Sutton's Sustainability Action Plan

Sutton’s Sustainability Action Plan 1st Draft

Revision Date Issued to for review 1.1 15/10/08 Chris Reid

1.2 23/10/08 Executive

1.3 November 2008 All relevant Council departments (many have had input but not all)

Contents Targets and Actions

Introduction 3 18 Zero Carbon 20 34 Zero Waste 42 53 Sustainable Transport 56 68 Local and Sustainable Materials 72 79 Local and Sustainable Food 82 88 Sustainable Water 91 97 Natural Habitats and Wildlife 100 n/a Culture and Heritage 101 n/a Equity and Fair Trade 102 106 Health and Happiness 109 n/a

Introduction

Sutton Council has led the way in promoting environmental awareness for over 20 years. Sutton’s Environmental Sustainability Strategy, adopted in May 2005, set a 20-year vision based on achieving One Planet Living 1. The ultimate aim of One Planet Living in Sutton is to reduce the Ecological Footprint of residents to a sustainable One Planet level of 1.5 global hectares per person from a 3-planet baseline of 5.3 global hectares. Success will be judged on whether the Council has reduced their direct impacts and whether Sutton Council have enabled One Planet Living in the Borough – individuals may choose not to change their lifestyles and this is beyond the Council’s control. The Sustainability Action Plan covers behavioural changes needed, for example turning the thermostat down or using public transport instead of driving, to major projects such as establishing an ESCo to provide Sutton with renewable energy or providing additional cycle lanes. BioRegional has written this Sustainability Action Plan with input from Sutton Council, residents and stakeholders. Sutton Council has already committed to One Planet Living targets – this Action Plan suggests how those targets might be met. This first draft of the Action Plan will be consulted on internally by Council Officers and Members from the start of November 2009 to the end of April 2010. Amendments will be incorporated and the second draft scheduled for referral to Members in May 2010.

Vision for One Planet Living One Planet Living is the challenge of our times. Globally, we are consuming resources and polluting 30% more than the planet can sustain. Our increasing consumption means we leave less and less space for other species to flourish, and we are losing biodiversity at an alarming rate.

1 One Planet Living is a global initiative based on 10 principles of sustainability developed by BioRegional and WWF . www.oneplanetliving.org

Figure 1: Ecological Footprint and Living Planet Index

Figures from the Living Planet Report 2 show that if everyone on the planet consumed as much as the average person in the UK, we would need three planets to support us. These figures suggest that the UK needs to reduce its consumption of fossil fuels and virgin materials by two-thirds to be environmentally sustainable. To achieve this reduction in consumption, we need to develop lifestyles that are consistent with ‘one planet’ ways of living.

BioRegional Development Group is an entrepreneurial, independent environmental organisation that develops commercially viable products and services which meet more of our everyday needs from local renewable and waste resources, to help enable One Planet Living – living within our fair share of the Earth’s resources. One Planet Living is a global initiative based on ten principles and common international targets and guidance. BioRegional are leading on working with partners all around the world who are implementing One Planet Living in new eco-cities and villages, existing towns and the London Olympic

2 Living Planet Report 2006, WWF and Global Footprint Network

Games. One Planet Living is a design framework which can be used at any scale from individuals to countries and regions and the whole world. The London Borough of Sutton is the first region to have committed to One Planet Living.

The ten One Planet Living principles detailed in were developed to act as a framework to express the sustainability challenge and a mechanism for developing and presenting solutions. These aims or principles are not in a particular order. They are all important and they are all interconnected. Each One Planet Living project interprets these principles in a manner appropriate to the local context.

The overall aim of OPL is to help create a ‘tipping point’ by 2012 where current unsustainable trends are reversed and help move them towards a sustainable level.

Tipping Point Target: One Planet Living achieved globally

The aims of the One Planet Living initiative are to:

1. Bring together partners to build a world-wide network of One Planet Living Communities to demonstrate how people everywhere can improve their quality of life whilst living within a fair share of the earth’s resources. 2. Establish One Planet Living Centres in each One Planet Living community as a focus for education and continuous professional development. 3. Promote a range of One Planet Living Products and Services that will help people to reduce their ecological footprint, such as local paper cycles. 4. Promote the imperative for One Planet Living and its guiding principles to catalyse change with governments, business and individuals.

GLOBAL CHALLENGE OPL PRINCIPLE OPL GOAL and STRATEGY Achieve net CO emissions of zero tonnes from operation of buildings Climate change due to human-induced build up of carbon 2 Zero Carbon Implement energy efficiency in buildings and infrastructure; supply energy from on-site dioxide (CO ) in the atmosphere 2 renewable sources, topped up by new off-site renewable supply where necessary. Eliminate waste flows to landfill and for incineration Waste from discarded products and packaging create a Reduce waste generation through improved design; encourage re-use, recycling and huge disposal challenge while squandering valuable Zero Waste composting; generate energy from waste; eliminate the concept of waste as part of a resources resource-efficient society. Reduce reliance on fossil fuel based transport, and achieve major reductions of CO 2 emissions from transport Travel by fossil fuel based car and airplane can cause Sustainable Provide transport systems and infrastructure that reduce dependence on fossil fuel use, climate change, air & noise pollution, and congestion Transport e.g., by cars and airplanes. Offset carbon emissions from air travel and perhaps car travel. Transform materials supply to the point where it has a net positive impact on the Destructive patterns of resource exploitation and use of non- Local and environment and local economy. Where possible, use local, reclaimed, renewable and local materials in construction and manufacture increase Sustainable recycled materials in construction and products, which minimises transport emissions, environmental harm and reduce gains to the local economy Materials spurs investment in local (non-fossil fuel) natural resource stocks and boosts the local economy. Transform food supply to the point where it has a net positive impact on the environment, Industrial agriculture produces food of uncertain quality and Local and local economy and peoples’ well-being harms local ecosystems, while consumption of non-local Sustainable Support local and low impact food production that provides healthy, quality food while food imposes high transport impacts Food boosting the local economy in an environmentally beneficial manner; showcase examples of low-impact packaging, processing and disposal; highlight benefits of a low-impact diet. Achieve a positive impact on local water resources and supply Local supplies of freshwater are often insufficient to meet Sustainable Implement water use efficiency measures, re-use and recycling; minimise water human needs due to pollution, disruption of hydrological Water extraction and pollution; foster sustainable water and sewage management in the cycles and depletion of existing stocks landscape; restore natural water cycles. Regenerate degraded environments and halt biodiversity loss Loss of biodiversity and habitats due to development in Natural Habitats Protect or regenerate existing natural environments and the habitats they provide to natural areas and overexploitation of natural resources and Wildlife fauna and flora; create new habitats. Protect and build on local cultural heritage and diversity Local cultural heritage is being lost throughout the world due Culture and Celebrate and revive cultural heritage and the sense of local and regional identity; to globalisation, resulting in a loss of local identity and Heritage choose structures and systems that build on this heritage; foster a new culture of wisdom sustainability. Ensure that the impact on others is positive Some in the industrialised world live in relative poverty, Equity and Fair Promote equity and fair trading relationships to ensure the OPL community has a while many in the developing world cannot meet their basic Trade beneficial impact on other communities both locally and globally, notably disadvantaged needs from what they produce or sell communities. Increase health and quality of life of OPL community members and others Rising wealth and greater health and happiness increasingly Health and Promote healthy lifestyles and physical, mental & spiritual well-being through well- diverge, raising questions about the true basis of well-being Happiness designed structures and community engagement measures, as well as by delivering on and contentment social and environmental targets.

Sutton’s Impact on the Environment

The impact Sutton has on the environment can be looked at through consumption or production; impacts that occur within the Borough boundary (territorial emissions) can be measured or all of the environmental impacts of Sutton residents, whether they occur in Sutton or not. For One Planet Living, consumption is the preferred metric, though there are some instances where BioRegional recommend that Sutton Council measure territorial emissions.

CO 2

Table 1 and Table 2 show Sutton’s CO 2 emissions from consumption (to the left) and territorial emissions (to the right). The data from the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) is taken from a Resource and Energy Analysis Programme (REAP) analysis of Sutton using 2001 data 3. The data from Defra will be produced annually in order to implement the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Act. This data represents for the Boroughs’ production of CO 2 in 2005.

3 The Ecological Footprint of Sutton, A REAP Project, Rachel Birch, Tommy Wiedmann and John Barrett, January 2006

Table 1: Per capita CO 2 emissions

SEI Defra Population estimate: 180,051 Population estimate: 177,700

C02 per capita Tonnes % C02 per capita Tonnes %

Housing 3.33 30 Industrial and commercial 1.42 27 Transport 2.24 20 Domestic 2.36 45

Food 1.07 10 Road transport 1.51 28

Consumer Items 1.62 14 Other 0.01 0 Private Services 1.30 12 Total 5.3 100

Public Services 0.93 8

Capital Investment 0.60 5 Other 0.09 1

Total 11.17 100

Table 2: Total CO 2 emissions

SEI Defra

Total CO 2 Tonnes % Total CO 2 Tonnes % Industry and Housing 599,473 30 Commercial 252,997 27 Transport 403,179 20 Domestic 421,911 45 Food 192,660 10 Road transport 269,347 29 Consumer Items 291,088 14 Total 944,255 100 Private Services 233,701 12 Public Services 167,807 8 Capital Investment 107,933 5 Other 15,955 1 Total 2,011,797 100

Much of Sutton residents’ CO 2 impact occurs outside of the Borough; Sutton residents work, shop and holiday outside of the Borough for example, so in this sense Sutton’s CO 2 emissions using the Defra model are vastly understated. Many of the goods and food that are bought are imported and the emissions from those goods are attributed to Sutton residents by the SEI methodology but not by Defra. Conversely, goods and services in Sutton are used by people outside of the Borough; pupils travel into Sutton from other Boroughs to attend school for example, and Defra attribute those emissions to Sutton whereas SEI does not. The SEI model includes infrastructure and operational CO 2 whereas the Defra model includes only the operational CO 2.

Furthermore offshore oil and gas extraction, aircraft emissions, fishing and coastal shipping emissions are not included in the Defra datasets as it is difficult to allocate them to local authority level.

Defra’s approach is modelled on that of the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Act. Scheduled for adoption in 2008, the act is likely to set an 80% CO2 reduction target by 2050 against a 1990 baseline. This is intended to help limit global warming to 2°C or less. However, the Act is unlikely to include international aviation and shipping, CO 2 emissions from which continue to rise.

Research published by scientists at the Met Office 4 indicates that a reduction in biocapacity coupled with a projected growth in global population, means that carbon emissions per person should be no greater than 1.2 tonnes CO 2. Industrialised countries such as the UK are required to contract their emissions whilst the emissions of developing countries are likely to increase until a point where every country has brought carbon emissions to a point where per capita emissions are equal. This framework is commonly referred to as ‘Contraction and Convergence’.

For these reasons BioRegional use SEI’s method for measuring per capita CO 2 and the Met Office’s CO 2 reduction target. It should be noted that CO 2 is not the only global warming gas (though it is the most significant) and therefore does not fully represent our impact on climate change. Sutton Council may choose to use CO 2 equivalent or (CO 2e) which is frequently used when discussing climate change.

Ecological Footprint The other indicator that One Planet Living uses is Ecological Footprinting, and again, BioRegional use SEI’s REAP programme. An update, based on 2003 data is expected in 2008 and Sutton’s Sustainability Action Plan can then be updated to reflect the new data.

Table 3: Per capita Ecological Footprint Ecological Global Footprint hectares %

Housing 1.33 25

Transport 0.74 14

Food 1.31 25

Consumer Items 0.79 15

Private Services 0.55 10

Public Services 0.37 7 Capital Investment 0.24 4

Total 5.32 100

4 Chris D. Jones et al., Strong Carbon Cycle Feedbacks in a Climate Model with Interactive CO2 and Sulphate Aerosols Geophysical Research Letters, Vol 30 (9 May 2003), p 1479

How the Ecological Footprint is calculated 5 “The Footprint calculates how much productive land and sea is needed to provide the energy, food and materials we use in our everyday lives, and how much land is required to absorb, our waste. It also calculates the emissions generated from the oil, coal and gas we burn, and determines how much land is required to absorb them. Ecological Footprints are calculated in “global hectares”. A global hectare is one hectare (2.47 acres) of biologically productive space with world-average productivity (since some areas are more biologically productive than others). Standardized global hectares make the Ecological Footprint comparable between different regions and countries, regardless of where on the globe their resources are harvested.”

Global biocapacity was 14.1 billion global hectares (gha) in 2003 so with a population of 6.5 billion this gives us a per capita fair share of 1.8 gha. However, this does not allow any bioproductive land for other species. If we allow 30% of biocapacity for wild species (though according to some ecologists, this may not be enough to stem biodiversity loss) our per capita fair share is reduced to 1.5 gha. If population increases then our per capita fair share will decrease; a global population of 9 billion would result in a per capita fair share of 0.9 gha, 83% lower than the average Sutton Footprint.

For a thorough explanation of Ecological Footprinting and the impacts of different countries refer to WWF and Global Footprint Network’s The Living Planet Report 2006 6.

To be sustainable and globally equitable at current population level, Sutton residents would need to reduce from an Ecological Footprint of 5.32 gha to 1.5 gha and from 11.17 tonnes of CO 2 per capita to 1.2 tonnes.

