Agenda Document Pack - Climate Change and Sustainability Committee - 16/11/2022
Perth and Kinross Council · 16 November 2022
Back to Climate Change and Sustainability Committee — 16 November 2022 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Securing the future… • Improving services • Enhancing quality of life • Making the best use of public resources Council Building 2 High Street Perth PH1 5PH 10/11/2022 A hybrid meeting of the Climate Change and Sustainability Committee will be held in the Council Chambers (Hybrid) on Wednesday, 16 November 2022 at 10:00. If you have any queries please contact Committee Services on (01738) 475000 or email Committee@pkc.gov.uk. THOMAS GLEN Chief Executive Those attending the meeting are requested to ensure that all notifications are silent on their device and other devices are in silent mode. Please note that the meeting will be broadcast online and recorded. The recording will be publicly available on the Council’s website following the meeting. Members: Councillor Richard Watters (Convener) Councillor Liz Barrett (Vice-Convener) Councillor Hugh Anderson Councillor Dave Cuthbert Councillor David Illingworth Councillor Noah Khogali Councillor Grant Laing Councillor Tom McEwan Councillor Crawford Reid Councillor Grant Stewart Councillor Jack Welch Page 1 of 44
Page 2
Page 2 of 44
Page 3
Climate Change and Sustainability Committee Wednesday, 16 November 2022 AGENDA MEMBERS ARE REMINDED OF THEIR OBLIGATION TO DECLARE ANY FINANCIAL OR NON-FINANCIAL INTEREST WHICH THEY MAY HAVE IN ANY ITEM ON THIS AGENDA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COUNCILLORS’ CODE OF CONDUCT. 1 WELCOME AND APOLOGIES/SUBSTITUTES 2 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 3 MINUTE OF MEETING OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE OF 24 AUGUST 2022 FOR APPROVAL (copy herewith) 5 - 8 4 PRESENTATION - FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT 5 FLOOD STUDIES - BLACKFORD & INVERGOWRIE Report by Head of Environmental and Consumer Services (copy herewith 22/281) 9 - 34 6 PUBLIC BODIES REPORTING DUTIES 2022 - CARBON EMISSIONS Report by Executive Director (Communities) (copy herewith 22/282) 35 - 44 Page 3 of 44
Page 4
Page 4 of 44
Page 5
CLIMATE CHANGE AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE Minute of hybrid meeting of the Climate Change and Sustainability Committee held in the Council Chambers on 24 August 2022 at 10.00am. Present: Councillors H Anderson, L Barrett, D Cuthbert, D Illingworth, N Khogali, G Laing, T McEwan, C Reid, G Stewart, R Watters, J Welch; M Mathers, J Pepper, N Jamieson and E McGregor. In Attendance: B Renton, Executive Director (Communities); D Littlejohn, D Grant, N Moran, R Wills, S Best (up to and including Item 3), A Deans, S Merone, H Wilson (from Item 4 onwards) (all Communities); S Nicoll, G Key (up to and including Item 4), A Taylor, A Brown, M Pasternak and (all Corporate and Democratic Services). Also in Attendance: Councillors J Duff and A Forbes (up to and including Item 3). Councillor R Watters, Convener, Presiding. 1. WELCOME AND APOLOGIES Councillor R Watters welcomed everyone to the meeting. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no Declarations of Interest made in terms of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct. 3. PRESENTATION – CLIMATE CHANGE ACTION PLAN UPDATE D Grant, Climate Change and Sustainable Development Team Leader provided a slide-based presentation on the Climate Change Action Plan Update. D Grant answered members’ questions thereon. 4. INTRODUCTION OF CHARGING FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLES There was submitted a report by the Head of Planning and Development (22/191) (1) inviting members to consider the issues associated with the Council’s current and future Electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure; and (2) seeking approval to the introduction of tariffs to recover the energy and support costs of providing this service. Motion (Councillors Watters and L Barrett) (i) The work undertaken to review potential options for charging, be noted. (ii) Option 3 and the recommended tariffs as detailed in Section 5.15 of Report 22/191 with an introduction date of 1 January 2023, be approved. (iii) The Executive Director (Communities) be instructed to keep tariff rates under review during the year, with delegation to amend the tariff to ensure that 3 Page 5 of 44
Page 6
future costs continue to be recovered, alongside an annual review to be undertaken as part of the budget process. 1st Amendment (Councillors Laing and McEwan) In accordance with the Motion but propose to increase the limit of stay to 6 hours for the less powerful 22kw chargers. 2nd Amendment (Councillors Khogali and Illingworth) Agree in principle the Motion, ask officers to bring back reports on the following options at the next meeting of the Committee. 1. Look at the possibility of selling / transferring the infrastructure to the private sector over the course of the next council term. 2. Push up the overstay cost to be, at minimum, the cost of a parking fine. 3. Consider adding in the ability to charge E-Bikes. 4. Reconsider the pricing structure as to account in costs for quick repairs for broken chargers. FOLLOWING A SHORT ADJOURNMENT, THE COMMITTEE RECONVENED. The Mover and Seconder of the 1st Amendment agreed to re-word their Amendment to read ‘4 hours’ instead of ‘6 hours’. The Mover and Seconder of the 2nd Amendment agreed to re-word their Amendment to read ‘bring back reports on the following options to a future meeting of the Committee’ instead of ‘the next meeting of the Committee’. Note: The Mover and Seconder of the Motion agreed to accept both Amendments in the Revised Motion as follows: (i) The work undertaken to review potential options for charging, be noted. (ii) Option 3 and the recommended tariffs as detailed in Section 5.15 of Report 22/191 with an introduction date of 1 January 2023, be approved. (iii) The Executive Director (Communities) be requested to keep tariff rates under review during the year, with delegation to amend the tariff to ensure that future costs continue to be recovered, alongside an annual review to be undertaken as part of the budget process. (iv) The proposed limit of stay for the less powerful 22kw charges be set at four hours with an overstay fee of £10. (v) The Executive Director (Communities) be requested to consider the points detailed below and bring a further report to a future meeting of the Committee. 1. Look at the possibility of selling / transferring the infrastructure to the private sector over the course of the next council term. 2. Push up the overstay cost to be, at minimum, the cost of a parking fine. 3. Consider adding in the ability to charge E-Bikes. Page 6 of 44
Page 7
4. Reconsider the pricing structure as to account in costs for quick repairs for broken chargers. 5. NATURE RESTORATION FUND 2022-23 There was submitted a report by the Head of Planning and Development (22/192) (1) providing information on the Nature Restoration Fund allocation received by Perth and Kinross Council in 2021 and 2022; (2) setting out the proposed approach to use of the funds in the current financial year, including proposed nature restoration work to be carried out by Community Greenspace; (3) seeking approval of the proposed split in funding between Community Greenspace and community led projects; and (4) requesting that delegated authority be given to the Executive Director (Communities). Resolved: (i) The ratio of Nature Restoration Funding of 60% to Community Greenspace projects and 40% to community led projects, be approved. (ii) The delegation of authority to approve community led projects to the Executive Director (Communities), be approved. ~~~~~~~ Page 7 of 44
Page 8
Page 8 of 44
Page 9
