Bridgend Council’s Cabinet formally adopted a new council-wide carbon reduction strategy back in December 2022.
The strategy (pdf) sets out the council’s plans to become carbon neutral – balancing greenhouse gas emissions with measures to offset them – by 2030.
Bridgend Council is currently estimated to generate the equivalent of 90,000 tons of C02 a year (though the calculated figure includes other greenhouse gases).
While supporting the strategy in principle, it was recently called in by Independent opposition councillors (pdf).
Their grounds for call-in include:
- The strategy was “subject to insufficient scrutiny” given the fairly wide-ranging impact it would have on council services over the next seven years.
- It was “unacceptable” that the council would present a strategy with no costings during a cost-of-living crisis.
- A lack of information on how the strategy would be monitored; it “wasn’t credible” for the council to suggest a simple year-by-year reduction in emissions to net zero given the complexity of council services.
- Concerns over leadership and scrutiny as well as a lack of clarity over the roles and responsibilities of named council officers.
Plan “still falls 34,000 tons short of net-zero target”
Cllr. Ian Williams (Ind, Oldcastle) noted the 34,000-ton shortfall in hitting the net zero target identified in the strategy. There was no indication of how this would be met. Would any services be cut to fund the strategy?
Cllr. Martin Williams (Ind, Coity Higher) said most of the strategy’s shortcomings relate to the financial impact of policy decisions. This is normally set out clearly, but there was no real understanding of costs during the Cabinet meeting. He wasn’t sure that was good enough.
He went on to say that carbon offsetting – measures such as planting trees – is said to be a last resort. But if the council’s strategy falls 34,000 tons short of net-zero, needing to be offset, how much would that cost and in what form would it take?
Using sums from a recent £75,000 awarded to Kier to offset 800 tons of emissions from recycling vehicles, the potential cost of offsetting the 34,000-ton shortfall could be up to £3.2million.
Cllr. Steven Bletsoe (Ind, Bridgend Central) gave another example of possible policy contradictions. He has requested motion sensor lights be installed at the Rhiw car park to deal both with anti-social behaviour and carbon emissions (by being more energy efficient), only to be told the money isn’t there. A properly costed strategy would budget for this kind of measure.
Cllr. Jonathan Pratt (Con, Newton) wondered whether there had been a discussion on the need for a dedicated cabinet role or directorate for climate change/carbon reduction.
Costings “would be nothing better than a best guess”; strategy needs fiscal flexibility
Council Leader, Cllr. Huw David (Lab, Pyle, Kenfig Hill, Cefn Cribwr) stressed the importance of moving as quickly as we can to respond to the climate emergency. Any plan would need to be agreed upon by the full council at some point.
Cabinet Member for Communities, Cllr. John Spanswick (Lab, Brackla West Central), said the strategy was managed by the Communities Directorate but board attendance was from across all council departments.
He noted Swansea Council’s equivalent plan being given a provisional pricetag of £190million, but he didn’t believe any useful, accurate figure could be provided by any council at this time.
Head of Operations for Communities, Zak Shell, added that the strategy needs to be “fluid and dynamic” as climate change and technology are developing at a rapid pace. It was never 100% clear how much measures would cost and where that money would come from; therefore, costings – such as those at Swansea Council – would be nothing better than a best guess.
In the end, the Committee put forward a motion requesting that the decision is sent back to Cabinet for a suitable cost appraisal. This was approved by 6 votes to 5.