The Council committed to becoming a One Planet Living Borough in 2005, but it is important to recognise the extent of the Council’s influence. The Council can not ensure that individuals’ lifestyles comply, through the Council and partners can communicate the changes needed to residents and make changes to the systems and infrastructure that the Council is responsible for. A simple example for this barrier is that the government can provide free loft insulation for people over the age of 70, but some eligible people will chose not to take up the offer. Similarly if the Council provided public transport, walking and cycling infrastructure to negate the need for private cars, it is not guaranteed that all residents will use it.

Scope of the Action Plan

The Sustainability Action Plan covers the impact of the Council’s operations; goods and services that the Council procure for internal operations, and goods and services that the Council provide for residents and businesses. One Planet Living is a holistic framework and many of the Council’s existing targets, strategies and business plans contribute to One Planet Living, as can be seen in Table 4. However, there are some Actions that fall outside the scope of Current work plans and the Council may choose to implement these Actions directly or work with partners to do so.

5 REAP Carbon Footprints Ecological Footprints Data Comparison Tool 2007 (2001 data) 6 Living Planet Report 2006, WWF

Table 4 Relevant Council policies & targets Principle Policy or target NI185 percentage CO2 reduction from LA operations NI 186 Per capita CO2 emissions in LA area (11% reduction by 2011) EMAS Zero Carbon Private sector housing strategy Sustainable Design and Construction Interim Planning Guidance Environment Sustainability Strategy Commissioning and Procurement Strategy Waste strategy Zero Waste South London Waste Plan NI185 percentage CO2 reduction from LA operations NI 186 Per capita CO2 emissions in LA area (11% reduction by 2011) EMAS Sustainable Transport Enabling Smarter Travel Choices: Sutton’s Sustainable Transport Policy and Action Plan 2008 A Corporate Travel Strategy For 2007-2012 Sustainable School Travel Strategy 2008-9 DRAFT October 2008 Commissioning and Procurement Strategy Local and Sustainable Sustainable Design and Construction Interim Planning Guidance Materials

Local and Sustainable Food Commissioning and Procurement Strategy Sustainable Design and Construction Interim Planning Guidance Sustainable Water Strategy Flood Risk Assessment Natural Habitats and Wildlife Biodiversity Action Plan Arts Strategy for Sutton 2007-2010 Museum and Heritage Services’ 2008-2010 strategy Culture and Heritage NI 8 Participation in sport NI 110 Young people’s participation in positive activities Commissioning and Procurement Strategy London Borough of Sutton Economic Strategy 2007-2010 Equity and Fair Trade The Sutton Equality Scheme 2008-2011 Equality and Diversity Forum Health and Happiness Sutton and Merton PCT Strategic Plan

Cross-cutting themes Some Actions will be common across all or many of the One Planet Living principles. • Sustainability Action Plans and targets for other organisations • Home visits • Training • Communications • Area plans • Council Procurement • Finance • Monitoring Sustainability Action Plans and targets for other organisations The more businesses and organisations that implement Sustainability Action Plans, the closer the Council will get to the targets. Collective action is stronger than individual action; more could be achieved in less time by working with a residents’ association representing 100 homes than targeting those homes individually. Reaching umbrella organisations can be particularly effective; by working with Sutton Centre for the Voluntary Sector (SCVS) for example, the 300 organisations they represent can be reached.

Case study: Islington Climate Change Partnership Islington has made a firm commitment to central government to reduce its carbon emissions across the Borough (NI 186). The Islington Climate Change Partnership (ICCP) is the way that organisations will come together to meet this commitment. The Partnership consists of a range of public, private and voluntary sector organisations that play an important role in Islington.

The Centre for Sustainable Energy (CSE) completed a carbon baseline study. The findings of the study have enabled the Partnership to establish collective carbon emissions, share plans to reduce energy use and meet a challenging reduction target. Through the ICCP, over 100 Islington organisations from all sectors have pledged to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions by 15% by 2010. A copy of the carbon baseline study 7 and list of partners 8 can be downloaded from the Council’s website.

7 http://www.islington.gov.uk/DownloadableDocuments/Environment/Pdf/Islington_Carbon_Baseline_Study_FINAL.pdf 8 http://www.islington.gov.uk/DownloadableDocuments/Environment/Pdf/climate_change_partnership/Islington_Climate_Change_Partnership_Members.pdf

Over the duration of the project, partners could reach all 390 Sutton businesses with 20+ employees as well as umbrella organisations. Residents associations are more difficult; they are run by volunteers with little time to spare and they often have pressing needs to be dealt with before considering sustainability. Ideally one or two people would be employed specifically to do this work, to ensure that there is continuous service. Costs are lower and success more likely if the service is continuous as it does not have to be launched/ relaunched as funding comes and goes.

There are many parts of the Council that reach out to businesses and organisations. Staff with a business/ organisational support role could be trained by BioRegional to deliver basic Sustainability Action Plan training, if it is not possible to finance a permanent role. However, it would still need to be coordinated by one central person in order to capture data and ensure the same organisations are not targeted twice. Home Visits It is imperative that residents in Sutton understand their impacts and take action to reduce them. Defra’s environmental attitudes and behaviours survey 9 shows that while 63% of UK consumers believe that if things continue on their current course we will soon experience a major environmental disaster. However, 1 in 5 felt that scientists would find a solution with no major behavioural change required and a similar number felt that it was too late to do anything about climate change. While it is possible to motivate some residents to adopt sustainable behaviour through health or financial benefits, there are some measures; trains versus planes for example, where there is no health or cost benefit and therefore we need to convince people of the realities of climate change and their ability to make a difference.

It is important to communicate sustainability holistically and this is a strength of using Ecological Footprinting and the ten One Planet Living Principles. ‘Carbon rebound’ is well documented; residents saving money on heating through energy efficiency may spend the money on activities with a higher carbon footprint; residents identifying themselves as ‘green’ tend to fly more than others. “I recycle 100% of what I can, there’s not one piece of paper goes in my bin, so that makes me feel less guilty about flying as much as I do. 10 ” Ecological Footprinting shows clearly the activities that have the biggest impact and the lifestyle changes that are needed.

As well as measuring residents’ Ecological Footprints and giving tailored advice on physical and behavioural changes needed, where possible, simple measures should be installed there and then, or referrals made to other agencies that can help, rather than expecting residents to make those calls or install items themselves. People have busy lives and sustainability is not always a priority for residents. Examples of measures to be installed by home visitors are energy saving light-bulbs and water saving devices. They could also book survey appointments with insulation installers or place orders for compost bins from the Council. The actual measures taken will depend on offers that are available at the time. The questionnaire would be used to estimate a resident’s Ecological Footprint, give tailored advice and install/ arrange as many measures as possible. The resident would then receive a report outlining findings and recommendations. Following the Hackbridge pilot, participants felt that the visit was enjoyable and informative and in many cases it seemed as though participants had engaged more with the audit visit than the report. Common responses regarding the report was that there “not enough time yet” to digest all of the information in the report or that “I probably need more time to look at the report”. The report should be a back-up with the majority of the information given during the visit. The cost of the Hackbridge trial was £167 per household, but this included research and set up time and costs. The cost could reduce to £90 per household ongoing.

9 Defra attitudes and behaviours survey, 2007 (BMRB) 10 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/24/ethicalliving.recycling

Although visits were offered to all Hackbridge households (except for BedZED residents) only 130 took part during the 1 month trial; roughly 5%. With more time and an improved offer; installing water and energy saving measures, making appointments etc, it is likely that the uptake will increase. The Council in partnership with BioRegional now need to trial the new version of the home visits in another area in order to refine the model and to get a better idea of likely uptake rates and costs. This will also give us the opportunity to model likely CO 2, Ecological Footprint and water savings as a result of the visits.

Assuming a 20% uptake rate and a cost of £90 per household, home visits for the whole Borough will cost approximately £1.4 million. At approximately £5 per 11 tonne of CO 2 saved , this is one of the most cost effective solutions. It is preferable that these are offered continually, one area at a time, and with a targeted communications campaign to ensure maximum uptake. Obviously the more One Planet Living visitors employed, the quicker the Borough would be covered.

Many areas of the Council need to communicate directly to residents; for data gathering and providing guidance and information. If departments with a budget for this type of activity pooled resources, it could be an efficient way of financing One Planet Living home visits and achieving communications for many departments without bombarding residents with many different visitors. Training To deliver One Planet Living in Sutton appropriate skills are needed locally. If the Council and partners supply residents with information on how to sustainably renovate their home, local builders also need to be trained to fit the recommended measures. The impetus can also come from contractors; plumbers and builders in particular are in a good position to suggest additional energy and water saving measures that will save the client money as well as providing additional income for the contractor.

As discussed in the above sections BioRegional could provide Council workers and other partner organisations to deliver home visits and Sustainability Action Plan workshops, or this work could be done by BioRegional.

Training and workshops are needed for all Council departments with responsibility for delivering parts of the Sustainability Action Plan to ensure that they understand and support the work, and to improve the Action Plan in later iterations through staff input. Communications There are a number of existing resident and business networks that the Council and BioRegional can communicate through, such as; • Sutton Chamber • Community Engagement Network Events, special projects, consultations etc can be publicised through these networks and communications timetables need to accommodate their lead-times in order to be effective.

BioRegional have developed an interactive One Planet Living in Sutton website www.oneplanetsutton.org and in the Spring 2009 will add a Sutton-specific Ecological Footprint calculator to the site, based on BioRegional’s UK version. http://calculator.bioregional.com/

11 Calculations made after the Hackbridge trial

Sutton Scene is also an excellent communications tool and a regularly One Planet Living page could keep residents up to date with progress and new projects. A full One Planet Living communications plan should be written by BioRegional and Sutton’s communications team.

Area plans In some areas it will be necessary to have localised Sustainability Action Plans. A masterplan and Sustainability Action Plan is being developed for Hackbridge for example, and this is essential given the planned new development in the area and the general improvements needed. The Hackbridge masterplan and Sustainability Action Plan will set out the physical and behavioural changes needed to achieve One Planet Living. The Sutton Town Centre would also benefit from this approach and more areas can be added if necessary as One Planet Living in Sutton progresses. Council Procurement Procurement can help the Council deliver One Planet Living and has particular impact on the Local and Sustainable Food, Local and Sustainable Materials and Equity and Fair Trade principles. This is explored further in those sections. Finance & staffing To become an official One Planet Living Borough, the Council need to commit to implementing and regularly updating the Sustainability Action Plan in partnership with BioRegional. BioRegional propose an initial 3-year agreement. An annual work plan for the Project Manager needs to be agreed by the Council and BioRegional.

The work proposed in this Sustainability Action Plan should be carried out by many people in the Council as well as external partners in all sectors. The relevant teams need to analyse their Actions and decide if they fit into Current work streams and targets; whether they represent additional costs or are cost saving. Some Actions may be cost saving over a number of years but require initial capital outlay. A number of BioRegional projects have already taken place which can be continued, learnt from or adapted. So far BioRegional has: • Promoted free and discounted insulation to every household in the Borough • Established an interactive website; www.oneplanetsutton.org • Led community consultation in Hackbridge looking at new build and existing buildings to contribute to masterplan • Delivered free sustainability audits and advice for 130 households in Hackbridge, resulting in significant carbon, water and Ecological Footprint savings • Undertaken a detailed energy analysis of Sutton’s Housing stock • Provided sustainability workshops and guidance to local organisations • Reviewed existing Council policies and targets • Raised funds for practical projects from local food networks to renovation of the housing stock • Formed partnerships with the New Economics Foundation (NEF), Sutton and East Surrey Water, Eaga Insulation and others • Supported the Environmental Sustainability team and other Council departments in their work

There are some Actions that exceed the Council’s remit and the Council, BioRegional and other partners may need to access external funding for these. Monitoring Monitoring progress towards the targets set as part of One Planet Living in Sutton is essential in order to assess effectiveness and to analyse whether Sutton is reaching the One Planet Living targets and the overarching goal to be truly sustainable. However, it is also essential to make sure monitoring is not an onerous burden on Council resources. Where possible, existing indicators will be used, though the targets may be altered. For example, the Council already has to report on domestic CO 2 emissions in the Borough for NI 186 and so this will also be an indicator for One Planet Living. Where there is a target with no existing monitoring method, BioRegional recommend using mapping (for example for measuring distance to particular services) and the IPSOS MORI biennial resident survey of 1100 12 randomly selected homes.

It is reported across environmental and non-environmental behaviours research that some people’s responses are affected by their sense of what is socially acceptable, such as what they think they should do or most people do, leading for example to over-claiming or agreement with a number of statements which can be contradictory. It is important not to overstate successes based on resident polls.

Monitoring of indicators will be done through: • Existing Council monitoring of National Indicators, EMAS etc • Existing national data from Office of National Statistics, Household Survey etc • Biennial resident survey (already do this) • Mapping

• Ecological Footprinting (and CO 2 emissions) of individual residents through the website and home visits (bottom up) and of all residents in the Borough from REAP (top down)

Action Plan Resource Key BioRegional have indicated whether we think an Action will be cost saving, cost neutral or an increased cost for Sutton Council. Some Actions will require some initial capital expenditure but will be cost saving over the lifetime of the measure and these have been marked as cost saving. Similarly BioRegional have given an indication as to whether an Action fits into an existing Council work plan or role, or whether it is new. However, relevant council teams are in the best position to indicate the resource implication of each Action and should do so as part of Council scrutiny of the Sustainability Action Plan.

