skip to main content

Agenda item

Report by Alwen Williams, Portfolio Director.

Decision:

1.  To adopt the proposed position statement as set out in section 5.1 of the report on how the Growth Deal projects will deliver against regional, Welsh Government and UK Government aspirations on climate and ecological change, with the following adaptations:-

·         To amend the second bullet point to read "deliver at least 40% less embodied carbon”.

·         To amend the third bullet point to read "deliver at least 10% net benefit for biodiversity”.

·         Delete the final sentence, namely "The Portfolio Management Office will work with project sponsors to deliver the best affordable solution for each project”.

2.  To note that all Growth Deal projects will need to set out to what degree they will deliver against the position statement and any relevant mitigations as part of the business case approval process.

3.  To delegate to the Portfolio Director, authority to determine the appropriate means of implementation and measurement across the portfolio and to note that this will require external expertise to be commissioned to support the Portfolio Management Office.

Minutes:

The report was submitted by Alwen Williams (Portfolio Director) and Robyn Lovelock (Growth Deal Programme Manager).

 

RESOLVED

(1)     To adopt the proposed position statement as set out in section 5.1 of the report on how the Growth Deal projects will deliver against regional, Welsh Government and UK Government aspirations on climate and ecological change, with the following adaptations:-

·         To amend the second bullet point to read "deliver at least 40% less embodied carbon".

·         To amend the third bullet point to read "deliver at least 10% net benefit for biodiversity".

·         Delete the final sentence, namely "The Portfolio Management Office will work with project sponsors to deliver the best affordable solution for each project".

(2)     To note that all Growth Deal projects will need to set out to what degree they will deliver against the position statement and any relevant mitigations as part of the business case approval process.

(3)     To delegate to the Portfolio Director, authority to determine the appropriate means of implementation and measurement across the portfolio and to note that this will require external expertise to be commissioned to support the Portfolio Management Office.

 

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

 

Without a clear position from the Board on climate and ecological change, opportunities to shape project business cases may be lost. This could inadvertently result in Growth Deal projects increasing regional carbon emissions and biodiversity loss.

 

DISCUSSION

 

The report was submitted, which presented a proposed position statement for the North Wales Growth Deal in relation to climate and ecological change.

 

Details were provided about the background and relevant considerations and the consultations held.

 

During the discussion, the following matters were raised:-

 

·         Concern was expressed by some members that the proposed position statement did not go far enough, and that the wording should be tightened, e.g. it should be noted that 'all Growth Deal projects will ...', rather than 'all Growth Deal projects will aim to ...', etc.

·         It was stressed that the NWEAB should lead across North Wales on reducing carbon footprint, and it was suggested that all Growth Deal projects should deliver 50% less embodied carbon (rather than 40%, as noted in the proposed position statement) and deliver a 20% net benefit for biodiversity (rather than the 10% noted in the statement). In response, it was explained that Wales had not set a net benefit target for biodiversity, but it was acknowledged that the current situation was not supportive of the health of ecosystems, and that there was a need to be more ambitious. In the absence of a target for Wales, the DEFRA guidance was followed, which had consulted extensively over several months in England prior to establishing the net benefit of 10%. It was further noted that the target for embodied carbon was ambitious, and that it may be possible to tighten the wording. Attention was also drawn to the fact that the statement noted that projects would be encouraged to exceed these aspirations, but the wording also needed to acknowledge the range of maturity within the portfolio, and provide a realistic assessment of that.

·         In response to a question, it was explained that each of the six Local Authorities in North Wales had either declared a climate emergency, or had made commitments to be carbon neutral by 2030, and the Growth Deal Programme Manager agreed to send information about the commitments to the leader of Wrexham County Borough Council.

·         It was agreed that an aspiration was needed, but it was also stressed that there was a need to be cautious in terms of tightening the wording, in case developers would be driven out of North Wales to other regions with less strict requirements.

·         It was noted that there was much uncertainty surrounding baselines, etc., and that these calculations were not made lightly. It was noted that the expertise at Bangor University could support the process. It was suggested that the Board should do what was currently possible, and look at raising those standards in future, when technology, etc., would be more advanced.

·         It was noted that there was a need to be practical, and that making too many promises was dangerous. However, there were opportunities available, e.g. blue hydrogen enterprises, possibly.

·         It was stressed that the NWEAB should be more ambitious than comfortable, in order to drive the change that we wish to see. The economy and the environment were not independent of each other, and the economy would be driven by the changes made by the Board in relation to the environment.

·         A view was expressed that the statement was full of aspiration, and gave clear guidance to the business community.

·         It was suggested that the statement was suitable for where we had currently reached, but there was a desire for the Board to review it in 12 months' time to see what impact it was having, and to ensure that it complied with the requirements of businesses in relation to allowing sufficient time for the private sector, in particular, to plan towards this.

·         The work was welcomed, and the policy and framework submitted were supported.  However, concern was expressed that the policy could be enforced late in the day for some projects which were already fairly mature. In response, it was noted that there were implications, but that there was a need to be ambitious, and also appropriate in terms of what the additional cost implications would be against the budget set, taking into account also that this needed to be reviewed regularly in order to ensure that the plans and aspirations were appropriate for the period in question. There was no desire to agree now to any position that all partners could not commit to, therefore, the aspiration needed to be appropriate for all, but also something which could be considered further down the line in order to raise the ambition.

·         It was suggested that the last sentence of the position statement was pointless, namely 'The Portfolio Management Office will work with project sponsors to deliver the best affordable solution for each project', as the developers would be keen to make as much profit as possible.

·         It was noted that the Board was in a position of considerable ignorance at present, and on a learning journey. It was not clear how a net benefit of 10% for biodiversity could be delivered, and it was believed that the Board had no factual scientific basis at present to say that the target of 10% was not sufficient. Supporting a higher target, in the knowledge that we would not be able to reach it, would be wasteful. Information may be available in 2 years' time, and the figures could be reviewed further at that point.

·         It was emphasised that the Board should lead, rather than follow, on this. It was believed that DEFRA had set an incorrect net benefit figure, and that we now had an opportunity to increase the green areas and improve biodiversity within our new developments. In response, it was noted that the challenge should not be underestimated. Additional expertise was needed to understand the measures to be used to assess the baseline. It was explained that the current regulatory processes, in some cases, led to a 6-20% post development biodiversity re-establishment efficiency rate, and planning policy noted that we must do better, and the ambition was substantial. We were unclear in terms of how to do so, therefore, additional advice was needed on that. The second part of the statement noted that projects would be encouraged to exceed these aspirations. Nothing prevented the Wrexham projects from delivering this, and they looked forward to working with Glyndŵr to do so.

·         In response to a question, it was suggested that the Board could review the statement within 12 months' time, after receiving additional support and technical advice.

·         It was noted that holding back from establishing targets would mean that the Board would miss opportunities, as some projects were already developing business cases, and were seeking guidance on this. Consequently, it was suggested that the second and third bullet points of the statement should be amended to refer to 'at least' 40% and 10%, in order to emphasise our aspiration to go further than that.

 

Supporting documents: