Agenda item

Ian Thynne, Head of Environmental Specialists, was in attendance to respond to Members’ questions in relation to the Climate Change Progress Report included in the agenda pack. The Chair thanked him for his thorough, comprehensive and interesting report.

Councillors asked how confident the Council was that climate?change targets and associated deadlines would be met. The Head of Environmental Specialists responded that confidence was difficult to quantify because a trend analysis was still being undertaken to map the routes toward achieving carbon neutrality by 2030. He explained that climate action was not a statutory duty for local authorities and therefore competed with other pressures. He confirmed that meeting the targets would be challenging, although substantial progress had been made since the declaration of the climate emergency. A programme of activity and the release of £1.5m in Section 106 funding for community?facing carbon?reduction projects were highlighted as supporting elements, though the full cost and pathway to the targets had not yet been fully established.

Members enquired what major challenges existed in relation to fleet decarbonisation and whether electric?vehicle capacity could be retained in the future. It was explained that performance tracking had been difficult due to the absence of detailed dashboards showing mileage and fuel consumption. It was stated that electric refuse vehicles were extremely expensive and that prioritising them could reduce the Council’s ability to deliver other services. It was also noted that required charging infrastructure was not yet available. Therefore, the heavy fleet was likely to retain a carbon footprint in 2030, and offsetting measures would be required. Smaller diesel vehicles had already been replaced by electric models but refuse lorries and heavy vehicles were unlikely to be electric by 2030 due to replacement costs and operational constraints.

In response to Members’ questions as to whether initiatives such as carbon monitoring or energy?efficiency schemes had been assessed for cost?effectiveness, it was confirmed that the Council sought not only carbon savings but also financial savings for residents. It was noted that carbon?saving measures—such as replacing Civic Centre gas boilers with air?source heat pumps—were designed to reduce long?term energy costs during periods of high market volatility. Monetary and carbon savings were embedded jointly within strategic planning.

Councillor enquired whether the Council had considered the use of hydrogen?powered fleet vehicles. It was confirmed that hydrogen vehicles remained largely at pilot?stage development. The Council’s realistic focus was on electric vehicles and that hydrogen was not currently on the Council’s agenda.

The Committee sought clarification as to whether Heathrow expansion or changes associated with the Cranford Agreement could slow local climate?action progress. It was confirmed that the recent Cranford Agreement decision involved redistribution of existing flight movements rather than an increase, so no additional carbon output would result from that change. It was noted that a third runway would have a major carbon impact, but calculation of aviation emissions fell within central government responsibility. The Head of Environmental Specialists explained that the Council’s targets related to its operational emissions, while major emissions sources such as the airport, the M4, and the M25 fell outside its control.

Members asked whether future pay?per?mile charging—expected around 2028—had been factored into fleet?modernisation planning, particularly regarding electric and hybrid vehicles. It was stated that significant work was still required on fleet analysis, and current data gaps meant that the question could not yet be answered; upcoming work in the calendar year would provide greater clarity.

In response to their questions regarding how much of the Council’s capital programme depended on external or grant funding, Members were informed that the Council’s operating model centred on embedding carbon saving within existing structures rather than creating costly additional programmes. It was stated that housing?improvement programmes, public?sector decarbonisation grants and Section 106 funding had been key sources of support. While grant funding remained useful, it was noted to be decreasing, and the Council would therefore continue to combine internal efficiencies with external funding where possible.

Councillors asked whether there were plans to install new electric?vehicle charging points in Council areas, and how many were planned for the year. In response, the Head of Environmental Specialists noted that the Council had joined the West London EV charging scheme and continued to use air?quality?related Section 106 funds. He confirmed that the EV strategy was being reviewed for increased ambition and that further rollout—especially on?street charging—was expected. He also described expanded tree?planting efforts and the development of “climate parks,” providing cooler shaded areas and increased carbon sequestration.

The Committee sought further clarification as to how decisions were made regarding the replacement of large mature trees with smaller saplings, noting residents’ concerns about environmental value. It was explained that the Borough planted tens of thousands of trees annually, far exceeding its loss rate. Although a precise carbon?equivalency calculation between mature trees and mass sapling planting had not yet been undertaken, it was confirmed that overall planting volumes surpassed losses. Developers were also required to contribute to biodiversity net gain, and HS2?related planting would add hundreds of thousands of additional trees.

In response to their requests for clarification as to how the Council engaged with volunteers and community groups—including those supporting Ruislip Woods—and how a proposed People’s Assembly would interact with such groups, Members were informed that the Head of Environmental Specialists met monthly with Friends of the Earth and worked with other volunteer organisations, though more engagement was desired. Increased community?facing work had been funded through Section 106 allocations, and the Cleaner, Greener Festival was cited as an example of joint working. Collaboration with Ruislip Woods Trustees was being explored to secure innovative management approaches and external funding support.

RESOLVED: That the Residents’ Services Select Committee noted the content of the Progress Report.