Cost saving Likely to be cost saving for Sutton Council Cost neutral Cost neutral for Sutton Council Cost implication Likely to require increased spend by Sutton Council

12 Government's required response rate for the Sutton Place Survey which is also used to get data for the National Indicators

Targets that have been agreed by the Council are shown with no shading and targets that BioRegional recommend Sutton Council adopt are shown with yellow shading. Similarly Actions that are ongoing, or part of current work plans (to BioRegional’s knowledge) are shown with no shading whereas new Actions are shaded in yellow.

Ref General Actions (common across all principles) Who Timing Resource Comments implication

A0.1 Integrate Ecological Footprint tool into www.oneplanetsutton.org BioRegional 2009 Cost neutral

A0.2 Encourage all Sutton residents who have internet access to find out their LBS 2009- Cost BioRegional need to Ecological Footprint using our online tool and generate personalised Communications ongoing neutral integrate footprint tool to Sustainability Action Plan (applies to all principles) & all partners www.oneplanetsutton.org before this can be done.

Relevant to all resource based principles

A0.3 All Council staff to measure their Ecological Footprint as part of induction LBS 2009 Cost Proposed by Colin Hall process and neutral ongoing

A0.4 Write generic Sustainability Action Plan for residents groups and BioRegional 2009 Cost businesses/ organisations that can be downloaded from neutral www.oneplanetsutton.org

A0.5 Offer home visits to residents to write tailored Sustainability Action Plans BioRegional/ Subject Cost Trialled the approach in for individual households. LBS other to implication Hackbridge for 150 homes. partners funding Costs Results are available here. approx and barriers to £90 per implementing actions are household. here: (need to upload Subject to Louise’s document) funding. Relevant to all principles

A0.6 Offer Sustainability Action Plan workshops to businesses, or groups of BioRegional and subject Cost Relevant to all principles. businesses in Sutton. LBS. to implication BioRegional have trialled funding this and have completed a Sustainability Action plan with SCVS and BedZED Residents’ Association

Action Plans for each One Planet Living Principle The following sections cover in order: • An introduction to the Principle • Long term targets • Research and recommendations • All targets and recommended Actions for that Principle

Zero Carbon

The Zero Carbon principle relates to buildings; CO 2 emissions from sectors such as transport, goods, food and waste are covered by other Principles. To meet the One Planet Living common international standards, all buildings in Sutton must be energy efficient to current best practise standards in order to reduce demand, and all energy used in the buildings must be from renewable sources. The Zero Carbon principle is designed to help mitigate climate change but adaptation is also necessary. This will be covered in Sutton’s climate change strategy.

The London Borough of Sutton produced 674,908 tonnes of CO 2 from buildings in 2005. Of that total 252,997 tonnes (37%) are from industrial and commercial buildings and 421,911 tonnes (63%) are from domestic buildings. Within that total Sutton Council are responsible for 27,374 tonnes and 4% of the total.

Zero Carbon – long term targets Target date All Council buildings to be Zero Carbon 2017 Biennial poll shows that 75% residents have received and acted on Zero Carbon Homes guidance 2020 Enable all buildings in Sutton to be Zero Carbon through information and service provision 2025

In summary, Sutton Council should: • Ensure Council buildings are energy efficient and powered using renewable energy • Facilitate community-scale renewable energy generation in the Borough equivalent to 40% of the current load • Communicate to residents and businesses how they can reduce energy use in buildings by 60% through energy efficiency and micro renewables

CO 2 baseline

Sutton Council Baseline

Sutton was one of the first Councils to use EMAS to report on operational CO 2 emissions and to record reductions and consequently has established an rd accurate CO 2 baseline for Council buildings and is well used to setting reduction targets and strategies. However, data from 1/3 of schools is missing and so consumption figures for schools have been estimated. The baseline will be updated when the Council has more accurate figures.

Table 5: CO2 from Council Buildings 13 Building Gas Electricity Total Civic and Gastonbury Centre 1,932,716 4,341,000 6,273,716 Youth Centres 590,659 128,928 719,587 Libraries 358,772 395,632 754,404 Education (not schools) 487,728 418,849 906,577 Heritage buildings 26,321 147,789 174,110 Social Services 3,527,142 1,027,788 4,554,930 Cemeteries, Car Parks, Parks etc 0 470,309 470,309 Other Buildings 5,490,291 2,429,729 7,920,020 Street lighting and signs 6,558,085 6,558,085 Sub total kWh 12,413,628 15,918,109 28,331,737 Sub total Tonnes CO2 2,297 6,845 9,141 Schools kWh 26,493,684 8,834,337 35,328,020 Schools CO2 5,133 3,799 8,932 Total kWh 38,907,311 24,752,446 63,659,757 Total tonnes CO2 16,730 10,644 27,374

If Sutton Council is to achieve Zero Carbon from their buildings by 2017, a 100% decrease in CO 2 from a 2007/8 baseline, the Council will set in place annual reduction targets of 11% reduction over the next 9 years, from 2009 to 2017. This reduction should be achieved through energy efficiency and renewable energy generation.

Case study: Barnsley Borough Council have gone for biomass heating in a really big way and have brought about 76% carbon savings for buildings under their control. They were able to take advantage of the fact that they already had a lot of old coal boilers providing district heating so they just adjusted the boilers, built bigger fuel stores and swapped fuels.

Borough-wide Baseline (includes Sutton Council baseline) 14 CO 2 emissions from buildings in Sutton are as follows :

13 2007/8 data for Sutton buildings and 2003 data for schools provided from John Sinclair, Energy Manager, Sutton Council 14 Defra 2005

Table 6: Annual CO 2 emissions from buildings in Sutton

Source CO 2 in tonnes Industrial and Commercial 252,997 Domestic 421,911 Total 674,908

At current energy efficiency levels, the Borough would need to reduce CO 2 emissions from buildings by 674,908 tonnes per annum by 2025 from a 2005 baseline. If numbers of households increase so will CO 2 emissions from buildings and thus the reduction target. This equates to a 6.25% annual decrease between 2009 and 2025. Renewable energy

To achieve One Planet Living all buildings and structures in Sutton need to be powered by renewable energy. Currently in the UK 4% of UK grid electricity is from renewable sources and in Sutton only 3,310 MWh per annum of renewables is produced, only 0.1% of the total.

Table 7: GWh of fuel consumed in Sutton 2005 15 All Domestic % Commercial % buildings % Coal 0.0677 0.0 0.4656 0.1 0.5373 0.0 Manufactured fuels 0.0036 0.0 0.0000 0.0 0.0039 0.0 Petroleum products 4.9867 0.3 42.4512 5.8 47.7322 1.9 Natural gas 1,326.0026 78.3 372.0954 51.1 1,776.3770 70.3 Grid electricity 362.8838 21.4 313.8684 43.1 698.1747 27.6 Renewables & waste 0.0 0.0 3.3097 0.1 Total 1,693.9 100.0 728.9 100.0 2,526.1 100.0

To achieve Zero Carbon (100%) renewables by 2025 with current energy demand, there is a need to install renewable technologies capable of delivering 168,407 MWh, i.e. 7% of the current demand per year, every year from 2010 to 2025.

15 BERR 2005

The Renewables Obligation requires licensed electricity suppliers to source 7.9% of their electricity supply (2007/08) from renewable sources, rising to 15.4% by 2015/16. 16 The changing fuel mix for grid electricity will not count towards Sutton’s Zero Carbon target as this would be double counting; the fuel mix is already factored in to the CO 2 conversion factors used and so it is important that the Sustainability Action Plan is updated as conversion factors change. Permitted technologies Renewable energy can either be generated on site or purchased from a dedicated off-site source representing new renewable energy capacity (so that total renewable-energy capacity is being added to, not diverted from other uses). One Planet Living in Sutton will follow Ofgem’s guidance on eligible fuels listed below. It should be noted that all of the power stations generating the eligible fuels must be located within the UK, its territorial waters or the Continental Shelf. BioRegional recommend first using resources within the Borough, while recognising that Sutton may not be able to be self sufficient in energy due to its suburban nature and population density.

Energy security is an important political concern; countries with fossil-fuel energy reserves may increasingly become conflict areas as resources dwindle, and control of energy resources may be used as a tool of foreign policy to further countries’ own strategic interests 17 . For political as well as environmental reasons, It is important for the UK to be as self sufficient as possible in renewable energy.

Biomass in particular must not be imported – farmers switching from food crops to biomass have contributed to food shortages and rising food prices globally. 80% of the UK population live in suburbs with densities between 2 and 28 people per hectare according to Southampton University 18 . It is important that One Planet Living in Sutton shows that should this approach be extrapolated, the extent to which the UK could be self-sufficient in renewable energy.

Biomass from waste (tree surgery waste, crop residues etc) and biomass crops grown on marginal land and contaminated land that is not suitable for food growing is acceptable.

Ofgem eligible renewable energy sources: • Landfill gas • Sewage gas • Hydro • Onshore wind • Offshore wind • Co-firing of biomass • Other biomass • Geothermal power • Tidal and tidal stream power • Wave power

16 http://www.berr.gov.uk/energy/sources/renewables/policy/renewables-obligation/what-is-renewables-obligation/page15633.html 17 House of Commons Research paper 07/42, Energy Security, 9 May 2007 18 http://www.forumforthefuture.org/blog/suburbs-and-urban-resilience

• Photovoltaics • Energy crops • Pyrolysis, gasification and anaerobic digestion (if energy from waste is only eligible for the estimated biomass fraction of waste used) • Combined Heat and Power (eligible for the estimated biomass fraction of fuel used)

Although nuclear fission may be a bridging technology to reduce climate change in the medium term, it is not considered a renewable energy source for the purposes of One Planet Living. Similarly, although use of fossil fuels with new technologies may be a useful way of reducing carbon dioxide emissions, e.g., on-site gas Combined Heat and Power systems, such solutions are not considered suitable for the purposes of demonstrating One Planet Living, even if the resulting fossil fuel emissions from buildings are offset by carbon sequestration.

It is not a question of switching from one source of energy to another but of minimising our energy consumption as far as possible and then making use of every available fuel source and technology to meet our remaining energy needs sustainably. Creative Environmental Networks have been engaged by Sutton Council to write a ‘Strategic Renewable Energy Assessment’ for the Borough that will demonstrate what renewable capacity there is locally and therefore what proportion of the existing and planned buildings could potentially be supplied. This work will take place during 2008/9. If there is not sufficient capacity within the Borough then it will be necessary look at national and international solutions. Although switching to 100% renewable energy seems a daunting task, there is ample global resource; the challenge is to find cost effective ways of capturing, storing and transmitting renewable energy.

“The average amount of insolation (solar radiation) reaching the earth’s surface is approximately 2.5 kWh/ m 2/ day taking into account day- and night-time variations. Assuming that this energy was captured using photovoltaic (PV) solar cells at an efficiency of 12 per cent (a conservative figure) then covering just three-quarters of one percent (0.75 per cent) of the earth’s surface with PV panels would meet all world energy needs (coal, gas, nuclear, oil and so on). This would mean covering an area about five times the size of the United Kingdom, or 13 per cent of the Sahara desert with solar panels.” 19

However, relying on imported solar power, should storage and transmission technology advance sufficiently, would not help the UK in terms of energy security. It is imperative that the resources we have locally are maximised. CEN’s study in Sutton and similar studies in other areas will indicate how this can be achieved.

Case study: Ordenanza Solar , Barcelona 20 Barcelona calculated its solar energy supply potential, and on 1 August 2000 introduced a regulatory system requiring household and industrial users to provide at least 60 per cent of their hot water requirement through solar systems. The scheme is focussed, specific and practical. It was also based on intensive community engagement. An early inquiry revealed that 80 per cent of Barcelona’s citizens were willing to pay 10 per cent more for renewable than fossil energy – another important factor in initiating the programme. Details of the regulation in English can be found here: http://www.barcelonaenergia.cat/document/OST_Explicac_eng.pdf

19 The ZEDbook, 2008 20 The Renewable City, 2006

‘Green’ Energy Tariffs Buying ‘green’ energy does not count as Zero Carbon, unless it comes from a new and dedicated supply and this is to avoid double or triple counting of the renewable energy. National Indicators 185 and 186 also preclude counting green energy tariffs as CO 2 reduction.

A producer of renewable energy is given a Renewable Obligation Certificate (ROC) for every megawatt hour of electricity they produce. ROCs can be traded allowing energy suppliers that aren’t meeting the required proportion of renewable energy. However, the generator can sell both the unit of renewable electricity and the ROC (in effect the unit of renewable electricity has already been double counted). The buyer of the ROC then has to retire it so that it cannot be purchased by another buyer. Purchasing renewable energy from ROCs is not new and dedicated supply. The market for renewable energy is only stimulated if the energy supplier retires more ROCs than they are legally obliged to. The situation is further complicated by other certifications:

“At present three different certificates may be utilised to provide evidence of the environmental benefit of renewable generation (LECs, ROCs, REGOs). As a result there is potential for more than one environmental claim to be made for each unit of renewable electricity generated if different certificates from the same underlying electricity are presented as evidence of a renewable generation source to different customers” Carbon Trust 2007 21

So as well as 1 unit of renewable electricity generated being used and sold as a ROC, it could potentially be counted twice more!

However, businesses and households in Sutton will be encouraged (through www.oneplanetsutton.org and other resident communications) to switch to renewable energy suppliers as an interim stage, before sufficient renewable energy has been generated to meet Sutton’s demand. BioRegional has an affiliate scheme with Good Energy; for every home or businesses that switch to Good Energy, One Planet Living in Sutton receives £20. This could be spent on Zero Carbon projects though the scheme is unlikely to raise a significant amount.

CO 2 emissions are not the only factor to consider when choosing an electricity supplier. Nuclear power may have lower CO 2 emissions than some other fuels, but produces radioactive waste, and this should also be considered. Other consumers may like to favour those companies that invest and build renewable energy centres rather than simply buying and selling energy. BioRegional do not recommend that the Sutton community use ‘green’ suppliers that offset carbon rather than generating renewable energy.

21 Carbon Trust submission to Ofgem’s consultation: “Developing Guidelines for Green Supply” 2007

Table 8: Fuel mix disclosure data, electricityinfo.org 22 Fuel Mix Disclosure Data

nuclear disclosure supplier coal natural gas nuclear renewable other CO 2 waste* year Good Energy 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.000 0.0000 2007 Green Energy 0.0 68.0 0.0 32.0 0.0 0.136 0.0000 2007 Ecotricity 23.8 22.8 25.9 24.1 3.3 0.316 0.0029 2007 British Gas 18.0 56.0 20.0 4.0 2.0 0.382 0.0022 2007 Utilita 33.0 39.0 21.0 4.0 3.0 0.460 0.0025 2006 Scottish & Southern Energy 30.6 57.8 0.8 10.2 0.6 0.489 0.0001 2007 Powergen 42.0 36.7 14.2 3.6 3.5 0.530 0.0020 2007 EDF Energy 47.0 29.0 17.0 5.0 2.0 0.540 0.0018 2007 npower/RWE 44.0 37.0 13.0 3.0 3.0 0.543 0.0015 2007 ScottishPower 55.2 36.7 1.0 6.8 0.3 0.630 0.0001 2007 UK average 35.8 38.8 18.6 4.7 2.1 0.461 0.0025 2007

BioRegional advise that consumers refer to Energy Watch 23 for an up to date list of renewable tariffs that are backed by a Renewable Electricity Guarantee of Origin (REGO), retire their Levy Exemption Certificates (LECs) and retire more than their legal requirement of Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs). Consumers that want to choose a supplier of tariff by fuel mix should visit www.electricityinfo.org or request the information from their supplier. Energy Efficiency All buildings and structures in Sutton should be designed or retrofitted to be energy efficient to UK best practice standards. This includes new build homes and non-domestic buildings and existing homes and non-domestic buildings. Energy efficiency is essential if the Borough is to meet energy demand through renewables. The average household in Sutton consumes 4,800 kWh per year electricity the equivalent of 48m 2 of photovoltaic panels whereas the average roof size in the UK is 30 square meters 24. BedZED households consume an average of 2,579 kWh per year, the equivalent of 26m 2 photovoltaic panels (i.e. within the average roof size). While the majority of households may not have an appropriately sized and orientated roof, this rough calculation does show that energy efficiency makes the goal of 100% renewable energy more feasible.

22 http://www.electricityinfo.org/supplierdataall.php?year=latest 23 http://www.energywatch.org.uk/help_and_advice/green_tariffs/guarantees.asp 24 Solar Trade Association

New Build For new build domestic buildings the Council will use the Code for Sustainable Homes’ energy efficiency standards. From May 2008 all new homes in Sutton will be required to meet Level 3 of the code with a schedule for achieving the eventual goal of Level 6 (Zero Carbon) to be set out in Sutton’s Core Planning Strategy Development Plan Document (DPD), which is scheduled for adoption in 2009 25 . It is likely that new buildings in Hackbridge and Sutton Town Centre will need to be Zero Carbon (though not necessarily code level 6) from 2010 with the rest of the Borough coming online once those pilot areas have proved successful.

All new non-domestic buildings will be required to meet BREEAM ‘Very Good’ standard, rising to ‘Excellent’ (timetable to be confirmed in DPD) or equivalent standard in the event of the Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) introducing the Code for Sustainable Buildings. 26

Existing buildings Existing buildings should be retrofitted to best-practise energy efficiency standards for that building type such as the Energy Saving Trust’s Energy-efficient Refurbishment of Existing Housing or equivalent for non-domestic buildings.

Domestic energy use 27 Energy delivered to household meter points in Sutton is on average: 18,924 kWh gas per household and 4,652 kWh electricity . Therefore, CO 2 emissions per household in Sutton are likely to be as follows:

Table 9: Annual average CO 2 emissions (residential) in Sutton 28 Fuel kWh Conversion factor kg CO 2 Gas 18,924 0.185 29 3,501 Electricity 4,652 0.43 30 2,000 Total 23,576 5,501

To put this into context, each Sutton household emits 5.5 tonnes of CO 2 from household fuel consumption compared to 1.2 tonnes of household waste and recycling – around 4.5 times more CO 2 than rubbish.

It is important to note that Table 9 shows average household consumption. Approximately 20% of homes in Sutton have electric heating and hot water.

25 Sustainable Design and Construction IPG 2008 26 Sustainable Design and Construction IPG 2008 27 BERR 2005 28 Defra's greenhouse gas conversion factors for company reporting, June 2007 29 Gross calorific value 30 Long-term marginal factor

31 Through an energy analysis of homes in Sutton BioRegional estimates that the total CO 2 emissions from the Borough’s housing stock are 501,309 (compared to 421,911 in Table 6: Annual CO 2 emissions from buildings in Sutton Defra). The same study estimates that the total annual energy consumption in the Borough’s housing stock is 1,647 mWh per annum (compared to 1,694 mWh, Table 7, BERR) and that average energy consumption per home is 22,676 kWh per annum (compared to 24,300 kWh, Table 9, BERR). The discrepancy is obviously an issue in determining when we can declare the Borough to be Zero Carbon, but actually has very little effect on the actions we need to take; immediate and widespread energy efficiency and the utilisation of all of the renewable energy resources in the Borough.

Figure 2: Household energy consumption

Despite energy efficiency measures – 72% of houses in the UK had loft insulation by 2000 and appliances such as refrigerators have vastly reduced energy consumption – energy consumption (per household and per person) is increasing and this is for four main reasons; • More appliances in the home; • More lighting (multi bulb fittings, side lights and table lamps compared to single bulbs in the centre of rooms); • Homes are heated to a higher temperature; and • Standby has become more common.

Therefore, as well as encouraging the purchase of energy efficiency measures such as ‘A’ rated appliances, insulation and improved glazing, the Council also need to inspire behavioural change and encourage measures such as turning the thermostat down by 1 or 2 degrees – ideally the thermostat should be set between 18 and 21 degrees unless elderly or very young people are in the house.

31 Energy Options Appraisal for Domestic Buildings in the London Borough of Sutton, June 2008

Switching appliances off at the wall is an easy way of saving energy. If all Sutton residents stopped using standby Sutton could save approximately 6% of domestic electricity or 25,819 mWh per annum, 11,100 tonnes of CO 2 and £2,323,710, which is roughly £30 per household. This illustrates how important behavioural change is – simple measures like switching appliances off at the wall or turning the thermostat down are free and have a significant impact.

Household size “The amount of energy required by two people living in two households is greater than the amount of energy required by two people living in the same household.” 32

The number of people living in each dwelling affects most areas of the Ecological Footprint, not just energy consumption, but it is particularly pertinent to energy use; it actually takes more energy to heat a home occupied by one person than the same home occupied by two people because the incidental heat gains – heat from appliances, body heat, cooking etc – are less.

Household size is decreasing in Sutton, therefore the increase in the number of households in the Borough is likely to increase the Borough’s domestic CO2 emissions and this could be exacerbated by a corresponding increase in population to 186,615 in 2016 33 .

Sutton should aim to make new single dwellings more sustainable by using planning policy to promote shared facilities, building new homes with shared laundry facilities for example, and with washing lines to negate the need for tumble dryers.

Strategies for addressing under occupancy of larger dwellings could also be considered as part of One Planet Living in Sutton, for the Zero Carbon principle and other resource-based principles. What domestic CO2 emissions are possible in Sutton?

Figure 3 shows the CO 2 reductions possible in Sutton on a house by house basis.

32 Energy Consumption in the United Kingdom, DTI and National Statistics 33 Sutton Housing Strategy

Figure 3: Possible CO2 saving in Sutton 34 Percentage of Factor Down for No of Properties No of Properties Available Buildings in Measures Already Modelled as available CO2 Savings per Annual CO2 Annual CO2 Modelled no the Borough Installed (% of Original after HEC accounted- Available House ADJUSTMENT appliacable for this Saving (kg) Saving (%) Total Available) for measure Category CODE EE1 Loft Insulation - 300mm 61470 100% 61470 84.6% 295 18158298 3.62% EE2 Loft Insulation - 400mm 61470 100% 61470 84.6% 131 8072583 1.61% EE3 Cavity Wall Insulation 22884 100% 22884 31.5% 388 8879842 1.77% EE4 Solid Wall Insulation (Internal) 72639 100% 72639 100.0% 252 18268911 3.64% EE5 Solid Wall Insulation (External) 72639 100% 72639 100.0% 244 17730608 3.54% EE6 Draughtproofing 72639 100% 72639 100.0% 116 8424417 1.68% Energy Efficiency Underfloor Insulation (300mm EE7 66512 100% 66512 91.6% 220 14664241 2.93% Rockwool or 50mm Celotex) Heating EE8 Secondary Glazing 72639 100% 72639 100.0% 79 5717559 1.14% EE9 Double Glazing 72639 100% 72639 100.0% 119 8665983 1.73% EE10 Triple Glazing 72639 100% 72639 100.0% 198 14412967 2.88% EE11 Heat Exchange Ventilation 72639 100% 72639 100.0% 133 9678948 1.93% HE1 Turn Heating from 18 to 17 72639 100% 72639 100.0% 119 8612903 1.72%

Heating System HE2 Boiler for One Hour Less Per Day 72639 100% 72639 100.0% 119 8612903 1.72%

HE3 Boiler Replacement 72639 100% 72639 100.0% 119 8612903 1.72% Solar Water Heating with Scaff HO1 46103 100% 46103 63.5% 638 29434959 5.87% Req'd Hot Water HO2 Solar Water Heating no Scaff Req'd 46103 100% 46103 63.5% 621 28650505 5.72%

E1 Energy Saving Light Bulbs 72639 100% 72639 100.0% 466 33830579 6.75% Electrical E2 Efficient Appliances 72639 100% 72639 100.0% 339 24611440 4.91% E3 Solar Voltaics 46103 100% 46103 63.5% 2375 109511214 21.85% (Total of 'non-grey' measures) 309967539 61.83% Home Energy Check (HEC) data was not available for this study and so potential may have been over-estimated. However, the potential could also be understated because further behavioural changes could be factored in such as not using standby, turning off lights etc.

Inaccuracies notwithstanding, Sutton can aim for a 60% reduction in CO 2 through behavioural change and renovation of houses, which means that 40% of our current CO 2 from domestic buildings would have to be provided by community scale renewable energy. Currently, domestic buildings in Sutton account for 421,911 to 501,309 tonnes of CO 2 per annum, so under this scenario, community scale renewable energy would be needed to displace approximately 184,764 tonnes of CO 2 from fossil fuel energy.

Even if all new homes were to be Zero Carbon from 2010, 6 years ahead of the national target, 5,047 existing homes per year, from 2010 to 2025 would need to be renovated to realise this ambition.

34 Energy Options Appraisal for Domestic Buildings in the London Borough of Sutton, Parity Projects for BioRegional, June 2008

35 Of the 62% possible CO 2 reduction in Sutton homes , 28% is achieved through reducing or displacing gas (or other heating fuel) and 34% through reducing or displacing grid electricity used for appliances and lighting.

Displacing the remaining CO 2 from electricity seems feasible and could be done through large scale renewable electricity generation that feeds into the grid (although this may present some accounting issues). However, the remaining CO 2 from heating and hot water presents a much greater problem as there is no infrastructure in Sutton to deliver communal heating and hot water. There are however many examples in Denmark and Sweden where this has been achieved, and this is well documented. However, there are also successful UK examples for example in Pimlico (urban) and Hoathly Hill (rural).

Case study: Hoathly Hill 36 A 300kW Binder system at Hoathly Hill Community near East Grinstead, East Sussex, heating system will heat 30 buildings on site using a wood-chip Binder boiler. It is currently the biggest District Heating system in the region. Previously heated via Calor Gas and electricity, the new system will reduce running costs as well as cut carbon emissions. The project has taken three years from concept to completion and received 6 grants. Marion Briggs who coordinates the project for the community said: "to be finally fossil fuel free for our heating needs is a dream turned into reality".

Commercial energy use

Table 10: Annual average CO 2 emissions (commercial) in Sutton 37 38 Fuel kWh Conversion factor Total CO 2 kg Gas 353,728 0.185 39 65,440 Electricity 49,243 0.43 40 21,175 Total 402,971 86,615

BioRegional do not currently have a breakdown of commercial energy by end use in Sutton but we do know that 75% of businesses in the Borough are small with four or less employees. Environmental action can be low on the priority list for these businesses with small budgets and little time to spend on new initiatives that aren't core activities. Research by the Carbon Trust found that while just over 60% of SMEs are aware they could reduce their carbon emissions with simple energy efficiency measures costing little or no money, almost 70% have done nothing about it.

