Agenda item

 

Report from the Executive Director of Regeneration and Environment.

 

Recommendations

 

That Cabinet:

 

1. Notes the key achievements and progress made as detailed in Appendix 1 and section 2 of this report.

 

2. Approves the 2026/27 Climate Change Action Plan proposed in Appendix 2.

 

3. Delegates the specification, procurement, contract award and subsequent delivery of (i) the Corporate Property Decarbonisation Programme, Appendix 3a, (ii) the EV Infrastructure Programme, Appendix 3b and (iii) works referenced under the Energy section of the Climate Change Action Plan 2026-2027, Appendix 2, as well as any changes to these programmes and works, to the Service Director of Property and Facilities Services in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy.

 

4. Delegates allocation of the Council’s Capital Decarbonisation Budget and EV Infrastructure Capital Budget and the acceptance of any available funding streams such as from the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority (SYMCA), Great British Energy or other Government schemes for delivery as per Appendices 3a and 3b to the Service Director of Property and Facilities Services in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy.

 

5. Approves an amendment to the £1m renewable energy pilot project approved by Cabinet on 15 February 2021, to deliver instead an invest-to-save renewable energy scheme comprising rooftop or car park canopy solar PV, as detailed in Appendix 4 and section 2.20 below; and also delegates authority for site selection, procurement and delivery of the amended scheme to the Service Director of Property and Facilities Services, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy.

 

 

At the Chair’s invitation the Executive Director of Regeneration and Environment, Andrew Bramidge, reported that the annual climate change report set out the Council’s work to address climate change, including progress against agreed targets for the Council’s own emissions to reach net zero by 2030 and for borough?wide emissions to reach net zero by 2040.

 

The report outlined activity across seven thematic areas: monitoring and measurement, energy, housing, transport, waste, the built and natural environment, and influencing and engagement. Members were asked to note the achievements delivered through the 2025–26 Climate Change Action Plan and to approve the proposed activity for 2026–27.

 

The report also sought delegated authority for the allocation of funding to specific projects within corporate property and electric vehicle infrastructure, to be exercised jointly by the relevant Cabinet Member and Service Director. In addition, approval was requested to reallocate £1m previously assigned to a renewable energy project that was no longer proceeding, to support the development of rooftop and car?park solar schemes in line with a motion approved by Council in January of the previous year.

 

The Chair invited members of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board (OSMB) to raise questions and queries.

 

Councillor Tinsley began by asking about whether the 2030 target for achieving net zero emissions for the Council remained realistic, particularly given current challenges with decarbonising the vehicle fleet. It was noted that suitable electric technology was not yet available for some larger operational vehicles, such as refuse collection vehicles, and clarification was sought on whether the target should be reviewed.

 

The Executive Director of Regeneration and Environment acknowledged that the 2030 target for achieving net zero emissions was extremely challenging, due in part to factors outside the Council’s control, including slower?than?anticipated decarbonisation of the national electricity grid. It was noted that current indications suggested full grid decarbonisation was more likely to be achieved around 2032–33.

 

It was explained that, while the Council continued to take action within its control, overall progress was dependent on national developments. During the current financial year, further analysis would be undertaken to assess projected emissions by 2030, alongside accelerated work to support the transition to electric vehicles as part of the procurement plan.

 

It was stated that a further report would be brought back to Cabinet in the next financial year, setting out a detailed assessment of progress and proposing whether the current targets remained realistic or required revision.

 

Councillor McKiernan raised concerns that a number of actions within the climate change action plan had been delayed across several areas, including where delays were not solely attributable to external factors. It was questioned whether the Council was taking delivery of the programme as seriously as required and whether sufficient urgency was being applied given the scale and breadth of the delays identified.

 

It was stated that the Council was taking climate change action seriously, with strong internal governance through an established Climate Change Board and committed officer involvement. Specific delays, particularly in relation to the vehicle fleet, were attributed in part to recent staffing challenges, including prolonged absence at senior level. It was reported that a new senior appointment had recently been made, with responsibility for progressing electric vehicle procurement and assessing alternative options.