PERTH AND KINROSS COUNCIL Climate Change & Sustainability Committee 16 November 2022 FLOOD STUDIES – BLACKFORD & INVERGOWRIE Report by Head of Environmental and Consumer Services (Report No. 22/281) 1. PURPOSE 1.1 This report describes the outcome of the Council’s flood studies at two separate locations - Blackford and Invergowrie. The report recommends that a flood protection scheme is taken forward in Blackford as it has been found to be economically viable. As such, the proposed scheme for Blackford has been submitted to SEPA for national prioritisation and included in the published Forth Flood Risk Management Plan. The scheme will also be included in the next Forth Local Flood Risk Management Plan (to be published in December 2022). The report also recommends that a flood protection scheme in Invergowrie is not taken forward as it is not economically viable. 2. RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 It is recommended that the Committee: (i) notes the completion of the Blackford Flood Study and the Invergowrie Natural Flood Management Study, as required by the Forth and the Tay Estuary & Montrose Basin Flood Risk Management Strategies and Local Flood Risk Management Plans. (ii) notes that separate public engagement events have been held to disseminate the findings of each flood study. (iii) approves the recommendations of each study, including: • the proposals for a flood protection scheme in Blackford; • to stop work on a natural flood management scheme in Invergowrie as it is not economically viable. (iv) notes that the Council will continue to manage flood risk in the Invergowrie area by implementing the actions set out in the published Tay Estuary & Montrose Basin Flood Risk Management Plan and Local Flood Risk Management Plan. (v) notes that details of the recommended flood protection scheme for Blackford have been submitted to SEPA for national prioritisation and were included in the Cycle 2 (2021-2027) Forth Flood Risk Management Plan, published in December 2021. 5 Page 9 of 44
Page 10
(vi) notes that the recommended flood scheme in Blackford will also be included in the next Forth Local Flood Risk Management Plan, due for publication in December 2022. (vii) notes that this position is consistent with the published Forth and Tay Estuary & Montrose Basin Flood Risk Management Plans. 3. STRUCTURE OF REPORT 3.1 This report is structured over the following sections: • Section 4: Background/Main Issues • Section 5: Proposals • Section 6: Conclusion • Appendices 4. BACKGROUND / MAIN ISSUES 4.1 Under the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009, SEPA and lead local authorities published new Flood Risk Management (FRM) Strategies and Local FRM Plans in December 2015 and June 2016 respectively. These documents set out a range of actions that SEPA and responsible authorities are taking to manage and, where possible, reduce the risk of flooding over a six-year period. 4.2 The Environment Committee approved the content and publication of the Forth and the Tay Estuary & Montrose Basin Local FRM Plans on 1 June 2016 (Report 16/241 refers). The Environment and Infrastructure Committee approved the content of an interim report on the progress made in implementing these Local FRM Plans on 23 January 2019 (Report 19/16 refers). Both of these published documents can be viewed at the following link: http://www.pkc.gov.uk/frmplans 4.3 The published FRM Strategies and Local FRM Plans identify various flood studies as a means of further improving the understanding of flood risk in certain locations. A flood protection study was identified for Blackford (within the Forth district) and a natural flood management study for Invergowrie (within the Tay Estuary & Montrose Basin district). 4.4 The purpose of these flood studies was to investigate what further action is required to manage flood risk in these locations. Such action can be implemented through flood protection schemes, including natural flood management works, where these are found to be technically feasible and economically viable. 4.5 The 2009 Act provides local authorities with discretionary powers to promote flood protection schemes. Only those flood schemes which have been included in the published FRM Strategies, the Local FRM Plans and the national priority list are taken forward in the subsequent 6-year period. Page 10 of 44
Page 11
4.6 Although public authorities are expected to take a proactive role in managing and, where achievable, lowering flood risk, the primary responsibility for avoiding or managing flood risk still remains with land and property owners. The 2009 Act does not alter this. Individuals, businesses and communities must, therefore, play a critical role in making themselves more resilient and helping to reduce the impact of flooding. Blackford 4.7 Blackford is located in the River Forth catchment within Potentially Vulnerable Area (PVA) 09/12. 4.8 The main potential source of flooding in Blackford is the Allan Water. Other smaller tributaries of the Allan Water, namely the Danny Burn, the Back Burn and the Kinpauch Burn also present a risk of flooding. The flood study has also given consideration to other small watercourses within the vicintity of Blackford including the Burn of Ogilvie, the Damakellis Burn and the Bardrill Burn. 4.9 In October 2018, consulting engineers, Stantec Ltd, were engaged to carry out a flood study for Blackford. Stantec subsequently employed Kaya Consulting Ltd as their sub-consultants to assist with the delivery of the flood protection study. 4.10 Stantec’s investigations involved extensive data gathering and analysis, consultations, topographic surveys, a hydrological assessment, hydraulic modelling, an environmental desk study, an options study, an economic appraisal and the production of final reports. 4.11 The flood study analysed the flooding mechanisms affecting Blackford and a series of flood hazard maps were produced. The study identified that up to 32 residential properties and 6 commercial properties are potentially at risk during a 1 in 200 year flood event (the flood event with a 0.5% chance of occurring in any one year). The A9 was also highlighted as being at risk of flooding. 4.12 In managing flood risk, the Council is required to have regard to the economic, social and environmental impact of its actions. The Scottish Government’s guidance recommends that decision making in flood risk management should be supported by an options appraisal. 4.13 Options appraisal includes a cost-benefit analysis and other techniques to determine whether a flood protection scheme meets its objectives, is sustainable and represents best value for money. In general, the cost of flood damage avoided over time must be greater than the cost of building the flood defences, i.e., they must achieve a benefit/cost ratio of greater than 1.0. 4.14 Stantec initially considered a long list of potential options to manage the risk of flooding. This long list was refined by a technical, environmental and economic appraisal until a short list of 4 options was selected for more Page 11 of 44
Page 12
detailed analysis. This short list of potential options, together with the estimated costs and benefit/cost ratios, is shown in Appendix 1. 4.15 All four of the short-listed options produced benefit/cost ratios that were greater than 1.0. However, only options 3 and 4 would achieve the study objective of defending all properties (residential and non-residential) at risk of flooding in the 200 year flood event. 4.16 Options 2 and 3 would include property level protection (PLP) measures and these produced the greatest benefit/cost ratios. However, as noted in the table in Appendix 1, there are known limitations which must be considered with these measures. Relying on PLP would lead to uncertainty as to the level of flood protection and could still result in properties being flooded. Nevertheless, the study has highlighted that property level protection measures are an appropriate way for residents to take action to reduce the flood risk at their property. 4.17 The study concluded that Option 4 produced the best level of flood protection for Blackford, despite having the highest capital cost and lowest benefit/cost ratio. It was the only option considered that also defended the A9 from potential flooding, and there is scope to include wider benefits in terms of amenity and biodiversity. 