35 Energy Options Appraisal for Domestic Buildings in the London Borough of Sutton, Parity Projects for BioRegional, June 2008 36 http://www.woodenergyltd.co.uk/CaseStudies/district-heating.ashx 37 BERR 2006 38 Defra's greenhouse gas conversion factors for company reporting, June 2007 39 Gross calorific value 40 Long-term marginal factor

Therefore the Council’s first action should be to identify which businesses produce the most CO 2 in Sutton, and how to tackle groups of small businesses rather than reaching all of the individually. Given that many small businesses will operate from home, their CO 2 emissions can be targeted through outreach work with householders, therefore it is important that the Council and partners target individual business premises rather than individual businesses. One option would be to request lists of the top fuel consumers from BERR although this may not be possible due to data protection issues. Recognising the Council’s influence and limits The London Borough of Sutton has committed to becoming a Zero Carbon Council by 2017 and a Zero Carbon Borough by 2025 The earlier date for the Council’s own buildings is important in two ways; firstly that the Council are leading by example, and secondly that once services to deliver renewable energy (ESCos, heat networks etc) to serve Council buildings have been developed, they can then be expanded or extended to reach other buildings. However, it should be recognised that establishing an ESCo is a complicated undertaking and require considerable research to find the right model and partners. Some guidance is available, for example London Energy Partnership’s guide to Making ESCos Work. 41

st From 1 October 2008 all buildings with a floor area over 1,000m 2 that are occupied by a public authority and institution providing a public service to a large number of persons, and therefore visited by those persons, will be obliged to show the actual energy usage of a building through a Display Energy Certificate. In this way Sutton Council will lead by example and show visitors annual decreases in energy consumption.

Sutton Council can also set out standards that new buildings in the Borough should be built to, and demand a percentage of onsite renewable energy to be generated as a condition of planning. The forthcoming LDF is likely to require 100% renewable energy for new build in Hackbridge, with other areas coming on stream should the Hackbridge trial prove successful, aiming for all new build in Sutton to be Zero Carbon ahead of the national 2016 deadline.

Sutton Council can also influence existing dwellings when planning permission is sought by the owners of those dwellings for renovation or extension, in 2006/7 there were 781 'householder' applications, and assuming 2006/7 was a typical year, it would take over 100 years before all of the existing stock was dealt with in this way. For example, requirements could be made for insulating the whole house when planning permission for an extension is sought, though recent changes to planning permission needed for extensions may limit this.

41 http://www.lep.org.uk/uploads/lep_making_escos_work.pdf

Case study: Uttlesford District Council 42 Uttlesford District Council requires cost-effective energy efficiency improvements to be carried out on dwellings when they are extended. In this way, the extra energy that is used and carbon dioxide that is produced by the extension is compensated for by improvements elsewhere. As well as benefiting the environment, this requirement reduces energy bills and improves comfort. Undertaking these measures at the time an extension is carried out can also save money on their installation. UDC is the first local authority in the United Kingdom to introduce a requirement of this kind.

This policy has merited a special mention for Uttlesford District Council in the Local Government Association's Independent Climate Change Commission report published on 5 December. The requirement has been introduced via the planning system, through the Supplementary Planning Document on Home Extensions (adopted November 2005). For more information see the Energy saving Trust case study: http://www.uttlesford.gov.uk/documents/website/Climate%20Change/Energy%20Efficiency%20Condition/epbc_uttlesford_spd_cs.pdf

Where Sutton Council is not always able to directly influence the CO 2 emissions from buildings i.e. those privately owned dwellings and not domestic buildings whose owners are not applying for planning permission to renovate or extend, the Council should provide guidance to those owners and, subject to funding, initiate and facilitate practical projects to address the issues. Sutton Council already seeks to influence private housing stock, for example through Sutton’s Private Sector Housing Strategy 2005/06 to 2009/10, and therefore setting Council targets for this sector is appropriate and within the Council’s remit.

The plan focuses on actions that will be taken over the next three years to 2011 and should be updated annually.

42 http://www.uttlesford.gov.uk/main.cfm?Type=CCEE&MenuId=361

Sustainability Action Plan – Zero Carbon

Sutton Council’s buildings

Ref Target Baseline Indicator Monitoring Comments

T1.1 All Council buildings to be net Zero Carbon by 2017 Needs to be Energy consumed & EMAS and established renewable energy LAA NI 185 generated

Ref Actions Who Timing Likely Comments resource implication

A1.1 Zero carbon workshop for Sutton Council and key stakeholders BioRegional Done 20/07/2008 Cost neutral

A1.2 Establish a baseline for Council CO 2 emissions from buildings Energy Manager doing Cost neutral Needs schools for the year 2007/8 data from DFES but Council buildings are up to date

A1.3 Apply for capital grants for renewable energy and energy Energy Manager Ongoing Cost saving efficiency on Council owned buildings such as the Bio-energy Capital Grants Scheme

A1.4 Set annual reduction targets to achieve 100% reduction in CO 2 Energy Manager 2008 Cost neutral Zero Carbon from the 2007/8 baseline by 2017. The draft aim is for 30%- workshop 50% CO2 reduction through energy efficiency and 50%-70% 20/07/2008. reduction through renewable energy generation. This excludes street lights and signs which are covered later.

A1.5 Incorporate new CO 2 targets into EMAS Action Plans and Environmental 2008 Cost neutral promote to all EMAS and ECG reps. Currently the CO 2 Sustainability reduction target from buildings for 2008/9 is 4% CO2, and this Officer reduces to 2% following year. However Zero Carbon will not be achieved by 2017 with these targets and there needs to be an 11% annual target from now to 2017. Review progress at annual EMAS meetings and monthly ECG meetings.

A1.6 Energy efficiency training/ workshop for all building managers BioRegional & 2008/9 Cost neutral Energy Manager

A1.7 Building managers and others to create and implement energy All building and 2008/9 Cost saving 43 Zero Carbon reduction plans which may include: procurement workshop • Home working managers. 20/07/2008 • Smart metering Environmental • LED lights Sustainability • Move to different, more efficient buildings Manager to • Introduce CHP and renewable energy coordinate. • Educate staff to reduce use • Display energy certificates • Leasing out spare space to pay for new measures • Factor in whole life cost of buildings

Each building needs to save 30%-50% CO2 reduction through energy efficiency and behavioural change.

A1.8 Ensure that low energy use IT equipment, lighting and other IT and Procurement 2009 Cost neutral electrical items are specified in procurement policies. 2% global teams CO 2 emissions (which is the same as the aviation industry) and 10% of UK electricity consumption are from ICT, indicating the importance of tackling this sector in particular.

A1.9 Approach N-power (Council’s electricity supplier) about the Energy Manager 2008 Cost increase possibility of installing renewable electricity technologies on Council buildings as part of their supply contract.

43 Cost saving over lifetime of efficiency measure though capital outlay may be required

A1.10 Review the decision taken that prevents Sutton Schools Energy Manager & 2008 Cost neutral entering into ESCo agreements that would provide them with Corporate Finance biomass boilers with no additional cost, because of rules/ procedures on revenue and capital expenditure

A1.11 Write tender document for an ESCo to deliver renewable Energy Manager, 2009 Cost neutral A meeting has energy and possible energy efficiency measures for all Council Legal & Finance been held with buildings. This could be one ESCo or several. one potential company (Self The economic feasibility of an energy performance contract Energy) Idea to may be compromised as the Council are tied into a 4-year use an ESCo electricity purchase contract with n-power until October 2012. widely mooted Therefore the ESCo would only be able to buy the renewable and supported in energy generated by the ESCo, they would not be able to the Zero Carbon supply all of the Council’s electricity. workshop 20/07/2008.

A1.12 Come up with a time-table for introducing renewable energy Appointed ESCo & 2009 Cost increase generation (and possibly energy efficiency). Possible expansion Energy Manager to surrounding non-Council buildings should also be considered.

A1.13 Identify fuels and technologies for all Sutton Council buildings. Appointed ESCo & 2009 Cost increase The fuel mix chosen will replace the previous target to be using Energy Manager 100% biogas from 2020 44 which is likely to be unrealistic.

A1.14 Investigate improving and expanding existing communal boilers Appointed ESCo & 2009 Cost increase Zero Carbon that the Council are responsible for. Consider switching to Energy Manager Workshop renewable energy fuels for these. 20/07/2008

A1.15 Review available technologies for low energy street lighting and Energy Manager 2011 Cost increase Currently nothing consider replacing if energy savings outweigh additional available that is embodied energy. Street lighting and signs account for 30% of technically and our electricity use and so it is vital this is tackled with the right economically technology rather than rushing in. feasible.

44 Sutton’s Environmental Sustainability Strategy : “A Greener, Cleaner Sutton: Action Today for a Better Tomorrow” Progress Report 2006 and Proposals for Targets for 2007/8-2009/10

Homes

Ref Target Baseline Indicator Monitoring Comments

T1.2 All existing homes in the Borough to be enabled to be net Zero Currently there is Renewable energy EMAS and Carbon by 2025 : less than 1% generated in/ for LAA NI 186 • There is community-scale renewable energy generated renewable Sutton equivalent to 40% of current CO 2 emissions from generation and no domestic buildings homes have Number of • Every household has received guidance on achieving a received guidance households that 60% CO 2 reduction in their home have received guidance

T1.3 All new homes in Sutton town centre and Hackbridge to be Included in LDF Development Zero Carbon from 2011 Control

T1.4 All new homes in Sutton to be Zero Carbon from 2014 Included in LDF Development Control

Ref Actions Who Timing Likely Comments resource implication

A1.16 Promote grants for energy efficiency measures for the elderly Environmental Sutton Plan Cost neutral Cost neutral as and low income households Health already planned

A1.17 Improve energy efficiency in private housing by 23% by 2010, Housing Doing Cost neutral Cost neutral as against a 1995 baseline already planned

A1.18 Fundraise for energy efficiency and renewable energy LBS & BioRegional Ongoing Cost saving Targets need to measures for example Concerto be set for numbers of grants applied for

A1.19 Sutton housing stock analysis (identifying demand, strategies Parity Projects and 2008 Funded by Done for reduction and feasible reduction targets) CEN for BioRegional Defra through CEEF

A1.20 Use CEN data analysis of Sutton to identify those homes in the Housing 2009 Cost neutral CEEF steering Borough that are suitable for, but do not yet have cavity wall group and loft insulation and implement a targeted communications Zero Carbon campaign aimed at them. Workshop 20/07/2008

A1.21 Renewable energy feasibility study (also applies to Planning & CEN 2008/9 Cost Zero Carbon businesses). This would incorporate studies already done such implication Workshop as the one identifying potential sites for wind turbines 45 , and 20/07/2008 identify locations and technologies for renewable energy in Sutton. The study should investigate the potential sites and LDF meeting technologies identified at the Zero Carbon Workshop on 26/08/2008 20/07/2008.

A1.22 Investigate the potential for providing Smart Meters to all Housing & Energy 2011 Cost Zero Carbon homes (and businesses) in Sutton. companies implication Workshop 20/07/2008

A1.23 Facilitate the establishment of a Sutton-wide ESCo or MUSCo BioRegional & LBS 2009-2012 Cost Hackbridge to deliver renewable energy, energy efficiency and potentially implication Week, February other services to homes and businesses in the Borough. Initial 2008 consultation (Hackbridge Week) has shown support for this to Zero Carbon be a community owned not-for-profit organisation such as a Workshop Community Interest Company. 20/07/2008

45 Carried out by LBS and Merchant Windpower

A1.24 Set energy efficiency targets for private housing from 2010- Housing and 2009 Cost neutral 2025 Regeneration Strategic Partnership

A1.25 Consider and make recommendations as to whether to adopt a Housing 2009 Cost Hackbridge Council tax rebate for homes that generate renewable energy. implication Week, February 2008

A1.26 Ensure that all new build in Sutton is Zero Carbon through the Planning 2009 Cost Core Planning Strategy. The strategy should allow for some implication 46 areas to be Zero Carbon ahead of others, for example Hackbridge, to allow for phased introduction of this target. (Applies to non residential buildings as well).

A1.27 Renewable energy centres in new developments that are Planning 2009 Cost Zero Carbon capable of supplying existing buildings. This policy should be implication 47 Workshop set out in the Core Planning Strategy. (Applies to non 20/07/2008 residential buildings as well).

A1.26 Develop and promote an interest free or low interest loan for Housing and 2010 Cost neutral Hackbridge homeowners to enable householders to access funds to reduce Finance Week, February CO 2 from their homes. 2008 A1.27 Create information packs for home owners for each house type BioRegional/ LBS 2009/10 Cost identified in the Sutton Housing Stock Analysis and using CEN and external implication analysis. Different solutions are required for different house partners such as types and the partners need to avoid bombarding residents with EST information that is irrelevant to them. The packs will also identify funding packages and case studies of successful renovations for that house type.

A1.28 Send information packs to every home in Sutton and to estate BioRegional/ LBS 2009 Cost agents and landlords and make available online. and external implication partners such as EST

46 Cost implication for the developers but could lead to less Section 106 income for the Council 47 Cost implication for the developers but could lead to less Section 106 income for the Council

A1.29 Research the possibilities for addressing the under occupation Housing 2011 Cost neutral of larger dwellings.

