Agenda item

Mr D Wimble - Cabinet Member for Environment introduced Mr M Smyth Director of Environment and Waste – were in attendance

1.     Mr Wimble introduced the report with a brief overview that encompassed KCC’s statutory requirements and included waste management and recycling, flood and coastal risk management, internal drainage, and energy security.

2.     Additionally, the stewardship of farmland, green spaces, and countryside parks, was highlighted as vital for both biodiversity and community wellbeing. Heritage and conservation would also be key areas of focus and collaboration with a variety of stakeholders, including the Environment Agency, DEFRA, the National Farmers Union, and other government bodies, to ensure a coordinated and effective approach would be sought.

3.     Mr Smyth expanded upon the reportand discussed KCC’s vital role in managing, protecting, and enhancing the environment. This would be achieved not only through the wide-ranging legislative duties and responsibilities, but also through KCC’s unique ability to bring together partners, businesses, and residents to inspire a meaningful collective action.

4.     Members queried aspects of the report:

(a)  In response to concerns regarding a perceived deviation from the net zero action plan, Mr. Wimble reassured Members that the administration remained committed to implementing best practice policies in pursuit of its environmental objectives.

(b)  Members asked if the current administration’s stance on climate change, its associated detrimental impacts and the possible abandonment of net zero targets. Mr Wimble clarified that the focus would be on reviewing the terminology of ‘net zero’ rather than altering any best policy practices. Mr Wimble affirmed his belief in climate change as an ongoing process that had occurred for thousands of years.

(c)  Officers discussed the Environment Plan that addressed the key focus in identifying ways to generate additional income to support the delivery of KCC’s green agenda. Green finance had been frequently discussed, and there was growing recognition that many investment firms would be actively seeking opportunities to invest in sustainable initiatives.

(d)   A pivotal part of KCC’s strategy would be to determine how best to access green finance. Opportunities such as the private sector or via public sector funding and possible central government support would be explored. Kent County Council could not deliver this agenda alone. KCC was already managing numerous statutory responsibilities and facing significant budgetary pressures.Securing external funding would be essential as a critical component of KCC’s ability to achieve its environmental goals.

(e)  Members raised concerns about recent changes to planning laws that affected house building and questioned how Kent County Council would work with district and borough councils to ensure that green spaces were preserved. Officers explained the number of statutory consultation processes that were in place to assist.

(f)    Concerns were raised about the impact of kerbside collections on Kent County Council’s costs. Officers informed Members that work had been undertaken closely with district and boroughs partners and had resulted in a collective partnership named the Kent Resource Partnership (KRP) being established. The KRP would conduct a review to explore potential cost savings through the implementation of a systems-based approach to waste management.

(g)  Mr Smyth acknowledged Members' questions regarding the ECE budget and residual waste. He added that, following a review of the monetary figures, he would aim to provide concise responses to any questions that fell outside the scope of the current discussion.

(h)  Members discussed the withdrawal of subsidies from Kent County Council to district councils. Officers explained that from a statutory perspective a County Council that had allowed district and borough councils to retain recyclable materials for their own processing would be required to pay them a ‘recyclingcredit.’ In Kent, borough councils collected the recyclable material but had transferred it to the County Council for processing and no statutory payment was required. The County Council would bear the cost of managing the material directly

(i)    Officers explained that there were differing relationships between the county and the borough councils. Under the previous administration the view had been taken that payment arrangements between the county and borough councils would be ending, particularly in light of the evolving legislative landscape.

(j)    Borough councils had been mandated to collect a broad range of materials at the kerbside, including five key recyclables. However, it was highlighted that limited government incentives had hindered efforts to significantly increase actual collection volumes.

(k)  Previously, collection vehicles had reported the collection of materials such as glass, paper, and plastic, although collected loads had been lighter than anticipated. This had technically met obligations however, the aim now would be a more efficient collection process with vehicles loaded in full with recyclables.

 RESOLVED to note the report