4.18 The flood study therefore recommended Option 4 which includes the following set of actions: a) A new diversion channel to take higher flows of water from the Danny Burn to the Burn of Ogilvie; b) A new diversion channel to take higher flows of water from the Back and Kinpauch Burns into the Allan Water; c) A new flood wall at Highland Spring to reduce the risk of flooding from the Allan Water; d) Natural flood management measures (earth bunds or other suitable water retention features) upstream of Blackford to increase floodplain storage on the Allan Water. 4.19 A plan showing the recommended option is provided in Appendix 2. 4.20 The recommended option is estimated to have a capital cost of £7.8M and an overall benefit/cost ratio of 1.36. The flood study has, therefore, concluded that this flood protection scheme is economically viable and should be implemented. 4.21 If these actions were to be implemented, then a total of 38 properties would be protected up to the 1 in 200 year flood. 4.22 The flood scheme proposals will be developed in more detail in future and there may be scope to include a further allowance to the level of flood defence to account for future climate change. This would potentially defend up to 72 properties, provided the scheme maintained a positive benefit/cost ratio. The Page 12 of 44
Page 13
impacts of climate change significantly increase the potential level of flood risk from the Danny Burn, which accounts for the difference in properties that could be defended. 4.23 In order to disseminate the findings of the flood study, and to outline how flood risk is being managed in the area, a community drop-in event was arranged. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, this took the form of an online presentation held on 14 October 2021. Information was also placed on the Council’s website to allow the community to view and comment on the study findings. Further details are provided in Section 4 of the Annex to this report. Invergowrie 4.24 Invergowrie is located within the Tay Estuary and Montrose Basin catchment within Potentially Vulnerable Area (PVA) 07/12. 4.25 The main potential source of flooding to Invergowrie and the surrounding area is the Invergowrie Burn and its tributaries including the Fowlis, Liff, Balruddery and Lochee Burns. 4.26 In March 2020, consulting engineers, Sweco UK Ltd, were engaged to carry out a Natural Flood Management (NFM) study for Invergowrie. 4.27 Sweco’s investigations involved extensive data gathering and analysis, consultations, topographic surveys, a hydrological assessment, hydraulic modelling, an environmental desk study, an options study, an economic appraisal and the production of final reports. 4.28 The flood study analysed the flooding mechanisms affecting Invergowrie and the surrounding area, and a series of flood hazard maps were produced. The study identified that up to 24 residential properties and 3 non-residential properties were potentially at risk during a 1 in 200 year flood event (the flood event with 0.5% chance of occurring in any one year). 4.29 In managing flood risk, the Council is required to have regard to the economic, social and environmental impact of its actions. The Scottish Government’s guidance recommends that decision making in flood risk management should be supported by an options appraisal. 4.30 Options appraisal includes a cost-benefit analysis and other techniques to determine whether a flood protection scheme meets its objectives, is sustainable and represents best value for money. In general, the cost of flood damage avoided over time must be greater than the cost of building the flood defences, i.e., they must achieve a benefit/cost ratio of greater than 1.0. 4.31 Sweco initially considered a long list of potential options (focusing primarily on NFM measures) to manage the risk of flooding. This long list was refined by a technical, environmental and economic appraisal until a short list of 5 options was selected for more detailed analysis. This short list of potential options, Page 13 of 44
Page 14
together with the, estimated costs and benefit/cost ratios, is shown in Appendix 3. 4.32 Plans showing each option are included in Appendix 4. 4.33 Sweco concluded that none of the options considered have a benefit/cost ratio greater than 1.0 and a natural flood management scheme for Invergowrie and the surrounding area is therefore not economically viable. 4.34 Work on an NFM scheme has therefore not progressed to the design stage and does not form part of the published Tay Estuary & Montrose Basin FRM Plan or Local FRM Plan. 4.35 The study has also informed other on-going actions to managed flood risk under the 2009 Act. Invergowrie is one of the 254 Potentially Vulnerable Areas (PVAs) in Scotland that have been identified as being at a significant risk of flooding and where flood risk management actions should be prioritised. The current Tay Local FRM Plan includes the following actions for Invergowrie: • Strategic flood mapping and modelling (Scottish Water) • Flood Forecasting (SEPA); • Awareness raising; • Self-help measures; • Maintenance (clearance and repair works); • Emergency plans/response; • Managing flood risk through the application of development planning policy 4.36 The recommendations and conclusions within Sweco’s final report align with the actions proposed as part of the current Tay Estuary & Montrose Basin Local FRM Plan. 4.37 As noted at 4.6, individuals, businesses and communities must play a critical role in making themselves more resilient and helping to reduce the impact of flooding. The Tay Local FRM Plan therefore includes actions which are intended to enable communities to act and to become more resilient to flooding. 4.38 In order to disseminate the findings of the flood study, and to outline how flood risk is being managed in the area, an online community consultation event took place between 8 and 25 September 2022. Further details are provided in Section 4 of the Annex to this report. 4.39 The Council will continue to raise awareness of flooding and encourage the local community and other landowners to become more prepared and resilient to deal with flooding in the future. Page 14 of 44
Page 15
5. PROPOSALS Blackford 5.1 The Council’s consulting engineers have recommended a flood protection scheme for Blackford. It is proposed that this scheme is taken forward by the Council. 5.2 The Council’s consulting engineers, Stantec Ltd, have recommended a flood protection scheme that involves a collection of localised actions, as set out in section 4.18 of this report. 5.3 The proposed flood protection scheme is shown in Appendix 2 of this report. Invergowrie 5.4 As the consulting engineers report has demonstrated that a natural flood management scheme in Invergowrie is not economically viable, it is proposed that no further work should be undertaken on the development of this scheme. This is consistent with the published Tay Estuary & Montrose Basin FRM Plan. 5.5 The Council will continue to manage flood risk in the Invergowrie area by implementing the actions set out in the published Tay FRM Plan and Local FRM Plan. Next Steps 5.6 SEPA set a deadline of the end of December 2019 for local authorities to identify new flood schemes for inclusion in the second cycle of FRM Plans and Local FRM Plans covering the period from 2022-2028. The flood schemes identified across Scotland were then to be prioritised and added to an updated national priority list. 5.7 As the initial outputs from the Blackford flood study were available at that time, the recommended flood scheme was submitted to SEPA for prioritisation. The proposed scheme has also been included in the updated Forth Local FRM Plan and will be included in the new Forth Local FRM Plan, which will cover the period from 2022-2028. 5.8 The new Forth Local FRM Plan should set out the proposed implementation arrangements for the flood scheme in Blackford, including timescales and how it will be funded. However, due to the on-going Scottish Government/CoSLA review of capital funding for flood schemes, and the other schemes that the Council is already progressing, the timescales and funding arrangements for the Blackford scheme remain unclear for the time being. The next phases of work to develop the flood scheme proposals will therefore not commence until the funding review provides further clarity around capital grant funding and provision is made within the Council’s capital programme. Page 15 of 44