Businesses

Ref Target Baseline Indicator Monitoring Comments

T1.5 All existing non-domestic building owners in the Borough to be No businesses have Renewable energy EMAS and Long term over enabled to be net Zero Carbon by 2025 : received guidance generated in/ for LAA NI 186 arching target • There is community-scale renewable energy Sutton generated equivalent to 40% of current CO 2 emissions from non-domestic buildings Number of • Every business has received guidance on achieving a businesses that have 60% CO 2 reduction in their buildings received guidance T1.6 All new commercial buildings in Sutton town centre and 0 Included in LDF Development Hackbridge to be Zero Carbon from 2011 Control

T1.7 All new commercial buildings in Sutton to be Zero Carbon from 0 Included in LDF Development 2014 Control

Ref Actions Who Timing Likely Comments resource implication

A1.30 Identify the commercial producers of the most CO 2 from Business Services 2008 Cost Discussed in buildings and encourage those businesses to set reduction implication Zero Carbon target through Sustainability Action Plans or through the workshop, Carbon Trust or similar offers. Data could be requested from 20/07/2008 BERR but may not be possible due to data protection.

A1.31 Develop and launch a training programme for builders in Parity Projects & 2009 Cost Parity Projects Sutton to show them how and when to install energy efficiency LBS implication has developed measures and renewable energy. For example, one of the and trialled major costs of solid wall insulation is scaffolding. Therefore if a training client is having work done using scaffolding, the builder could programme. recommend solid wall insulation or other measures that requite scaffolding such as solar hot water are done at the same time. The training programme should encompass all of the One Planet Living principles

A1.32 Promote existing grants, loans and investment funds for Business Services & 2009 and ongoing Cost Target needs to energy efficiency and renewable energy. An up-to-date list can BioRegional implication be set for be found at numbers of http://www.therenewableenergycentre.co.uk/grants/ businesses reached

Zero Waste Waste from discarded products and packaging create a huge disposal challenge while squandering valuable resources. The aim of the Zero Waste principle is to eliminate waste flows to landfill and for incineration. This should be done by reducing waste generation through improved design; encouraging re-use, recycling and composting and to generate energy from waste.

As a Borough Council Sutton have responsibility for the collection and disposal of household waste in Sutton and because of this have a greater degree of control of waste than from the carbon emitted from buildings for example. However, businesses and organisations can choose their waste contractors and so the Council can not exert the same influence as on the business waste stream. As part of the South London Waste Partnership with Kingston, Merton, Croydon, Sutton can not act unilaterally on waste collection, disposal and treatment; Viridor have been appointed as the transfer, transport and disposal contractor for 14 years up to 2022 and are also responsible for composting, materials recovery facilities and additional treatment needs.

Zero Waste – long term targets Target date 85% recycling and composting rate for Council offices 48 2012 35% reduction in collected household waste from 465 kg per person (2006/7) to 300 kg per person 2020 70% Borough-wide recycling and composting rate for municipal waste 2020

The waste hierarchy shows that eliminating and reducing waste is the most important step. While the Council have been enormously successful in boosting the recycling rate in Sutton, the total tonnage of waste is rising by approximately 1% per year.

48 EMAS reps proposed 90%

Figure 4: Waste hierarchy 49

49 Defra Waste Strategy Annual Progress Report 2007/08

Key statistics In 2006/7 50 Sutton collected 95,209 tonnes of municipal waste of which 72% was land-filled and 1% incinerated. From households the Council collected 465kg per person. Of this 9% was green recycling, 21% dry recycling and 70% was residual waste. BioRegional do not have a baseline for business waste in the Borough, nor an accurate baseline for waste produced from Sutton Council’s own operations.

How does this compare to other Boroughs? Sutton’s 30% recycling and composting rate can clearly be improved. The top performing Borough in 2006/7 was North Kesteven District Council in the East Midlands who have achieved 56%. Including green recycling can be misleading, as some Boroughs have more gardens, thus more green waste than others. If we look only at dry recycling rates, Mid Suffolk District Council scores highest with a rate of 34% compared to Sutton’s 21%. Yet BioRegional’s research shows that a 70% recycling and composting rate is possible in the UK with existing infrastructure and with significant behavioural change. Although this may seem ambitious, it is only 10 percentage points higher than Defra’s requirement for Councils bidding for PFI credits. Other European Councils have shown that it is possible in practise to achieve over 70% recycling; Flanders for example has an 80% recycling rate.

Arguably too much emphasis is placed on the percentage of waste that is recycled and composted when the more important environmental issue (see the waste hierarchy) is the quantity of waste produced. Reducing waste arisings will have financial benefits for Sutton. Waste collections currently cost £52.17 per head and disposal £54.10 per head. While recycling and composting are cheaper than landfilling, the real savings (environmentally and financially) are to be made by reducing the quantity of waste produced. There is clearly scope to do so – kilograms of waste per person in UK Boroughs ranges from 302 to 594 kg. Reducing Waste It is possible to eliminate excess materials, waste materials and waste by-products at the design stage and this is the most important element in achieving Zero Waste. However, the Council is not in a good position to influence manufacturing, especially as so many of the consumer items bought are manufactured abroad. The Sustainability Action Plan covers businesses in the Borough and partners should work with them to eliminate waste from production, but for residents and the Council the focus should be on reducing waste through procurement. One Planet Living in Sutton has targets for waste reduction and recycling and composting. Waste reduction is the most important and should take priority. Paradoxically, some Council’s have achieved a high recycling rate by promoting green waste collections, whereas environmentally it makes more sense to home compost. This is because Government targets have focused on increasing recycling rather than reducing total waste production. The Council’s Waste team have reported 51 that 8.4% less waste by weight was collected from April to August 2008 compared to the same period in 2007. This could be attributed to waste reduction campaigns, but also to the economic downturn – people are buying less and therefore wasting less, and the temporary removal of the free green waste service. In order to reduce waste, a better understanding of which factors have the biggest influence is needed.

50 Local Authority key performance statistics, including recycling rates, 2006/7, Defra 51 Meeting with Sutton’s waste team, 19/09/2008

Consumer power Consumer power will be instrumental in reducing waste. If we all choose goods with less packaging, goods that can be repaired and that will last, the producers will respond. Community consultation 52 has shown that many residents resent having to buy products with packaging that can not be recycled in Sutton. Residents have also made requests for more action on packaging waste to the Sustainable Communities Committee 53 and actions are being considered. One option would be to work with supermarkets and persuade them to provide recycling bins for excess packaging. This would be particularly pertinent if the Council were to introduce rebates for households producing less waste. Although this is not strictly reducing waste – the supermarkets would still need to dispose of packaging – it may lead to the supermarkets stocking goods with less waste, in order to reduce waste disposal costs.

Behavioural change is essential in reducing waste. Buying goods that can be repaired or that will last, will significantly reduce the quantity of goods thrown away. Clothes have got much cheaper in the UK – the consumer price index 54 shows that clothing and footwear have gone down in price, even over the last 12 months when food, energy and many other commodities have risen – and this has led to more clothes being thrown away. Clothing retailers could play a part in the disposal of the clothes that they sell that are not of sufficient quality to reuse. Charity shops do not accept clothes from the cheaper retailers and so disposal or recycling is the only option. In Sutton the proportion of textiles in the waste stream has increased and this has led to problems in sorting waste. Interestingly the consumer price index also shows that the cost of cleaning, repairing and hiring clothes has risen. Globally we need to reverse these trends and make it more cost effective to repair clothes than throw them away. Clothing retailers could play a part in the disposal of the clothes that they sell that are not of sufficient quality to reuse. Some charity shops do not accept clothes from the cheaper retailers and so disposal or recycling is the only option.

Despite a growing awareness of ethical procurement and campaigns against unfair labour practises in clothing manufacture, the problem has not gone away. Cheap clothes often indicate poor working conditions as well as poor quality; there is a human rights issue in buying cheap clothes and a greater propensity to waste. Through residents’ Sustainability Action Plans the Council and partners can encourage them to make ethical procurement choices.

Financial incentives

It is not possible to charge residents directly for waste in the UK, except for bulky or green waste, although the Local Government Association and some local authorities have called for these powers to be introduced 55 . The government has said that the amo unt residents pay to their Council must not increase and therefore rebates for those households that produce less waste may be considered whereas charging for waste would not.

Defra research has shown that 50% of UK consumers “would favour a system that rewarded them if they recycled everything they could and penalised those who did not, with about a quarter opposing it. It was not necessarily the heavier recyclers who supported such a measure, as some people seemed generally opposed to top-down government-led interventions that ‘forced’ people to be more environmentally friendly.” 56

52 Sutton Environment Fair, Hackbridge Carnival, Hackbridge Week, Community workshops and www.oneplanetsutton.org 53 Sustainable Communities Scrutiny Committee, 09/09/2008, information provided by Chris Reid 54 http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/Product.asp?vlnk=868 55 Waste Strategy for England 2007 56 A Framework for pro-environmental behaviours, DEFRA, January 2008

Case study: Financial incentives “Evidence from overseas suggests that incentivising householders financially to reduce the amount of non-recycled waste they throw away can be a powerful tool in reducing overall waste quantities, boosting recycling and reducing costs…. In Treviso, Italy, overall waste quantities have fallen by 12% since the introduction of financial incentive schemes, while in Maastricht, Netherlands, recycling has increased from 45–50% to 60% since the scheme’s introduction. Financial incentives are common elsewhere in Europe. In Flanders, for example, 98% of municipalities charge residents according to the amount of waste they throw away. As a result, average waste bills have fallen in most areas. Flanders households recycle 70% of their waste, compared to 27% in England.”57

Re-use Through residents’ Sustainability Action Plans BioRegional and Sutton Council should advise that as much as possible should be re-used and residents should also choose second-hand products where possible. This will also be part of the Council’s procurement policy; particularly for construction materials (see Local and Sustainable Materials). The Council has been active in promoting reusable cloth nappies. Disposable incontinence materials make up 2-4% of all municipal waste 58 so this is well worth while and other opportunities for re-use will be sought. Recycling and composting

Kerbside recycling 64,000 households in Sutton have a kerbside recycling service and the following materials are collected: • Paper • Aerosols • Cardboard • Plastic bottles • Aluminium cans • Steel cans • Glass • Garden waste • Food waste (to be introduced Borough-wide in 2010/11)

Sutton’s kerbside service is excellent and the Sustainability Action Plan focuses on encouraging people to recycle more materials rather than changing the kerbside system. BioRegional’s One Planet Living home visits in Hackbridge resulted in 17% of households recycling more types of materials in their green

57 Waste Strategy for England 2007 58 www.resourcesnotwaste.org

box indicating that face-to-face communication can be effective in improving rates. The home visits lasted on average 20 minutes and all of the One Planet Living principles were covered, not just waste. Home visits are explored in greater detail in the introduction to the Sustainability Action Plan. The materials collected by the Council represent the majority of recyclable household waste and less frequently occurring materials can be adequately dealt with through Neighbourhood Recycling Centres (bring banks) and the Re-use and Recycling Centre. However, some kerbside provision of these materials may be needed for residents with restricted mobility. This could be provided in partnership with third sector organisations who already work with those residents. Providing a door to door service for blocks of flats should also be considered and this could also be done in partnership with a third sector organisation or a local entrepreneurial business.

Case study: Community recycling in Hackney

In Hackney, London, food waste, green waste and dry recyclables are collected in door-to-door collections. The scheme is run by a community recycling enterprise, the East London Community Recycling Partnership (ELCRP), who offers a door-to- door collection of both dry recyclables and food waste to approximately 360 households on the Nightingale Estate.

Residents are provided with food waste containers with locks, biodegradable bags that hold the waste and bags of 'Bokashi' flakes. When mixed with the food waste, these flakes slow down the composting and reduce unpleasant odours, meaning that the waste only needs to be collected once a week. All food waste collected from the estate is composted on site using an automatic in-vessel composting facility. Cardboard, which is also collected from residents, is added to increase the carbon content.

The scheme used an intensive door-knocking campaign to maintain participation rates in their door-to-door collection scheme. Door-knockers were recruited from the local community and to ensure that each household is visited. ELCRP reports that participation in some blocks of flats has reached 80%. Hackney Council carried out a door-knocking campaign on several estates in conjunction with a participation survey. Preliminary data suggests that the campaign has been effective with the tonnage of material collected increasing by 35%.

ELCRP also manages a recycling shop on the estate, where residents can buy and sell second-hand goods such as furniture. Residents can also obtain advice and information about recycling and composting at the shop.

ELCRP now offer a commercial food waste collection to a number of prestigious clients including The Department for Communities and Local Government, Greater London Authority (GLA), Friends of the Earth and City Commercial and Investment Banks.

Garden waste and food waste will be collected as part of the kerbside service from 2010/11 and taken to Beddington Lane. Viridor require that garden waste and kitchen waste are collected in separate receptacles to enable them to control the ‘mix’ and make good quality compost. The compost will be used on Viridor’s land 59 and while this does ensure that the material is diverted from landfill, it is not necessarily the best solution. In Somerset, Viridor produce a BSI PAS 100 accredited bagged compost called Revive. If a similar product was made from South London Partnership green waste it could be sold locally through the Re-use and Recycling Centre and garden centres. This closed loop option would also reduce the quantity of peat-based compost purchased. As retailers try to phase out peat based compost there will be a strong market for alternatives.

Home composting Putrescible kitchen waste is the single largest component of dustbin waste, comprising between 14% 60 and 35% 61 of waste that is thrown away rather than recycled, and it would be beneficial, in terms of energy spent collecting it, if more of it was home composted rather than being collected and treated. The South London Waste Partnership will be composting garden waste and kitchen waste but ideally as much as possible should be removed before this stage and composted at home.

