Agenda item

(Indicative timing: 2.40 – 3.15pm)

Members were updated on the new requirements arising from the Environment Act.  The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for the Environment informed the Panel that, although the Environment Act had come into force in January 2022, further guidance and funding was expected and, therefore, implementation was at an early stage.

The Head of Planning and Transport Planning reminded Members that the Act covered three key matters: biodiversity, waste and pollution.  In the ensuing discussion, the following main points were raised:

Biodiversity

·       The new Act required development sites to deliver 10% Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG).  This could be achieved either onsite or offsite, must be secured for a minimum of 30 years and would be monitored annually.  The responsibility for monitoring net gain would fall to individual planning authorities, including the County Council.  The Council had already undertaken some preparatory work funded by the Natural Environment Investment Readiness Fund.  It was expected that 2 full time equivalent staff would be needed to carry out this work.

·       With reference to Biodiversity Net Gain, a Member of the Panel suggested that, although the intentions of the legislation were good, she could not see how the requirements could be implemented as they would prove to be too resource intensive and it was not clear what would be achieved.  In response the Chairman pointed out that this was a legal requirement.

·       The Head of Planning and Transport Planning reminded the Panel that this was part of the Government’s response to a loss of biodiversity across the country as outlined in the 25-year Environment Plan.  As the requirement was embedded, it was expected that there would be a move to easier ways of monitoring through, for example, remote sensing, drones or aerial photography.

·       In response to a question about biodiversity banks, Members were told that there was a variety of ways to approach this.  Large developers might choose to set up their own banks and specialist companies may be set up for use by smaller developers.  A national scheme had also been proposed but Defra had indicated that this would be a ‘scheme of last resort’.  Discussions on the approach that the County Council might take were still at an early stage, awaiting further guidance from central Government.

·       It was confirmed that the Act included additional requirements with regard to the County Council’s role as mineral planning authority but it was suggested that the mineral industry were generally on board with this.

·       It was confirmed that the requirements for Biodiversity Net Gain would apply to highways developments.

·       In response to a question from a Councillor who was not a Member of the Panel, it was confirmed that the new biodiversity requirements had the potential to change how development was done.  It was confirmed that some habitats, such as ancient woodland, were excluded from possible development as they were classed as irreplaceable.

Waste

·       The Waste Services Manager informed the Panel that the Environment Act represented the biggest change in local authority waste management for 20 years.

·       The Act introduced the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) which put the focus on companies who created packaging to pay for 100% of the cost of disposal of products.

·       The Act also aimed to create greater consistency in waste disposal across the country.  One definite new requirement was for food waste to be collected weekly.  Although other requirements were not yet confirmed, the County Council was being proactive by looking at potential options.

·       The Chairman of the Panel suggested that the current commingled system of collecting recycling in the County worked well and asked whether the message was being passed on to central Government that Worcestershire residents were generally happy with the existing system.  In response, the Cabinet Member agreed that current systems worked well and this put the County in a strong position.  However, it was still possible to look for improvements.

·       In response to a question about the relative costs of commingled waste and separation at kerbside, the Panel was told that there was not a big difference.  Collection costs were higher for waste separated at kerbside, whereas sorting costs were higher when commingled waste was collected.

·       A Member of the Panel noted that there were still many unknowns arising from the Act and welcomed the fact that a working group had already been set up to look at the challenges.  She went on to suggest that the Panel may wish to express its support for the district councils’ response to the Defra consultation.

·       In response to a Member’s suggestion that the proposed target to reduce residual waste by 50% by 2042 was very high, the Panel was told that the aim was to educate residents in order to empower them and change behaviour.  A Councillor who was not a Member of the Panel referred to higher recycling rates in Wales where black bins were smaller or were collected less frequently.

Pollution

·       With reference to particulates, the Panel was informed that further guidance was expected in late 2022.

·       Air Quality Action Plans would require greater cooperation between the different tiers of local government.  Although this would be led by the district councils there was also a requirement for the County Council to put forward specific schemes.

In conclusion, the Chairman noted that much of the Act remained a moveable target given that further guidance was still awaited from Government.  However, he welcomed the fact that preparatory work had been started.  With reference to waste collection, the Panel felt that the current system in the County worked well and wished to support the district councils’ response to the Defra consultation.