Page 16
6. CONCLUSION 6.1 The report provides an update on the outcome of separate flood studies in Blackford and Invergowrie. 6.2 The Council engaged consulting engineers to carry out these flood studies. These communities were identified as being among the Council’s highest priority flood studies within the Forth and the Tay Estuary & Montrose Basin Flood Risk Management Strategies and Local Flood Risk Management Plans. 6.3 The Council’s consulting engineers have recommended a flood protection scheme for Blackford. The proposed scheme is economically viable and the preliminary proposals consist of various measures to reduce the risk of flooding in Blackford. This report therefore seeks the Committee’s approval that the consulting engineer’s recommended proposals be promoted as a flood scheme for Blackford, subject to funding availability. 6.4 The Council’s consulting engineers have concluded that a natural flood management scheme in Invergowrie is not economically viable and therefore no flood scheme is proposed. The consulting engineers have recommended a number of actions to mitigate flood risk in the area in the future. These actions align with those outlined in the published Tay Estuary & Montrose Basin FRM Strategy and Local FRM Plan. Authors Name Designation Contact Details Peter Dickson Interim Flooding Manager 01738 475000 ComCommitteeReports@pkc.gov.uk Russell Stewart Engineer (Flooding) Gavin Bissett Engineer (Flooding) Approved Name Designation Date Barbara Renton Executive Director (Communities) 8 November 2022 • Appendix 1 – Blackford Flood Study – Short List of Potential Options • Appendix 2 – Blackford Flood Study – Plan of Recommended Option • Appendix 3 – Invergowrie NFM Study – Short List of Potential Options • Appendix 4 – Invergowrie NFM Study – Plans of Potential Options Page 16 of 44
Page 17
ANNEX 1. IMPLICATIONS, ASSESSMENTS, CONSULTATION AND COMMUNICATION Strategic Implications Yes / None Community Plan / Single Outcome Agreement Yes Corporate Plan Yes Resource Implications Financial Yes Workforce None Asset Management (land, property, IST) None Assessments Equality Impact Assessment Yes Strategic Environmental Assessment Yes Sustainability (community, economic, environmental) Yes Legal and Governance Yes Risk Yes Consultation Internal Yes External Yes Communication Communications Plan Yes 1. Strategic Implications Community Plan/Single Outcome Agreement 1.1 The proposals relate to the delivery of the Perth and Kinross Community Plan/Single Outcome Agreement in terms of the following priorities: (iii) Promoting a prosperous, inclusive and sustainable economy (iv) Supporting people to lead independent, healthy and active lives (v) Creating a safe and sustainable place for future generations Corporate Plan 1.2 The proposals relate to the achievement of the following priorities in the Council’s Corporate Plan: (iii) Promoting a prosperous, inclusive and sustainable economy; (iv) Supporting people to lead independent, healthy and active lives; and (v) Creating a safe and sustainable place for future generations. 2. Resource Implications Financial 2.1 It should be noted that the proposed flood protection scheme in Blackford will not be implemented at this time. The implementation arrangements (if known) Page 17 of 44
Page 18
will be set out in the Cycle 2 Forth Local FRM Plan, which will cover the six year period from 2022–2028 and is due to be published in December 2022. Subject to available funding, consulting engineers will be re-engaged to carry out further investigations and develop the flood scheme proposals at some time during 2022-2028. As a result, there are no immediate resource implications arising directly from the recommendations in this report. 2.2 However, the flood risk management planning process will have future financial implications. The next Forth Local FRM Plan will contain the implementation arrangements including a timetable for the proposed flood scheme, who will be responsible for implementing it, as well as how it will be funded (if known) and coordinated by SEPA and the responsible authorities over the next six year cycle from 2022-2028. 2.3 The 2009 Act requires the Scottish Government to have regard to the FRM Plans and Local FRM Plans when allocating funds to SEPA and responsible authorities. The Scottish Government, CoSLA and SEPA agreed the distribution of capital funding to the actions identified nationally in the Cycle 1 (2016-2022) FRM Plans and Local FRM Plans. The following arrangements currently apply: (i) Only works and schemes that are prioritised in the FRM Plans and Local FRM Plans are eligible for capital funding. (ii) Flood protection schemes attract capital grant assistance of up to 80% of their estimated project cost at tender stage from the Scottish Government. Local authorities are required to fund the remainder of the cost of flood schemes. (iii) The Scottish Government allocates capital funding to local authorities engaged in flood risk management across Scotland. 80% of this capital funding will continue to be allocated to flood protection schemes with the remaining 20% to other actions within the FRM Plans, as detailed in the Local FRM Plans. This 20% is distributed to the 32 Scottish local authorities based on the number of properties at risk of flooding and the estimated annual average flood damages. 2.4 At present, the allocated capital grant is adjusted as the flood scheme proposals are developed. The estimated costs of flood schemes across Scotland will therefore continue to be reported to the Scottish Government by local authorities on an annual basis. 2.5 These arrangements are currently under review by the Scottish Government and CoSLA, due to the current projected costs of Cycle 1 flood schemes across the country, and the available funding. 2.6 The Council currently has four flood protection schemes that had been included in the national priority list for Cycle 1 from 2016-2022 and work on them continues. However, as a result of the above review, the 4th priority flood scheme, on the Annaty Burn in Scone, has been paused. While this scheme may still progress in the future, it is likely to take longer to implement due to these funding limitations. Page 18 of 44
Page 19
2.7 No capital funding has been allocated to any new Cycle 2 flood schemes in Scotland. The Council has not made an allocation for its 20% contribution to the capital cost at this time. The timescales and funding arrangements for the proposed new flood scheme in Blackford therefore remain unclear for the time being. 2.8 The conclusion of the national review into capital funding for flood schemes is awaited. 2.9 The proposals and cost estimates for the recommended flood scheme in Blackford still have to be developed through a long process of further investigations, consultation, outline design, the statutory process, detailed design, tendering and construction. Experience on other similar schemes has invariably shown that the costs estimated at feasibility stage always increase. The scheme costs noted in this report are therefore subject to change and will have to be carefully monitored going forward. 2.10 There are no current revenue funding implications arising from the recommendations in this report. Workforce 2.11 There are no workforce implications arising directly from the recommendations in this report. Asset Management (land, property, IT) 2.12 The proposals in this report have no asset management implications at this time. 3. Assessments Equality Impact Assessment 3.1 Under the Equality Act 2010, the Council is required to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity, and foster good relations between equality groups. Carrying out Equality Impact Assessments for plans and policies allows the Council to demonstrate that it is meeting these duties. The Equality Impact Assessment undertaken in relation to this report can be viewed clicking here. 3.2 The proposals in this report have been considered under the Corporate Equalities Impact Assessment process (EqIA) with the following outcome. (i) It was determined that the proposals be assessed as relevant with the following actions taken to reduce of remove the following negative impacts: • The construction works for the proposed flood scheme could temporarily have a greater impact on mobility impaired, sight Page 19 of 44