Home composting has seen a recent decline, even in those areas that do not have kerbside services for garden waste and we urgently need to stem this decline. Households in Sutton get two free bags of garden waste collected per fortnight and pay for additional bags. Even with a free collection there are incentives for residents to home compost; the need for compost and a desire to limit their collections to the free service, and the benefits of home composting should be heavily promoted.

The Council have trialled Green Cones 62 which should enable residents to compost a wider range of food waste in the garden but residents reported problems. BioRegional’s research in Hackbridge 63 shows that there is a skills shortage that prevents some residents from composting and so more complicated systems such as Bokashi 64 or Green Cones should be recommended for people who are already experienced in composting. BioRegional also found that 17% of the residents in Hackbridge who were not composting took it up following our recommendation so there is clearly scope for boosting home composting rates.

Neighbourhood Recycling Centres (NRCs) Sutton has a range of recycling banks for all of the materials that are collected from the kerbside as well as the following less frequently occurring materials such as tetra paks and textiles. Where the majority of households have a kerbside service, the NRCs should be used to collect materials not covered by the kerbside service. Many of the NRCs need improving visually and there should be consistent branding to maximise use and to make recycling easier. There is some concern that removing paper banks from NRCs will lead to increased fly tipping as businesses may be using them at present to avoid paying for

59 Meeting with Sutton’s waste team, 19/09/2008 60 Sutton Council waste audit 2003/4 61 Open University Household Waste Arisings Study: Key findings from 2007 62 www.greencone.com 63 One Planet Living Hackbridge pilot project Follow up findings, 2008 64 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokashi

collections. This should be monitored closely, but ultimately businesses need to pay for their waste rather than using methods that have been provided for residents through Council tax.

Re-use and Recycling Centre The Re-use and Recycling Centre at Kimpton Park Way should be used by residents for waste items that they can not put in their kerbside bins or the NRCs. The emphasis should be on re-use and partnerships with community recycling organisations and charities could help in diverting more from landfill. The aim should be to make it as easy as possible for residents, so rather than residents being advised 65 to ask for furniture collection from the Arc or the Squirrel Project, all items could be taken to Kimpton Way and the charities can collect from there. This should make it easy for the Arc and the Squirrel project by cutting down on transport and administration as well as making it easier for residents by having a one-stop-shop. Some civic amenity sites (re-use and recycling centres) in the UK have achieved landfill diversion rates of 80% whereas Kimpton Park Way recycled 28% in 2007/8 66 . Potentially the Kimpton Park Way site could be linked to businesses or community projects specialising in repair of furniture and electrical items which could also be sold to visitors – see case study. There is certainly a business case for doing so as long as expenditure on improvements to facilities and staff training and communicating to residents is less than the savings made on landfill. Surrey County Council has made the case for improving Civic Amenity sites and their business plan is available online.

Case study: Civic amenity sites in Devon 67 South Molton Recycling successfully changed the culture of disposal on Civic Amenity sites in Devon. As much as possible is salvaged, recycled and resold from a centre where they also sell compost made from the garden waste. In an effort to encourage overall diversion from landfill, South Molton believes in making visits to civic amenity sites a day out on a par with a trip to the local shopping mall. With consideration being given to furnishing South Molton’s sites with coffee and tea facilities, snack bars and stalls selling refurbished goods, the civic amenity site of the future may result in the public leaving with as much stuff as they brought. In April 2008 the reuse shop was transferred to SMR Phoenix, a registered Charity. The charitable arm of South Molton Recycling, though independent of the community trading company, enables them to deliver training and work experience opportunities to people who are looking to return to the workplace but are finding it difficult.

Waste treatment The South London Waste Partnership will be looking at alternatives for disposal to landfill as part of their 14 year contract. Any landfill alternatives considered should offer lower greenhouse gas emissions than landfilling; BioRegional feels that climate change mitigation is a more important issue than avoiding landfill.

Sutton Council’s Waste There is a need to produce an accurate waste and recycling baseline, and this needs to be established. A workshop with EMAS representatives revealed that different buildings, even different departments within the same buildings, have different recycling facilities and therefore have wildly different recycling rates.

65 http://www.sutton.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=698 66 Data provided by email from Penny Spirling, Recycling Manager, Sutton Council 67 http://www.southmoltonrecycle.com/index.html

Building managers can choose their own waste contractors but it would be easier to communicate to staff if services were uniform. EMAS reps proposed a 90% recycling target, which is technically possible in an office but highly ambitious, so BioRegional have reduced it to 85%. The 35% Borough-wide total waste reduction target should also apply to the Council.

Case study: BioRegional’s Waste Plan

From a waste audit in 2007 BioRegional found that they had a 84% recycling and composting rate

BioRegional Waste Audit Jan 2007

32%

23%

20%

16%

Mixed paper/ card White paper Tins and plastic Glass Compost Rubbish

BioRegional recycle all of the items the Council collect and we compost food and garden waste onsite. From the above waste audit BioRegional found that the main items in the rubbish bin are non-recyclable plastic and food that can’t go in the compost bin – like cooked food, meat, dairy and bread. So we are now using a Bokashi system so that we can compost all food waste – not just fruit and veg. BioRegional will carry out another waste audit now we’ve got used to the new system and hope to have reached a 90% recycling and composting rate. http://www.bioregional.com/about%20us/SAP.htm

Business Waste Councils are not obliged to offer business recycling and businesses can choose their contractors. While it is cost effective for medium and large enterprises to recycle, the same incentives do not apply to small businesses. The House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee's Second Report of Session 2004-05 on Corporate Environmental Crime shows that 60% of commercial waste produced in this country comes from SMEs so it is vital that they are encouraged to recycle. The Council should provide or facilitate a suitable service for SMEs where no service exists. Sutton Council currently offers a paper and cardboard recycling service to all Sutton Council commercial customers in the Borough and so the focus should now be on expanding the number of customers recycling and the range of materials covered.

Case study: The Laundry The Laundry is a partnership between BioRegional and London Recycling. It was set up in 2003 with the aim of providing a kerbside collection system for small businesses in central London. These small businesses were not previously able to recycle due to space and cost constraints. The Laundry now collects waste paper, cardboard, cans, IT equipment and Christmas trees from over 1,300 customers.

The key to their success has been to provide a collection system that makes it cost effective and easy for customers to recycle. The customer buys sacks at 75p each, fills them, and then once a week puts out as many as they need for collection. Another reason for The Laundry’s success is that they have used a modern light-hearted advertising campaign and avoided playing on the typical “green and worthy” recycling messages. www.thelaundry.biz

Sustainability Action Plan – Zero Waste by 2025

Sutton Council’s buildings

Ref Target Baseline Indicator Monitoring Comments

T2.1 Reduce Council waste arisings by 35% by 2015 TBC Weight of waste Annual waste collected from audit Council buildings

T2.2 85% of Council waste to be recycled or composted by 2012 TBC % of waste recycled Annual waste or composted audit

Ref Actions Who Timing Resource Comments implication

A2.1 Incorporate new targets into EMAS Environmental 2009 Cost neutral Sustainability Officer Current work

A2.2 Choose a waste and recycling contractor to serve all Council Waste team 2009 Cost neutral buildings and report changes to building managers

A2.3 Establish a baseline for waste tonnage produced, recycling Waste contractor 2009 then ongoing Cost neutral Annual waste and composting rates through a comprehensive waste audit. audits should be Annual waste audits should then be carried out. part of the contract. Some companies Viridor for example, offer this service free of charge.

A2.4 Ensure that all Council buildings have facilities to recycle and Building managers 2009 Cost New system will compost the majority of waste produced and rebrand bins so and waste contractor implication be piloted in that bins for different materials are colour coded and consistent Denmark Road, across the estate. adjusted if necessary and then rolled out to all buildings.

A2.5 Communicate changes to all staff and provide training for Environmental 2009 Cost neutral cleaners, appoint Zero Waste champions in each building to Sustainability Officer, aid compliance. EMAS

Homes

Ref Target Baseline Indicator Monitoring Comments

T2.3 35% reduction in collected household waste (including 465 kg per Weight of waste Report to recycling/ composting) to 300 kg per person by 2020 household collected Defra

T2.4 70% Borough-wide recycling and composting rate by 2020 30% Weight of waste Report to collected from Defra Council buildings

Ref Actions Who Timing Resource Comments implication

A2.6 Offer free compost bins to residents in order to reduce Waste team 2008/9 Cost neutral 14,000 bins environmental and financial costs of collecting garden waste delivered from April to August 2008 with 7 months left of offer

A2.7 Commit to only introducing alternatives to landfill if they have South London Waste 2009 Cost neutral lower overall greenhouse gas emissions than landfill. Partnership

A2.8 Extend the range of discounted composting products on offer Waste team 2009 and ongoing Cost neutral Cost may be to include systems for cooked food as well as garden and offset by reduced vegetable waste collection costs

A2.9 Targeted communications campaign to those households with Waste team 2009 and ongoing Cost neutral private gardens promoting home composting and new range of bins

A2.10 Work with estates managers to provide households with Waste team & social 2009 & ongoing Cost communal gardens with on-site composting facilities. This enterprise or 3 rd implication could be a bring-site for collection or a community led scheme sector where compost is made and re-used on site

A2.11 Continue to work with private estates managers to improve Waste team Ongoing Cost recycling provision to flats implication

A2.12 If recycling rates in flats have not improved to equal rates for Waste team & social 2011 Cost See ELCRP case kerbside serviced homes, investigate the potential for using enterprise or 3 rd implication study community recycling organisations to provide kerbside sector recycling to flats and introduce if appropriate

A2.13 Investigate and cost the possibility of introducing rebates for Waste team 2010 Cost neutral households producing less waste. Introduce if suitable.

A2.14 Rebrand and relaunch NRCs so that they are more visible and Waste team 2010 Cost cater for materials that are not covered by kerbside services. implication

A2.15 Write a business plan for improving the CA site and promoting Waste team 2011 Cost saving See Civic reuse and repair of goods and involving charity and community amenity sites in recycling services. Devon case study.

A2.16 Work with Viridor to investigate the possibility of selling Waste team 2011 Cost saving bagged Sutton compost to residents rather than using on Viridor land

Businesses

Ref Actions Who Timing Additional Comments cost

A2.17 Work with retailers and shopping centres to introduce a Waste team 2009 Cost neutral Council could voluntary plastic bag ban and more recycling points for save money on materials that are not collected at the kerbside such as plastic collection / packaging and textiles. disposal but would need to spend time working with retailers. There would be a cost to retailers.

A2.18 Write a business plan and timetable to expand the range of Waste team/ waste 2010 Cost neutral materials recycled by the Council’s commercial recycling contractor services and the number of customers.

Sustainable Transport

The aim of this principle is to provide transport systems and infrastructure that reduce dependence on fossil fuel use, and encourage people to choose sustainable transport options. Personal transport accounts for 14% of the Sutton residents’ Ecological Footprint and 20% of residents’ CO 2 emissions. Demand, particularly for road and air travel is increasing every year, as are the associated environmental impacts. Defra estimates that 269,346 68 tonnes of CO 2 are emitted from road transport fuel use within Sutton. However, if all the impacts of all journeys made by Sutton residents (operation and infrastructure) are included, the total is estimated by SEI to be 403,179 69 tonnes. Transport advice to residents (behavioural change) will look at all of their journeys, not just those that take place in the Borough, while practical projects will focus on road transport (cars, buses, walking and cycling) within the Borough as the Council can influence provision of facilities, whereas the Council do not have the same control on rail infrastructure, and no influence on aviation and shipping.

Sustainable Transport – long term targets Target date Biennial poll of 1100 residents 70 shows that 50% have received and acted on Sustainable Transport advice compared to 2012 a 33% baseline in 2006/7 71 72 CO 2 emissions from Sutton Council fleet and staff transport for work to reduce by 50% from a 2008/9 baseline 2017 Less than 10% of Council staff to travel to and from work as single occupants of cars 2017 73 50% reduction in CO 2 from road transport within Sutton from a baseline of 269,346 tonnes of CO 2 in 2005 2025

Negative Impacts of Transport

The main impacts on the environment are emissions of greenhouse gases, air pollutants, noise, and damage to both the natural and built environments. There are also negative social impacts from motor vehicles; a recent report from the University of the West of England 74 highlighted noise pollution and social

68 Defra: LAA CO 2 Indicator Analysis 2005 69 SEI/ REAP 70 Existing MORI poll 71 From PTP exercise 72 Baseline currently being established 73 Defra: LAA CO 2 Indicator Analysis 2005 74 Joshua Hart, MSc Transport Planning, 2008

degradation as significant problems for busier streets. There are also associated health risks. Increased car use has led to a decrease in exercise as the car has replaced journeys previously made on foot; over half of journeys between one and two miles are made by private motorised vehicle in the UK. As half of London journeys are less than two miles there is clearly scope for decreased car use.

1 in 4 urban children now have asthma 75 and air pollution from vehicles is a contributing factor. Road transport also has a direct impact on health, for example, 3,201 people were killed on Britain's roads in 2005 (almost 9 people a day) and 28,954 were seriously injured; in total there were 271,017 road related casualties 76 . In Sutton advances in road safety have already been made and promotion of sustainable transport is likely to lead to further improvements.