 

Work was underway to complete procurement of remaining electric vehicles and to carry out cost?benefit analysis on converting parts of the fleet to alternative fuels as a transition away from diesel. Initial trials had indicated potential operational benefits, including reduced breakdowns, although costs were higher. Further analysis was being undertaken to determine whether savings in maintenance and repairs could offset increased fuel costs, with findings expected later in the year and the potential to improve reported carbon outcomes.

 

Councillor McKiernan welcomed the provision of electric vehicle chargers, noting that the installations would place chargers within three miles of a significant proportion of residents. However, concern was raised that 22kW chargers were described as “fast”, when this was not considered sufficient by many electric vehicle users, for whom higher-capacity chargers were required.

 

Councillor McKiernan then queried whether the overall strategy included plans to install higher?powered fast chargers across the borough, as the current council installations did not appear to meet this standard and existing fast chargers were limited. It was acknowledged that there were constraints related to the Northern Powergrid, and clarification was sought on whether plans were in place to address these issues through improved charging provision.

 

Kevin Fisher, the Service Director, Property and Facilities Services reminded Members that a report on the Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Fund had been presented to Cabinet in December of the previous year. It was explained that the fund was government?financed and delivered via the Sheffield City Region Mayoral Combined Authority (SYMCA), which was in the process of procuring a provider to deliver chargers across South Yorkshire, including Rotherham. It was then advised that the programme included investment in charging infrastructure, with 22kW chargers installed where appropriate, and higher?capacity chargers provided where greater infrastructure and power provision were required.

 

The Chair asked how well the proposed EV chargers would be protected against vandalism.

 

The Service Director, Property and Facilities Services explained that vandalism could not be completely prevented if individuals were determined to cause damage. Early EV charger installations had experienced cable theft due to exposed copper wiring, but newer infrastructure largely used integrated or socket-based chargers, which had significantly reduced theft. Higher?wattage chargers still required attached cables, and officers would work with providers to ensure these were installed in suitable locations to minimise vandalism and theft. Under the new contract, responsibility for theft and damage would sit with the suppliers, meaning there would be no direct financial impact on the Council, aside from potential inconvenience. Officers would continue to work with suppliers to select appropriate charger types and locations to reduce vandalism and theft as far as possible.

 

Councillor Yasseen reiterated points raised at previous meetings regarding the scale of change required to meet climate objectives and noted that policy decisions were political rather than formal declarations of emergency. It was acknowledged that the magnitude of change required could be difficult to fully comprehend. Appreciation was expressed for the clarity and transparency of the report appendices, particularly the use of graphs, which provided an honest assessment of current performance. Reference was made to the report indicating that only two relevant KPIs were currently being met, highlighting the significant work still required.

 

Concerns were raised around transport and modal shift, particularly in relation to EV charging infrastructure. It was noted that many residents wishing to reduce emissions by switching to electric vehicles were unable to charge outside their homes due to physical constraints, such as trees or street layout. It was suggested that a more flexible and creative approach could be considered, including balancing environmental trade?offs, such as replacing trees where necessary, to enable home charging access.

 

It was also noted that around 43% of road transport emissions related to trips outside South Yorkshire, limiting the impact of local measures alone. Concerns were expressed that cycling uptake had declined despite continued investment in cycle lanes, and that not all residents were able or willing to switch to cycling. The importance of enabling residents to actively support emissions reduction through practical and realistic measures was emphasised, as this could make a significant contribution to overall targets.

 

The Executive Director of Regeneration and Environment noted that the borough’s long?term target was to achieve net zero by 2040 and that recent efforts had primarily focused on reducing the Council’s own emissions. It was highlighted that increased engagement with residents and businesses was required. Reference was made to the recently launched South Yorkshire transport strategy, including plans to transition the bus fleet to electric vehicles, which was expected to have a significant impact. It was acknowledged that emissions targets would not be met through cycling alone and that expanding EV charging infrastructure would be an important part of the approach.

 

The Service Director, Property and Facilities Services acknowledged that addressing behavioural change and modal shift was a complex issue being experienced locally, regionally, and nationally. It was noted that officers continued to engage regularly with communities, regional partners, and the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority. Recent work had focused on the Council’s own assets, where relatively straightforward measures had delivered emissions reductions, but a broader review of the climate programme was now underway.

