An update on the implementation of the Executive Response to the Climate and Ecological Emergency Review Scrutiny Report and Recommendations carried out in 2021.

The Chair noted that the report had already been discussed during previous General Scrutiny meetings and the report was taken as read. Committee members were invited to make general points about the report.

The Committee members made a number of points during the discussion:

·       There was a need for greater visibility of manure management plans on planning websites.

·       There was a need for KPIs within the delivery plan for neighbourhood development plans (NDPs).

·       The work of the Herefordshire Biological Records Centre (HBRC) was praised. It was also suggested that publicity should be given to the fact that members of the public are able to come forward and upload their own data onto the HBRC system.

·       A lack of consistency in relation to language was noted and that jumping between terms such as ‘net zero, net neutral and carbon neutral’ should be avoided where possible.

·       Concerns were raised regarding enforcement of legislation and regulations in relation to significant hedgerow removal.

The head of environment climate emergency and waste services) and the service manager built and natural environment, responded to the Committee:

·       It was pointed out that manure management plans were published as a planning condition.

·       Regarding neighbourhood delivery plans it was explained that these would vary from area to area, but that the inclusion of KPIs within the deliver plan could be discussed with the planning team.

·       The praise for the HBRC was welcomed.

·       The head of environment climate emergency and waste services accepted comments in relation to inconsistent language and terminology and gave an assurance this would be addressed.

·       The service manager for built and natural environment acknowledged hedgerow legislation enforcement was challenging and resource heavy, but explained that the planning and ecology teams were working closely together to tackle the issue. There was now a graduate in post and an apprentice due to start who would be focusing heavily on hedgerow legislation enforcement going forward. Improved information on the website regarding where and how members of the public could report breaches of hedgerow regulation was also something that could be put in place to make the process more efficient.

The Committee raised a number of further points:

·       It was noted that partners had received an update on the Nature Strategy, but the Committee had not had sight of it. This was seen as part of a wider failing in terms of the Committee not being kept ‘in the loop’ and updated on relevant reports and activity.

·       The Committee noted that at Scrutiny Management Board many of the highest scoring business cases for retrofitting had been rejected on affordability grounds. A ‘blue sky’ approach was required and the Council needed to look at everything available in its ‘tool box’. For example, looking into building carbon negative houses upon green areas.

·       There was a no evidence of a biodiversity net gain option and there should be a recommendation included on this.

·       The Committee asked if there was a mechanism in place for the monitoring of manure management plans. What assurances were there that management plans were being complied with?

The head of environment climate emergency and waste services and service manager built and natural environment addressed these points:

·       The head of service was not aware the committee had wanted to see the Nature Strategy, but was happy to share it with them. The acting statutory scrutiny officer suggested that this would be recorded as an action and that officers and democratic services needed to work together to ensure that members and proposers were kept up to date on reports and activity relevant to their Committee.

Action: Clarity of instruction required from report authors and democratic services to ensure members were kept up to date on relevant reports and activity.

·       The head of service acknowledged retrofits were an enormous challenge and that there was a need to pull in additional funding where available. Options such as carbon negative housing would be considered as a component of the local plan refresh.

·       The service manager explained that in relation to biodiversity net gain, the team were currently awaiting guidance from Defra and that there was only so much that could be done until that detail came through. In the meantime work was carrying on behind the scenes including the updating of the natural environment evidence base, which overlaps with the core strategy. There had been engagement with LUC consultancy on landscape characteristic assessment on open spaces within the county and to provide mapping on bio diversity data sets. This would all feed into the strategy and mapping that would sit behind the biodiversity net gain policy. There had also been involvement in a project initiated by the local wildlife trust on local wildlife sites review and this would hopefully continue on an annual basis.

Action: that a Biodiversity net gain recommendation be included in the review and that progress in this area be fed back to the Committee.

·       The service manager stated that monitoring of manure management plans wasn’t fully in place at the moment, but stressed that there would be an onus for local authorities to pick up monitoring as part of the Environment Act.

The Committee made closing comments with a view to proposing a number of recommendations for the review.

The Committee suggested that there was a need for a climate and ecological emergency champion drawn from within the council membership. The individual could liaise with members and officers and look at what other parts of the country were doing to resolve problems similar to those faced by Herefordshire.

The Committee noted that the Task & Finish Group had found it difficult, when dealing with planners, to convey the urgency of having a checklist for planning applicants, particularly one that drew their attention to the requirements the Committee wanted them to follow in relation to environment and ecology planning developments.

It was resolved that:

1)    The Environment and Sustainability Scrutiny Committee note the update provided in Appendix 1 which provides an update on the actions following the executive response to the Climate and Ecological Emergency Task & Finish Group and

2)    The following recommendations should be considered by the Executive for inclusion:

(a)    That the ESSC would like to see included on the service delivery dashboard for planning, a performance measure encompassing a timeline for the creation of a local planning list, including environmental and ecology compliance checklists at the prevalidation stage of the planning application.

(b)    A climate and ecological emergency ‘champion’ is appointed to look at what practices other local authorities are leading on with a view to informing and influencing the work of Herefordshire Council.