Page 20
impaired, blind people or disabled people, on children and the elderly and infirm, and on pregnant women or nursing mothers, in relation to adverse psychological, physical and health impacts. Appropriate mitigation measures will be adopted to minimise disruption, noise, dust and vibration and to ensure adequate safe access throughout the construction works. (ii) The proposals be assessed as relevant with the following positive outcomes expected following implementation: • The proposed flood scheme will have the same positive impact for all equality groups as the reduction in flood risk to both communities will provide benefits for all (improved safety, health & wellbeing through the avoidance of flood impacts and damages) in the long term. Strategic Environmental Assessment 3.3 The Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 places a duty on the Council to identify and assess the environmental consequences of its proposals. 3.4 The matters presented in this report were considered under the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 and no further action is required as it does not qualify as a PPS as defined by the Act and is therefore exempt. 3.5 It is likely that Environmental Impact Assessments will be required to support the proposed flood schemes described in this report. These assessments will be progressed once consulting engineers have been engaged. Sustainability 3.6 Under the provisions of the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003, the Council has to discharge its duties in a way which contributes to the achievement of sustainable development. Under the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, the Council also has a duty relating to climate change and, in exercising its functions must act: • in the way best calculated to delivery of the Act’s emissions reduction targets; • in the way best calculated to deliver any statutory adaptation programmes; and • in a way that it considers most sustainable. 3.7 Following an assessment using the Integrated Appraisal Toolkit, it was previously determined that the proposal is likely to contribute positively to the following corporate sustainable development principles: Page 20 of 44
Page 21
(i) Climate Change Efficient use of resources now and in the future in the built environment and service provision (e.g. energy efficiency, land, water resources, flood defence, waste minimisation) (Principle 2) Mitigation and adaptation to manage the impact of climate change & reduce the production of greenhouse gases (Principle 3) Justification: The flood scheme proposed in this report will help to manage the increased flood risk to Blackford brought about by climate change. (ii) Community Creating a sense of place (e.g. a place with a positive ‘feeling' for people, and local distinctiveness) (Principle 22) Justification: The flood scheme proposed in the report will help to make the Blackford community safer and more sustainable for residents, through a reduction in flood risk. This will help the communities to thrive in the longer term despite the temporary construction impacts. 3.8 Following an assessment using the Integrated Appraisal Toolkit, it was previously determined that the proposal is likely to contribute negatively to the following corporate sustainable development principles: (iii) Consumption and Resources Efficient use of resources now and in the future in the built environment and service provision (e.g. energy efficiency, land, water resources, flood defence, waste minimisation) (Principle 2) Mitigation and adaptation to manage the impact of climate change & reduce the production of greenhouse gases (Principle 3) Justification: There will be a short-term increase in the use of materials and resources during construction of the flood scheme, but a future reduction due to reduced flood risk. Mitigation: The Environmental Impact Assessment and eventual Construction Environmental Management Plan will consider energy consumption and waste management practices during construction. Legal and Governance 3.9 The Head of Legal and Governance has been consulted on this report. Page 21 of 44
Page 22
3.10 The legal basis for the proposals set out in this report is the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009. Risk 3.11 Flooding is a natural phenomenon that can never be entirely prevented. However, the Council is required to manage and, where possible, reduce flood risk. 3.12 The flood scheme proposed in this report will reduce flood risk in Blackford. The risks associated with the proposals set out in this report will be identified and managed through this individual project. 4. Consultation Internal 4.1 The Head of Legal and Governance and the Head of Finance have been consulted in the preparation of this report. External Blackford 4.2 Blackford Community Council, SEPA, NatureScot, the Allan Water Steering Group (comprising the Forth Rivers Trust, Nature Scot, Scottish Government, Scottish Forestry and SEPA) and all relevant landowners and occupiers were consulted during the development of the proposals. 4.3 Due to the Covid-19 Pandemic, the flood study information was placed on the Council’s website and consultation hub from 17 September to 5 November 2021 to allow the community to view and comment on the findings. A live online presentation was also held on 14 October 2021. This provided detail on: • the risk of flooding in Blackford; • the outcome of the Council’s flood study; • work to raise awareness of flooding and to help the local community to become more prepared and resilient to deal with flooding. 4.4 The live online event consisted of a presentation from the Council setting out the proposals, with the opportunity for residents to submit questions to the project team. The project team consisted of representatives from the Council’s Flooding Team, Stantec Ltd, Kaya Consulting Ltd, SEPA and the Scottish Flood Forum. The event was recorded and remains available to view via the Council’s Youtube channel at: https://youtu.be/lom2y6IpXHQ. 4.5 A letter was issued to the local elected members and the Community Council, and 426 letters were sent to residents and businesses within the local community, to highlight the availability of the online information. Social media Page 22 of 44
Page 23
posts were also arranged through the Council’s communications team. The Community Council also helped by circulating the information through their channels of communication. 4.6 A total of 9 responses were provided as a mixture of e-mails and completed comment forms, with each covering a number of comments and questions. 4.7 In general, the comments received from the community were positive. The majority of the comments were made in relation to the flood risk maps produced by the study. Some comments were made about the proposal for a flood wall as part of the recommended scheme and a concern was also raised about the suitability of one of the watercourses to receive the diverted flow of water included as part of the proposals. Further consultation with the community will be carried out if the proposals are to be taken forward. 4.8 The Council has issued a response to the community to answer any questions raised during the online consultation period. Invergowrie 4.9 SEPA, Scottish Water, Angus Council, Dundee City Council, NatureScot, the James Hutton Institute and all relevant landowners and occupiers were consulted during the development of the proposals. 4.10 An online public consultation event was held between 8 and 25 September 2022 via the Council’s consultation hub. The aim of this exercise was to provide the local community with further information on:- • the risk of flooding in Invergowrie; • the findings from the Invergowrie NFM study; and • other actions to raise awareness and improve community flood resilience. 4.11 A newsletter was issued to the local elected members and 280 local residents and businesses to advertise the information provided on the Council’s consultation hub. The information provided summarised the work carried out by the consulting engineers and how flood risk might be managed in the future. The online consultation event was also advertised on the Council’s social media. A total of 3 responses were received. 4.12 In general, the response to the online consultation event was limited. However, it should be noted that the flood study has confirmed that flooding in Invergowrie, and the surrounding area, only affects a small number of properties on an infrequent basis. 4.13 The Council has issued a response to the community to answer any questions raised during the online consultation period. Page 23 of 44