 

Reference was made to the publication of a new biodiversity report and the Council’s approach to biodiversity net gain, including the potential to locally offset environmental impacts where necessary. It was confirmed that work was ongoing with regional partners on transport initiatives, including measures linked to the mainline station. Officers were adopting a programme and portfolio management approach to align climate, transport, biodiversity, and energy security objectives, with a review of targets for 2030 and 2040 to follow, focused on delivering tangible outcomes.

 

In a further question Councillor Yasseen raised concerns regarding the application of biodiversity net gain and how environmental impacts were balanced. Specific reference was made to cycling infrastructure, noting that the carbon impact of construction itself had not been clearly accounted for, and that low usage raised questions about how long it would take to offset the emissions associated with development. It was highlighted that reports did not clearly set out the timescale required to achieve carbon neutrality from such schemes, unlike approaches typically applied to housing developments. Concerns were also expressed that major infrastructure projects, often led through mayoral or regional bodies, lacked transparency around how biodiversity net gain and carbon impacts were assessed, and clarification was sought on whether the Council was able to influence these processes.

 

The Service Director, Property and Facilities Services stated that, following recent discussions on climate change, biodiversity, and related matters, officers had committed to developing clearer policies and standards to manage environmental impacts. It was acknowledged that while carbon impacts were routinely assessed for housing schemes, this approach had not consistently been applied to other infrastructure projects, and work was underway to address this gap. It was noted that sustainability measures, including renewable energy provision, should be considered at the outset of development rather than retrospectively.

 

It was confirmed that officers were developing clear local standards and policies to guide infrastructure projects, drawing on best practice from housing delivery. While influence was more challenging at a regional level, the Council was actively lobbying through leadership channels and working with South Yorkshire partner authorities. Establishing clear standards and policies was identified as a key first step in enabling a more consistent approach across all future infrastructure schemes.

 

Councillor Allen referred to the table on page 189 relating to net zero by 2030 performance measures and queried whether the cumulative percentage change figure in the final row had been calculated correctly, noting that this may require further checking. Officers were asked to review the figures and confirm their accuracy.

 

Reference was also made to the allocated capital decarbonisation budget. It was asked whether horizon scanning had been undertaken to identify potential alternative funding sources, whether there was any indication of the likelihood of securing such funding, and whether a contingency plan was in place should external funding not be available to match the Council’s contribution.

 

The Executive Director of Regeneration and Environment advised that the Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme had concluded and that, while there had been discussion of alternative government funding, no further updates had been received. It was noted that some climate?related funding would be available through the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority as part of its agreed three?year single settlement, although details on allocation and spend were not yet known. Officers intended to pursue opportunities to access this funding, recognising that it would need to be shared across multiple local authorities.

 

The Service Director, Property and Facilities Services largely reiterated points made previously and outlined the operational challenges around funding availability. It was noted that the Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme remained in existence but was no longer open to new bids. Some projects, including solar PV at the markets, had been funded through the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority at no cost to the Council. Officers continued to work with the Combined Authority to clarify what funding was available across South Yorkshire, although the position remained unclear.

 

It was also noted that there was limited direction from GB Energy, with indications that future focus may be on rooftop solar rather than large?scale renewable schemes. Officers considered there to be significant potential to maximise use of the Council’s housing and corporate estate. Horizon scanning remained challenging, but as part of the current review, it was estimated that achieving the 2030 target through direct Council investment would require approximately £40 million, subject to review.

 

This was identified as a potential contingency approach, recognising that many renewable investments, such as solar PV, typically delivered a financial return within five to ten years and contributed to energy security as well as emissions reduction. While the scale of investment was significant, it was expected that much of the cost could be recovered over time through business?case?led approaches. Fleet decarbonisation was highlighted as a particular challenge due to its higher costs and associated infrastructure requirements. It was confirmed that a contingency plan existed, although it was acknowledged to be difficult.

 

Councillor Monk welcomed the inclusion of rooftop solar at Swinton and noted that works had recently begun. A query was raised about how local intelligence was gathered prior to project delivery, particularly given recent antisocial behaviour issues at the library site, including individuals accessing rooftops. Clarification was sought on how officers engaged with neighbourhood teams and used local knowledge to ensure appropriate preventative measures were in place, so that projects were viable in the long term and avoided unnecessary damage.

