Agenda item

Mr D Wimble - Cabinet Member for (the Kent) Environment presented the item. Ben Hudson- Energy Security and Future Impacts Manager were in attendance

1.Mr Wimble introduced the decision and discussed that KCC had secured £4?million in external funding to upgrade estates and utilities, generating nearly £9?million in fuel and utility savings over five years in addition to the £1 million generated from KCC’s two solar farms.

a)  KCC had cut emissions from 23,000 tonnes to under 10,000. Despite the progress made financial and technological constraints remained challenging to achieving the full 50% reduction target.

b)  KCC had received £24?million in external funding, with £21?million secured in 2020–21. Accessing new funding was becoming increasingly difficult.

c)  Some targets in the Net Zero plan were not feasible under current technology constraints, so greater flexibility would be needed to optimise solutions. The New Energy Efficiency plan was built on four principles: financial value, pragmatism, efficiency, and solutions?led technology fit. A 2026 action plan covered estate efficiency, fleet optimisation, governance, and finance. The contract offered a balanced approach to emissions reduction and efficiency and enabled KCC to modernise assets and explore financial options whilst retaining the benefits of its previous net zero plan.

2.Members responded to the presentation:

a)  Members raised concerns that there were not enough significant differences between the plan presented and the previous approach. Furthermore, a number of Members voiced scepticism at the proposed £32 million pound of savings.

b)  It was further raised that the decision represented an abandonment of previous Net Zero strategies and would impact on any savings that had been made to date. Future decarbonisation bid works were also noted as an area of concern.

c)   Mr Wimble addressed Members concerns and suggested that KCC was not abandoning its climate strategy or denying climate change. The decision was made to move away from the constraints of the strategy to allow best policy practice.

d)  Members asked officers for an historic example of when a past net zero scheme did not focus on value for money or result in cost saving. Officers addressed the point by clarifying that in the early stages after recognising the climate emergency, KCC had accessed government funding, often 100% grants which had enabled investment in schemes without immediate financial returns

e)  Queries were raised on the 2026 action plan reference to fleet optimisation. Mr Wimble responded that the Council would review all fleet vehicle options, including EVs, diesel, and petrol, with decisions based on best value. Current contracts could be extended, and council?owned vehicles could be retained longer. The aim would avoid any unnecessary spending on vehicles that could only be used briefly or redistributed under potential Local Government Reorganisation (LGR). Members raised frustrations on the clarity of the £7.5 million proposed savings.

f)    Mr Prater (named as requested in the Minutes) shared that the presented report had in fact captured that the past Council’s Net Zero work had saved millions of pounds and avoided significant financial losses had it not been undertaken.

g)  Returning to the £7.5 Million-pound electric vehicle (EV) cost, it was highlighted that the costing had not been placed into a budget but was in fact placed into aMedium-Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) that had covered a potential vehicle replacement scheme by 2030. Clarity was asked on what a future fleet replacement would look like and how it was to be funded.

h)  Mr Wimble responded that replacement vehicles would be procured as and when required. Members questioned the validity of the strategy and suggested that a rolling strategy of replacement would be pursued. The Cabinet Member discussed the point and suggested that due to local government changes, replacements would only be provided in exceptional cases.

i)    Members queried on what targets were to be measured (post 2030 removal), revenue streams and additional streams, improved efficiency of service delivery and external funding opportunities that are to be explored.

j)    In addition, concerns pinpointed the impact to District and Boroughs existing biodiversity plans and the cost of maintaining current (Sessions House) infrastructure. Mr Wimble acknowledged the points raised and suggested that the best-case scenario and productive use of public funds would be pursued prior to LGR being introduced.

k)   Mr Waters (named as requested in the Minutes) in response to earlier comments, suggested that the report did not give evidence that there was a net benefit or net cost of Net Zero across the board for the reasons that the Cabinet Member for the environment had outlined.

l)    Members raised for clarification on where the proposed £32 million savings are to be found. Mr Wimble responded that the savings would be presented at the upcoming full Council meeting.

m)The benefits to smaller business were also raised although contracting rules would still remain within KCC. Mr Wimble discussed the points and reiterated that the incoming impact of LGR and a desire to keep spending under control until the new authority landscape would be realised.

n)  Members raised additional points on the cost to taxpayers, and the increased trajectory of energy bills in light of past Net Zero targets.

o)  Members requested their position on the decision be captured in the minutes: on the decision, the following was captured 4 abstained, 1 against and 10 for. (of the 15 Members present)

RESOLVED to endorse the proposed decision, namely:

That the Cabinet Member for (the Kent) Environment agree to:

(i)       ADOPT the Energy Efficiency Plan for KCC’s estate and operations to support our environmental goals (and replace the existing Net Zero 2030 Plan)

(ii)       DELEGATE authority to the Corporate Director of Growth, Environment and Transport in consultation with the Cabinet Member for (the Kent) Environment to refresh and/or make revisions to the Plan as appropriate during the lifetime of the plan