Page 24
5. Communication 5.1 The communication arrangements to date were as noted in Section 4 above. 5.2 The Council will continue to communicate with the local community, statutory consultees, local landowners and other stakeholders as the scheme proposals are developed. 2. BACKGROUND PAPERS 2.1 The following background papers, as defined by Section 50D of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (and not containing confidential of exempt information) were relied on to a material extent in the preparation of the above report: • PKC – Environment Committee – 9 September 2015, The Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009, Selected Actions and Prioritisation (Report No. 15/359). • PKC – Environment Committee – 1 June 2016, The Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009, Publication of Local Flood Risk Management Plans (Report No 16/241). • PKC – Environment and Infrastructure Committee – 23 January 2019, The Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009, Publication of Interim Report (Report No 19/16). • PKC – Environment and Infrastructure Committee – 19 May 2021, The Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009: Second Cycle of Flood Risk Management Plans (Report No 21/60). Page 24 of 44
Page 25
Appendix 1 Table 1: Option Appraisal Summary Table Option 1 Maintenance plus small flood defence ancillary works (The Cross and Abercairney Place) Option 2 Property Level Protection (PLP) (residential properties only) Option 3 Direct Flood Defences (Tullibardine & Highland Spring) + Property Level Protection (PLP) (residential properties) Option 4 Diversion Channel (Danny Burn / Back Burn / Kinpauch Burn) plus Direct Defences (Highland Spring) plus Natural Flood Management All properties protected (200 year event)? No No Yes Yes Initial Capital cost £841,769 £192,000 £4,635,345 £7,823,860 Benefit:Cost Ratio 1.4 2.9 1.77 1.36 Assessment of option Option doesn’t fully meet study objectives. Only defends The Cross and Abercairney Place. Other properties still at risk. Repeated dredging not recommended on environmental grounds. Option doesn’t fully meet study objectives. PLP not suitable for non-residential properties, which therefore remain at risk. Flood protection relies on measures being installed properly by homeowners (in advance of flooding), and suitable maintenance. Typical life span of around 20-30 years before replacement required. Uptake of PLP measures is historically poor. Only effective up to certain flood depths (typically 0.6m) – modelled 1 in 200 year flood depths are up to 0.4m (for residential properties). All properties offered a degree of protection but see below. Flood protection provided by PLP relies on measures being installed properly by homeowners (in advance of flooding), and suitable maintenance. Typical life span of PLP around 20-30 years before replacement required also. Uptake of PLP measures is historically poor. PLP only effective up to certain flood depths (typically 0.6m). – modelled 1 in 200 year flood depths are up to 0.4m (for residential properties). All properties defended – plus benefit to the A9. Diversion works are remote from the village thereby reducing impact (both during construction and longer-term). Visual impact of direct defences also limited. NFM opportunities through reuse of material claimed on site during construction. Potential for multiple benefits (biodiversity/habitat creation/amenity) along diversion routes and NFM. Option 1 is not recommended Option 2 is not recommended Option 3 is not recommended Option 4 is recommended 5 Page 25 of 44
Page 26
Page 26 of 44
Page 27
Appendix 2 – Recommended Option for Blackford Flood Protection Scheme Recommended Option Summary: 1. Diversion channel for high flows from Danny Burn to Burn of Ogilvie 2. Diversion channel for high flows from Back Burn to Allan Water 3. Diversion channel for high flows from Kinpauch Burn to Allan Water 4. Direct Defences at Highland Spring 5. Natural flood management (NFM) measures to increase floodplain storage on upper Allan Water 5 Page 27 of 44
Page 28
Page 28 of 44
Page 29
Appendix 3 – Invergowrie NFM Study – Short List of Potential Options Table 1: Option Appraisal Summary Table Option 1 In channel measures to attenuate flows along the upper Fowlis Burn including riparian planting, leaky dams, and woodland management in Fowlis Den Option 2 Catchment wide measures including reforestation, distributed surface water storage, and sustainable land management practices Option 3 Structural measures including de-culverting sections of the Fowlis Burn, incorporating a bypass channel close to Fowlis, and removing embankments to reconnect the Fowlis Burn with its floodplain Option 4 Direct Flood Defences within Invergowrie including walls upstream and downstream of Main Street and Burnside Road Option 5 Non-structural measures such as more frequent and extensive inspection visits of structures in the upper catchment; the promotion of sustainable land management (such as enhanced flood water storage or woodland planting), property buy- back, awareness raising, and updates to local planning policies to consider flood plain management Properties protected in 1 in 200 year flood 0 12 12 16 0* Initial Capital Cost £425,600 £2,032,240 £2,340,800 £2,128,000 £4,583,240 Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.00 0.21 0.30 0.08 0.20 Assessment of Option Option doesn’t fully meet study objectives. Potential for the installation of leaky dams and riparian planting. Small ecological benefit noted, but unlikely to improve watercourse condition. Very limited benefit in terms of reducing flood risk. Option doesn’t fully meet study objectives. Modelling indicates that catchment wide measures would have a limited benefit in terms of reducing flood risk. Significant flood storage volume required to reduce flows reaching Invergowrie; this would be extremely large and benefit/cost would be low. Further issues noted with land ownership and maintenance. Option doesn’t fully meet study objectives. Measures are costly and would require extensive work on the watercourses. Option has a limited benefit in terms of reducing flood risk. Option doesn’t fully meet study objectives. Measures could potentially lead to a deterioration in the environmental status of the watercourse. Works would be intrusive and require substantial construction and land resources. Option has a limited benefit in terms of reducing flood risk. Option doesn’t fully meet study objectives. Option includes a mix of measures; the main benefit would be derived from buying (*not protecting) 28 properties & re-naturalising flood plains over the longer term. Landownership would be a major constraint. Benefits would be realised over long term; requiring long term investment. Would provide wider benefits from education and engagement. Option 1 is not recommended Option 2 is not recommended Option 3 is not recommended Option 4 is not recommended Option 5 is not recommended 5 Page 29 of 44
Page 30
Page 30 of 44
Page 31
