to peak traffic caused by short journeys to work and
schools?
6. How does the County’s A6(n) pipeline project conform with the
Net-Zero Carbon Strategy and how can its carbon emissions be offset?”
MR O’SHEA replied as follows:
“1. As a point of clarification, the Examination in Public (EiP) commenced in June 2022, and the original hearing
sessions then paused by the Inspectors as a result of a proposed change in the
approach by Charnwood Borough Council to meeting the City of Leicester’s (the City) unmet housing need. New, additional hearing sessions relating to
how the City’s unmet need had been established, were held by the Inspectors in
October. It is now understood that the
original hearing sessions should recommence in early 2023.
The Strategic Transport Assessment
(STA) work is being undertaken in respect of the Leicester and Leicestershire
Strategic Growth Plan and is not of direct relevance to the Charnwood Local Plan’s
EiP, hence the Inspectors’ conclusions on this
matter. Regarding the timing of the
STA’s completion, its first stage is now reaching a conclusion for
consideration then by the Strategic Planning Group (SPG) and Members Advisory
Group (MAG). Those bodies will then need
to consider next steps, including the timetable for the next stage of the STA
work.
3. The previous response to question two confirms that, as set
out in the June Cabinet report on the Local Plan and as reinforced by the
subsequent report to the Cabinet in November on managing the wider risks of
delivering infrastructure to enable growth, the County Council is no longer
able to commit to constructing new infrastructure unless and until it is fully
funded by and from other sources, be that in the Borough of Charnwood or
elsewhere across the County.
Given current and likely ongoing health,
political and financial volatilities across the globe, it would be extremely
unwise to provide any absolute assurances or guarantees in respects of costs
of, and funding for, the delivery of the transportation package; indeed, the
likelihood that the package may not be fully funded is already acknowledged in
the June Cabinet report.
Notwithstanding this, the Local Highway
Authority (LHA) remains committed to seeking to take forward development of the
three Charnwood area transport strategies set out in the June report, along
with supporting/constituent elements, such as development of the
Loughborough/Shepshed and North of Leicester Local Cycling and Walking
Infrastructure Plans and the A6 Major Road Network study work (as referred to
in questions 5 and 6). This should place
the Authority in the best position possible to seek to secure funding from
developers and to take advantage of any relevant, future Government bidding
opportunities, as appropriate.
4. As a point of clarification, it is not a case of waiting for
societal changes to take place before implementing mitigating measures, rather
that, and as the June Cabinet report makes clear, there are significant
limitations as to the extent to which the impacts of growth, for example on
levels of traffic congestion or emissions, can be mitigated unless as a
society, we change our behaviours and expectations.
What this means is that the most recent
transport modelling work (including for the Charnwood Local Plan) is beginning
to indicate that even if in future it is possible to ‘max out’ travel by
sustainable travel to a level that it is reasonable and plausible to suppose
based on current behaviours and expectations, in all likelihood the benefits of
doing so would in part or in full be outweighed by increased travel demand
arising from population and economic growth.
This is not a reason to stop seeking to
promote, enable and maximise travel by sustainable modes. It is, however, a recognition that if as a
society we carry on as is, with the same inherent day-to-day abilities to
travel where, how and as we so wish, and, say, with the same expectations about
the standards of goods and services that bodies and
businesses provide (e.g., about the range of goods available in shops or next
day delivery), modelling work is indicating that going forward there will be
significant limitations on the extent to which the transport and environmental
impacts of growth in Leicester and Leicestershire (and probably more widely)
can be mitigated. However, the changes
necessary are beyond what Leicestershire County Council can achieve alone and
require national policy and legislation.
The Authority will continue to take opportunities to lobby the
Government to this effect.
5. As a point of clarification, the Road Investment Strategy
(RIS) Pipeline Projects are being taken forward by National Highways as they
relate to the Strategic Road Network. The A6/A6004 is part of the Major Road
Network (MRN) for which the County Council as the LHA is responsible.
So far as the LHA is aware, no decision has
yet been taken by the Government about the future of any of the RIS Pipeline
Projects in the County, but regardless of that, transport evidence work,
including that underpinning the new Charnwood Local Plan, is indicating that
future population and economic growth will generate travel demand that will
impact on the A6/A6004 corridor. It is
important therefore to examine what opportunities exist to seek to mitigate
those impacts. The MRN study work is at
an early stage, and whilst certain measures might have been identified from the
Local Plan evidence work, it is far too early to say at this time what an
overall package of measures might consist of along the corridor from Kegworth
to Birstall. (Additional capacity may be required to accommodate a greater
number of vehicles on the corridor in the future, even if those vehicles are
far cleaner than now because they are electric, or hydrogen powered.)
6. As set out in the previous response to question five, it is
too early at this time to say what a package of measures might look like along
the A6/A6004 MRN corridor. As the
package is developed, its impacts on carbon emissions will be assessed.”
MR HUNT asked the following
supplementary question:
“What exactly is meant by “maxing out sustainable travel” in
terms of the modes available? Bearing in mind that congestion is largely
confined to peak periods of travel to work and school, what are these limits
for the Loughborough (A4006) town corridor?”
MR O’SHEA replied as follows:
“Thank you Mr
Hunt, I shall make sure that you get a written reply to explain.”
[Subsequent to the meeting,
the following written reply was received:
“As a point of clarification the
comments contained in the report to the Cabinet in June 2022 and in the
response to the original question relate to Leicestershire more widely rather
than to any specific route (be that in Loughborough or otherwise).
In that context, the use of the phrase ‘max out’ is a
shorthand reference to the fact that based on a continuation of current
societal behaviours and expectations even if it were possible to deliver
sustainable travel strategies and plans to their maximum potential benefit,
such as the Authority’s Cycling and Walking Strategy and its Bus Service
Improvement Plan, evidence from transport modelling work of future conditions
across the Housing Market Area – HMA – (and taking account of future population
growth) is indicating that this would be nowhere near sufficient to meet
net-zero commitments/ requirements. In other words, the benefits achieved
by increasing numbers of people travelling by sustainable modes are forecast to
be outweighed by additional travel demands generated by growth (including personal
travel or, say, related to increased service provision to cater for the growth,
or to increased goods manufacture and supply to meet the demands of a larger
population, etc.).
On a route-by-route basis, we do not have evidence as yet to demonstrate how this general, HMA level finding
might apply. With respect to routes in the Borough of Charnwood,
including the A6/A6004 corridor, it is currently anticipated that more fine
grain evidence will be developed as part of work to develop the previously referenced
three Charnwood area transport strategies and/or work in respect of A6/A6004
Major Road Network corridor.”]