 

In response the Service Director, Property and Facilities Services explained that, as with all capital projects, officers engaged with end?user services at an early stage, in this case library services, to understand any operational issues, including antisocial behaviour. It was confirmed that project groups also engaged with local communities, stakeholders, and neighbourhood teams to gather local intelligence and identify potential risks. Officers sought to design out antisocial behaviour wherever possible, acknowledging that risks could not be entirely eliminated. It was noted that climate change considerations were now embedded across all Cabinet reports, with officers reviewing proposals organisation?wide, alongside a wider communications and engagement approach to support the long?term viability of projects.

 

Councillor Monk asked whether any measures had been installed at the Swinton site to prevent further access to the roof. Councillor Monk was advised that specific details were not immediately available but confirmed that officers were considering measures such as anti?vandal coatings and other preventative options. It was stated that officers would follow up with the relevant team and provide a specific update in relation to Swinton.

 

Councillor McKiernan raised a question regarding the potential use of battery storage in Council buildings to complement rooftop solar installations. It was noted that while solar panels were effective during summer months, their contribution was reduced in winter, and some buildings had limited capacity for additional panels. Reference was made to the potential for battery storage, including charging overnight, and clarification was sought on whether this was being considered by officers or whether costs currently made it unviable.

 

The Service Director, Property and Facilities Services confirmed that battery storage was being considered where appropriate. It was noted that planned works at Riverside House included a small solar canopy with associated battery storage, enabling energy generated during daylight hours to be used more effectively during winter or evening periods. Officers were routinely reviewing the inclusion of battery storage and other complementary technologies when assessing renewable energy options, rather than relying solely on solar PV installations.

 

Councillor McKiernan raised concerns following visits to the markets and new café. It was noted that while significant investment had been made in solar energy, the installed battery capacity was limited and appeared insufficient, albeit with scope for future expansion. Acknowledgement was given that battery storage remains costly.

 

Further concerns were raised regarding electric vehicle charging for residents without off?street parking. It was highlighted that trailing charging cables across pavements could result in fines. Clarification was sought on whether solutions such as council?installed pavement channels had been considered, or whether residents needed clearer guidance on penalties and safety requirements for cable protection.

 

The Service Director, Property and Facilities Services referred to the Cabinet report of the 15th, which highlighted issues around on?street electric vehicle charging. It was noted that some local authorities, predominantly in the south, had taken a more permissive approach, while authorities across South Yorkshire were collectively reviewing the Highway Act to improve management of the issue.

 

Options such as installing underground cabling were being explored. It was also noted that government was considering whether electric vehicle charging infrastructure could be included under existing electrification and communications legislation, which would allow suppliers to undertake roadworks and assume responsibility for reinstatement and maintenance.

 

It was confirmed that the council was currently required to remain compliant with the Highway Act, but that this position was under review in line with emerging opportunities and national policy developments.

 

Councillor McKiernan sought reassurance that, where pavements were excavated for infrastructure works, reinstatement would be carried out to an acceptable standard. The Chair confirmed this expectation.

 

Councillor McKiernan then raised a final question regarding the emerging government proposals for plug?in solar panels. It was acknowledged that responsibility for housing sat elsewhere; however, clarification was sought on whether any work was underway to explore the potential role of such measures, alongside insulation, in improving housing resilience and reducing energy costs.

 

The response clarified that the council was aware of plug?in solar panel systems, which were widely used in parts of Europe. It was noted that their use was not yet fully approved in the UK due to safety considerations, but that the climate team was aware of the developments and had begun discussions with housing colleagues about potential future use.

 

A preference was expressed for hard?wired solar panels, which were considered safer, particularly for new?build developments, with retrofit options also being considered. It was confirmed that while plug?in systems remained under consideration pending government approval, initial exploratory conversations were underway.

 

The recommendations were supported by a majority with one abstention.

 

Resolved: That the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board supported the recommendations to Cabinet.

 

Further actions that arose from discussions were that:

·       In response to a question raised by Councillor Monk, information would be provided on what specific measures had been installed to address anti-social behaviour and prevent roof access to the solar panels at Swinton Library.