Page 1 of 4 Appendix 4 - Invergowrie NFM Study – Plans of Potential Options Option 1 In channel measures to attenuate flows along the upper Fowlis Burn including riparian planting, leaky dams, and woodland management in Fowlis Den. Option 2 Catchment wide measures including reforestation, distributed surface water storage, and sustainable land management practices. 5 Page 31 of 44
Page 32
Page 2 of 4 Option 3 Structural measures including de-culverting sections of the Fowlis Burn, incorporating a bypass channel close to Fowlis, and removing embankments to reconnect the Fowlis Burn with its floodplain. Page 32 of 44
Page 33
Page 3 of 4 Option 4 Direct flood defences within Invergowrie including walls upstream and downstream of Main Street and Burnside Road. Page 33 of 44
Page 34
Page 4 of 4 Option 5 Non-structural measures such as more frequent and extensive inspection visits of structures in the upper catchment; the promotion of sustainable land management (such as enhanced flood water storage or woodland planting), property buy-back, awareness raising, and updates to local planning policies to consider flood plain management. (No Drawing). Page 34 of 44
Page 35
PERTH AND KINROSS COUNCIL CLIMATE CHANGE AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE 16 November 2022 PUBLIC BODIES CLIMATE CHANGE DUTIES REPORTING 2022 – CARBON EMISSIONS Report by Executive Director (Communities) (Report No. 22/282) 1. PURPOSE 1.1 This report provides an overview of the Council’s annual climate change Public Bodies Climate Change Duty (PBCCD) Reporting submission. It includes an update on the Council’s carbon footprint and emissions trends for the reporting year 2021/22 along with benchmarking information to inform decisions and ensure effective performance monitoring. Based on this evidence, the report to the Scottish Government has been developed for submission. 2. RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 It is recommended that the Committee: (i) notes the contents of the report, along with the contents of the Public Bodies Climate Change Duty Report to the Scottish Government (Appendix A). (ii) notes the progress in developing benchmarking information and the need to use it to provide an evidence-based platform to inform decisions and monitor performance. (iii) requests officers to develop a detailed decarbonisation trajectory before November 2023 to enable more detailed plans to be included in future year submissions. (iv) requests officers to develop a robust Scope 3 reporting methodology for the Council by November 2023. 3. STRUCTURE OF REPORT 3.1 This report is structured over the following sections: • Section 4: Background/Main Issues • Section 5: Conclusion • Appendices 6 Page 35 of 44
Page 36
4. BACKGROUND / MAIN ISSUES 4.1 Perth & Kinross Council, as a listed public body in Schedule 1 of the Climate Change (Duties of Public Bodies; Reporting Requirements) (Scotland) Order 2015 as amended by the Climate Change (Duties of Public Bodies: Reporting Requirements) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2020, is required to report annually via the Sustainable Scotland Network Report to the Scottish Government. This is required in order that Perth & Kinross Council complies with its climate change duties as established under Section 44 of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, and as stated in Schedule 2 of the 2015 Order. 4.2 In addition to the above, the 2020 Amendment Order set out additional reporting requirements from 2021/22 in response to the global climate emergency and Scotland’s net zero targets, as well as the interim targets as set out in the legislation. The compliance reports must now address additional sections that include, but are not limited to, the Council’s target date for achieving zero direct emissions; how the Council will align its spending plans and use of resources to deliver its emissions reduction targets; and how the Council will publish its progress to achieving its emissions reductions targets. 4.3 Public Bodies Climate Change Duty (PBCCD) Reporting on carbon emissions is key for the Council to understand how much progress is being made, but also to benchmark our performance with other public sector bodies. 4.4 Since the Council’s first report in the pilot year 2014/15, the Council’s carbon footprint has been steadily decreasing until this year. This is illustrated in the table below. The baseline year has been set as 2015/16 as per the reporting guidance, as in 2014/15 only Scope 1 & 2 emissions were calculated. For greater clarity, the Scope 1 data has been sub-divided down to energy and transport. The trend over time is shown visually in Graph 1 and by sector for 2021/22 in Graph 2. Table 1: Perth & Kinross Council’s Carbon Footprint with updated values (tCO2e) Reporting Year Scope 1 Total Scope 1 Energy Scope 1 Transport Scope 2 Scope 3 Total Footprint 2015/16 9,033 9,033 Not reported 14,676 14,995 38,705 2016/17 8,339 8,339 Not reported 12,661 18,859 39,859 2017/18 8,593 8,593 Not reported 9,967 19,153 37,713 2018/19 10,189 7,573 2,607 5,314 20,488 35,982 2019/20 10,722 8,038 2,684 6823 19,560 37,105 2020/21 10,163 7,830 2,333 5,106 19,337 34,605 2021/22 10,670 8,081 2,589 5,217 20,122 36,008 Note: In some of the earlier PBCCD submissions, emissions were not included in the relevant categories and some were erroneously excluded. The above table reflects the corrected and updated values. Page 36 of 44
Page 37
4.5 The scopes mentioned in Table 1 above refer to: i. Scope 1 emissions are direct emissions from sources owned or controlled by the Council, e.g., emissions from fleet or oil-fired boilers. ii. Scope 2 emissions are from the generation of purchased electricity. iii. Scope 3 emissions are all other indirect emissions which relate to the Council’s activities, including waste, homeworking, or emissions associated with electricity which is lost in the Transmission and Distribution system used for delivering purchased electricity. Graph 1: Perth & Kinross Council’s Carbon Footprint (tCO2e) Graph 2: Perth & Kinross Council’s Carbon Footprint divided by Sector 4.6 As 2020/21 was a unique year and, as such, it is not unexpected that the Council’s total carbon footprint increased in 2021/22. This year-on-year increase is largely attributed to return to business-as-usual levels of vehicle use across Council’s fleet and property estate. When comparing the latest figures to the Council’s emissions to pre-Covid emissions of 2019/20, the Homeworking (Scope 3) 1% Energy (Scopes 1,2&3) 38% Waste (Scope 3) 53% Transport (Scopes 1&3) 8% PKC EMISSIONS BY SECTOR 2021/22 Page 37 of 44
Page 38
levels are relatively similar. A slight increase in Scope 1 emissions from energy has been attributed to the conflicting nature of increased ventilation and heating. 4.7 Positively, there is a decreasing trend in Scope 2 emissions when comparing 2021/22 emissions to 2019/20. This is attributed to energy efficiency improvements, reduced electricity consumption associated with lower building occupancy and a decreased grid intensity factor. 4.8 The increase in Scope 3 emissions is primarily associated with increased collection of ‘Refuse Commercial and Industrial’ to landfill, due to both an increase in volume collected and also an updated emissions factor from DEFRA that is significantly higher than the previous value. 4.9 Overall combined Scope 1,2 and 3 emissions decreased by 3% between 2019/20 and 2021/22. This is less than the identified value of 8% per year needed to meet decarbonisation targets. 4.10 With regards to renewable energy, generation, consumption and export of renewable energy including renewable electricity and heat has increased over the last few years. This year, the Council is also reporting on renewable heat generated by ground source heat pumps, an energy technology that has not been reported previously. 4.11 In this year’s report, there was a new requirement to set the interim and net zero emissions and energy targets. The net zero date for the Council has been set as 2045 to align with the Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan (Report No. 21/245 refers) of ‘Achieving Net Zero aligned with the Paris Agreement and the Scottish Government Targets, with the ambition of achieving them sooner.’ Sector specific targets in relation to energy as provided in the same report have also been outlined. Following the completion of priority climate action projects to develop a decarbonisation strategy for the Council Estate and an EV Fleet transition plan, there will be scope to review and set more detailed interim targets. Table 2: Perth & Kinross Council’s targets Name of target Target Baseline figure Units of baseline Target completion year Net zero target net zero by 2045 43,308 tCO2e 2045/46 Emissions arising from Council Estate (non-domestic properties) achieve a 75% emissions reduction from public sector buildings by 2030 17,585 tCO2e 2030/31 Energy consumption reduction target for non-domestic Perth and Kinross Council portfolio 3% annual reduction for 2022/23 57,939,867 kWh 2022/23 Remove oil as fuel for heating and hot water in PKC estate all sites with oil as heat to be removed by 2030 2,923,457 kWh 2030/31 Page 38 of 44
Page 39
4.12 The second new requirement was to include ‘where applicable, targets for reducing indirect emissions of greenhouse gases’. This is covered at a high level by the Council’s 2045 net zero commitment. In order to set a more focused target, it is necessary to have a comprehensive baseline. To date, the Council has been measuring and reporting on the indirect (Scope 3) emissions for the fields requested by the PBCCD reporting template, but it is recognised that there are several important Scope 3 emissions categories not included in the report template which the Council should be considering when reviewing a Scope 3 target. These include the emissions associated with staff travel, purchased goods and services, and Council investments and pensions. There is need to develop a robust Scope 3 reporting methodology for the Council and it is proposed that such methodology should be developed by November 2023. 4.13 Our understanding of how to calculate Scope, 1, 2 and 3 emissions needs to improve despite its complexity and ever changing criteria, as it provides an evidence-based platform to inform decisions and monitor performance. 5. CONCLUSION 5.1 Perth & Kinross Council’s carbon footprint in 2021/22 has increased in comparison to the previous reporting year. This is mainly attributed to the comparison with 2020/21 where a significant drop in emissions was identified. This was as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic and its impact on the energy and transport sectors. 5.2 The latest comparable reporting year without the impacts of covid-19 was 2019/20 and, when comparing figures, a decrease in emissions is noticed. However, the emissions reductions trend when comparing 2021/22 to 2019/20 is not sufficient to meet Perth & Kinross Council’s own climate targets as well as statutory targets. (Report No. 21/245 refers). 5.3 Public Bodies Climate Change Duty Reporting on climate action and carbon emissions is key for the Council to understand how much progress is being made. It also allows us to benchmark our performance with other public sector bodies. Our understanding of how to calculate Scope, 1, 2 and 3 emissions needs to improve despite its complexity and ever changing criteria. 5.4 Working towards achieving the actions as outlined in the Action Plan must remain a key priority for Perth & Kinross Council. This is in order to accelerate the decrease in emissions trends and comply with the net zero and interim targets as set out in the legislation. Author Name Designation Contact Details Eirini Kourtesi Climate Change and Sustainable Development Officer (01738) 475000 ComCommitteeReports@pkc.gov.uk Divindy Grant Climate Change and Sustainable Development Team Leader Page 39 of 44
Page 40
Approved Name Designation Date Barbara Renton Executive Director (Communities) 8 November 2022 APPENDICES • Appendix A – PKC PBCCD 2022 - Draft Page 40 of 44
Page 41
ANNEX 1. IMPLICATIONS, ASSESSMENTS, CONSULTATION AND COMMUNICATION Strategic Implications Yes / None Community Plan / Single Outcome Agreement Y Corporate Plan Y Resource Implications Financial N Workforce N Asset Management (land, property, IST) N Assessments Equality Impact Assessment N Strategic Environmental Assessment N Sustainability (community, economic, environmental) Y Legal and Governance Y Risk N Consultation Internal Y External N Communication Communications Plan N 1. Strategic Implications Community Plan/Single Outcome Agreement 1.1 The activities detailed in the report supports the delivery of Perth and Kinross Community Plan/Single Outcome Agreement in terms of the following priorities: (i) Giving every child the best start in life; (ii) Developing educated, responsible, and informed citizens; (iii) Promoting a prosperous, inclusive, and sustainable economy; (iv) Supporting people to lead independent, healthy and active lives; and (v) Creating a safe and sustainable place for future generations. 1.2 This report relates to (v) Creating a safe and sustainable place for future generations. Corporate Plan 1.3 The activities detailed in the report supports the achievement of the Council’s Corporate Plan Priorities: (i) Giving every child the best start in life; (ii) Developing educated, responsible, and informed citizens; (iii) Promoting a prosperous, inclusive, and sustainable economy; (iv) Supporting people to lead independent, healthy and active lives; and (v) Creating a safe and sustainable place for future generations. Page 41 of 44
Page 42
1.4 This report relates to (v) Creating a safe and sustainable place for future generations. 2. Resource Implications Financial 2.1 There are no financial implications arising from the recommendations in the report. Workforce 2.2 There are no workforce implications arising from the recommendations in the report. Asset Management (land, property, IT) 2.3 There are no asset management implications arising from the recommendations in the report. 3. Assessments Equality Impact Assessment 3.1 Under the Equality Act 2010, the Council is required to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity, and foster good relations between equality groups. Carrying out Equality Impact Assessments for plans and policies allows the Council to demonstrate that it is meeting these duties. 3.2 The information contained within this report has been considered under the Corporate Equalities Impact Assessment Process (EqIA) and has been assessed as not relevant for the purposes of EqIA. Strategic Environmental Assessment 3.3 The Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 places a duty on the Council to identify and assess the environmental consequences of its proposals. 3.4 The proposals have been considered under the Act and no action is required as the Act does not apply to the matters presented in this report. This is because the Committee are requested to note the contents of the report only and the Committee are not being requested to approve, adopt or agree to an action or to set the framework for future decisions. Sustainability 3.5 Under the provisions of the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003 the Council has to discharge its duties in a way which contributes to the achievement of sustainable development. Under the Climate Change Page 42 of 44
Page 43
(Scotland) Act 2009 the Council also has a duty relating to climate change and, in exercising its functions must act: • in the way best calculated to delivery of the Act’s emissions reduction targets; • in the way best calculated to deliver any statutory adaptation programmes; and • in a way that it considers most sustainable. 3.6 The information contained within this report has been considered against the Council’s Principles for Sustainable Development and the report aims to ensure compliance with the reporting requirements under the Acts. Legal and Governance 3.7 The Head of Legal and Governance has been consulted. 4. Consultation Internal 4.1 There has been no other internal consultation. 2. BACKGROUND PAPERS 2.1 No background papers, as defined by Section 50D of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (other than any containing confidential or exempt information) were relied on to a material extent in preparing the above report. Page 43 of 44
Page 44
Page 44 of 44