Comparison of the Ecological Footprint of different transport modes To calculate the Ecological Footprint, all of these various transport impacts are converted into a land figure, measured in global hectares or global square meters. This is done for all forms of transport and therefore allows comparison between different impacts of transport.

Figure 5: Relative Ecological Footprint factors of main transport modes, per thousand passenger kilometres 77

Relative EF factors of main transport modes, per thousand passenger kilometres

Walking Bicycle Non-Local Bus / Coach Train Aeroplane (long distance) Car (Diesel) Local Bus Motorcycles Car (Petrol) Aeroplane (short distance) Taxi (Petrol+Diesel)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

Global m 2 per thousand passenger km

75 www.healthylivingcentre.co.uk 76 http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesgbar/roadcasualtiesgreatbritain2005 77 Taking Stock – Managing our Impact Chapter 3: Consumption of Goods and Services in the South East, 2003

As can be seen from Figure 5, the use of petrol cars (including taxis) and motorcycles as well as short aeroplane trips have a larger impact per passenger kilometre than travelling by bus, bicycle or train. This is due to the CO 2 emissions from direct fuel combustion, manufacture and maintenance of vehicles as well as low occupancy rates of some individual travel modes (such as taxis). Cycling has the lowest impact (apart from walking which has a zero footprint) and has 0.3 per cent of the impact of a car for every kilometre travelled. Public transport would have much lower emissions if more buses, trains etc were filled to capacity. Therefore efficiency will increase as more people choose public transport instead of travelling by car. In London emissions for busses are likely to be lower than for the South East due to higher occupancy rates and the impacts of the Low Emission Zone. Air travel is damaging because of the distance travelled; while the mean distance travelled by car in the UK is 9,200km a year, in a plane this is possible in one day. Cars

As well as CO 2 emissions from cars in use, other important factors to consider are the embodied energy of the vehicles and the related infrastructure such as roads and motorways. A lifecycle energy analysis in the 1970s showed that making a typical automobile from virgin materials used about as much energy as each year's driving: i.e., the ratio of embodied energy to total lifecycle energy, assuming a 12-year product life, was ~1/13. A 1995 assessment by Ford's Scientific Research Laboratories found little change; the embodied materials and manufacturing energy was equivalent to 1.2 years' driving (or 1.4 years counting the "energy overhead" of petrol production). 78 It is also estimated that one kilometre of motorway consumes more than 100,000 tonnes of aggregate. 79

Aviation

Between 2004 and 2005, CO 2 emissions from domestic aviation increased by 7.1 per cent, while international aviation emissions increased by 5.7 per cent, due to an increased number of flights. Between 1990 and 2005, emissions from aviation fuel use more than doubled. 80 In 2005 aviation was responsible for 81 5.5% of the UK’s CO 2 emissions . The government's 2003 Aviation White Paper predicts that air travel will treble by 2030: an increase in annual plane journeys from 180 million to 501 million. 82

78 http://www.greenbiz.com/news/columns_third.cfm?NewsID=30152 79 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7067362.stm 80 http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2007/070131b.htm 81 http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?ID=901&Pos=6&CO1Rank=2&Rank=192 82 http://www.dft.gov.uk/about/strategy/whitepapers/air/summary/thefutureofairtransportsummarya

Figure 6: Forecast growth of aviation in the UK 83

The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution states that the carbon emissions per passenger mile for a fully loaded cruising airliner are comparable to a passenger car carrying three or four people. In addition the climate impact of flying is estimated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 84 have a warming effect 2.7 times that of CO 2 emitted at ground level.

Calculating the emissions resulting from flying is not a simple process; as can be seen in the table below, the carbon offsetting companies use different emission data.

83 Air Traffic Forecasts for the UK 2000, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, 2000 84 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Aviation and the Global Atmosphere, executive summary 2001.

8000 7000 6000 Atmosfair 5000 Climate Care 4000 Carbon Neutral 3000 My Climate 2000 1000 0 LHR to LHR to LHR to New LHR to Edinburgh Madrid York Bangkok

85 Figure 7: Return flights from London Heathrow, kg CO 2 per passenger.

If this is translated into estimated kilograms of CO 2 per passenger kilometre it is easy to see that there is a substantial difference in emission rates (for example, ranging from 0.11 to 0.36 for the flight to Bangkok!).

For the emissions calculations in the Sustainability Action Plan, BioRegional have used figures from Taking Stock and assumed:

• short haul: 0.18 kg CO 2 per passenger km • Long haul: 0.09 kg CO 2 per passenger km

Trains Rail travel in the UK produced approximately 0.7 million tonnes of Carbon in 2004, accounting for 1.9% of the UK’s total transport emissions. The impact per passenger of rail travel depends on the energy used (for example diesel, or electric) and the number of passengers; currently there is limited data available on this. For the purpose of the transport emissions calculations, an average of 0.06 kg CO 2 per passenger km has been assumed.

85 Sources: www.climatecare.org , www.myclimate.org , www.carbonneutral.com , www.atmosfair.de

A recent transport study 86 compared emissions per passenger for rail and air, assuming 100% occupancy and for average occupancy (approximately 30% on Eurostar and 80% on Ryan Air). As can be seen ( Error! Reference source not found. ), train travel has significantly lower emissions per passenger, especially when occupancy rates are increased.

Table 11: Comparison of the emissions associated with 100% and average occupancy of journeys by rail and air Mode CO 2 emissions per 100 CO 2 emissions per 100 seat km (100% occupancy) passenger km (average occupancy) Class 91 East Coast train at 200 1651 5504 kph Eurostar at 300 kph 2580 8600 Ryan Air 6165 7707 757-300 7045 8807 Fokker F28 17761 22201

Whilst this report focuses on the transport of people, it is worth mentioning that rail also has an important role to play in transporting goods, for example, Network Rail estimate that one average freight train can remove 50 HGVs journeys from our roads, as well as producing significantly less emissions. 87 Buses and coaches On a mile of roadway coaches can carry nearly five hundred people whilst cars can carry thirty. On an area of M25 examined, the carrying capacity of cars was found to be 15,000-20,000 whilst in coaches this increased to 260,000. An intercity network of coaches could significantly reduce the amount of roads needed, as well as moving people more efficiently and reducing emissions. In addition, coaches are also more efficient in terms of cost. For example, a coach costing £150,000 can carry people on nearly 100,000 substantial person journeys per year, whereas ten cars costing £15,000 each (i.e. £150,000 in total) 88 would on average do approximately 10,000 similar journeys . CO 2 per passenger km are consequently much lower due to higher occupancy rates and efficiency savings.

86 http://www.transwatch.co.uk/transport-pdfs/transport-fact-sheet-5b.pdf February 2007 87 http://www.freightonrail.org.uk/FactsFigures.htm 88 Monbiot, George, Heat – How to Stop the Planet Burning, Penguin Books, 2006

Transport Scenarios for Sutton

This section uses personal transport data for an average Sutton resident and looks at how to achieve a more sustainable, One Planet level of CO 2 emissions. CO 2 is more pertinent to transport than Ecological Footprint and will be used as the metric for assessing the sustainability of different transport scenarios.

Research published by scientists at the Met Office 89 indicates that a reduction in biocapacity coupled with a projected growth in global population, means that carbon emissions per person should be no greater than 1.2 tonnes CO 2.

90 Table 12 shows the distance Sutton residents currently travel by each mode at current occupancy rates . The total CO 2 (including embodied energy, capital investment in transport services such as roads, airports etc) for the current scenario is 2,239 kg. Of this, 2,028 kg relates to ‘personal transport’ – the elements of transport that residents have some control over, including distance travelled by each mode and vehicle ownership.

A 90% reduction in personal transport CO2 equated to just 203 kg per capita; the equivalent of just 1,993 kilometers per year (5.4 per day) in an average petrol car. However, it is unlikely that the reductions in CO 2 can be achieved across all areas (food for example) and so greater reductions may be needed with housing and transport.

Table 12 Occupancy Passenger (% of seats Transport mode km occupied) Car 5282 31% Motorcycle 33 55% Other private transport 411 50% Local bus 465 20% Non-local bus 82 27% Taxi 74 34% Train 897 26% Other public transport 116 50% International air travel 3245 69% Domestic air travel 76 69%

89 Chris D. Jones et al., Strong Carbon Cycle Feedbacks in a Climate Model with Interactive CO 2 and Sulphate Aerosols Geophysical Research Letters, Vol 30 (9 May 2003), p 1479 90 REAP

There are significant opportunities for increasing occupancy, thereby decreasing CO 2 per passenger km, changing transport mode and reducing distance travelled. The following scenarios have been modelled using REAP: • Scenario A: Current Sutton personal transport • Scenario B: Occupancy of all vehicles increased by 25% • Scenario C: Modal change; all car, motorbike, taxi and plane journeys done by bus and train. Ownership of private cars and motorbikes was reduced to zero. • Scenario D: 50% decrease in distance travelled • Scenario E: Increased occupancy, modal change and decreased distance (scenarios B to D combined)

The scenarios are simplistic in that elements of transport can be isolated in a way that they can not in real life. However, the Scenarios do give an indication as to the extent to which transport habits in the borough need to change. BioRegional can use REAP to estimate likely impacts of Sutton’s transport policies and this will be valuable in determining what steps to take to reduce transport impacts to a sustainable One Planet Level.

Table 13: Sutton Transport Scenarios

70%

60%

50%

40%

30% % reduction CO2 20%

10%

0% A: Sutton B: Increased C: Modal change D: Reduced E: Scenarios B average occupancy distance to D combined

Table 13 shows that despite shifting all car and plane transport to bus and train, reducing distance by all modes by 50% and increasing occupancy of vehicles by 25%, we still only reach a 61% decrease in personal transport CO 2. As well as modal change and reducing distances travelled, there is a clear need for alternative fuels if we are to achieve a 90% reduction.

There is the potential to use biofuels such as waste cooking oil, oil seed rape, or ethanol from sugar beet. Of these waste vegetable oil gives the greatest CO 2 saving, but there is only a limited amount of waste vegetable oil in the UK. With other biofuels there may be insufficient agricultural land available in the UK for their production. Importing biofuels could result in increased deforestation in countries such as Indonesia and Brazil. Another option is to use electric vehicles powered by renewable electricity. More research is needed on alternative fuels. What is clear is that changing mode and increasing occupancy of vehicles is not enough, we also need to find ways of reducing the need to travel, for example through the provision of local shops, employment and leisure facilities.

Sutton Council’s Staff Travel

Sutton Council’s travel plan (A Corporate Travel Strategy For 2007-2012) is designed to be regularly reviewed and updated by Smarter Travel Sutton and EMAS officers to ensure that it remains effective and accountable. The most recent version of the plan was released in May 2008. It is a thorough and well considered plan, so rather than introducing new actions now, it is preferable to reassess the current plan after a year and then adjust according to performance and with One Planet Living in Sutton targets in mind. A staff travel survey will be undertaken in June and July 2009. The results of this survey will be analysed and the travel plan will be updates in September/ October 2009. The revised travel plan will be approved by March 2010.

Current actions in the Corporate Travel Strategy include: • Reviewing and installing cycle parking facilities. • Assessing showers, lockers and changing facilities with a view to improvement. • Introducing an incremental car parking management policy which will result in the loss of car parking spaces and charging for parking. • Reviewing the definition of essential car and casual car allowances with the view encouraging sustainable transport where possible. • Block booking of car club cars for Council use. • Introducing a salary sacrifice scheme where staff can purchase bicycles and equipment at up to 50% of the retail cost. • Providing and maintaining pool bikes. • Exploring the possibility of using pool oyster cards. • Setting up a steering group and champions to push the travel plan forward. • Developing dedicated travel plan internet and intranet pages. • Designing and distributing a staff travel guide.

Sustainable Transport for residents

Behavioural change Smarter Travel Sutton is a 3 year sustainable transport programme that runs until September 2009. The overarching aim is to reduce residents’ car trips in the Borough by 5-10% by September 2009 from a baseline of 49%. The primary aim is to encourage residents to change their mode of transport from single occupancy cars to public transport, walking and cycling by offering personalised travel advice.

Smarter Travel advisors visited over 70,000 households in Sutton. They managed to speak to 66% of those households (with the remaining 34% not being at home after 3 call attempts). Of those householders who were home and able to have a conversation with one of the advisors, almost 70% requested more information. Another element of the programme is an Active Steps project in which health advisors advise patients to walk and cycle and refer them to a motivational advisor if it will be beneficial to their health. This project aims to encourage up to 10,000 people to increase their take up of walking and cycling as part of their everyday journeys.

The next step in terms of behavioural change is to communicate the idea of a ‘fair share’ of transport and the different impacts of transport modes. This is important in enabling residents to make informed choices.

Transport provision Following the success of the Smarter Travel Sutton behavioural campaign, the Council has begun work to ensure that the benefits are ‘locked in’ – i.e. the number of car journeys doesn’t creep up from the 5-10% decrease STS set out to achieve. The measures proposed are set out in Enabling Smarter Travel Choices: Sutton's Sustainable Transport Policy and Action Plan 2008 91 but briefly comprise:

Walking The aim is to develop “ped sheds” around district centres; 3 - 800m (10 minute) walking catchments - with a particular focus on “key walking routes” – major pedestrian desire lines into the centres and to key destinations. A range of measures will be introduced to provide continuous, convenient and comfortable pedestrian access.

Cycling A comprehensive cycle network for the Borough, together with improved storage/ parking facilities and signage.

Public Transport Cycle and pedestrian access to stations will be improved. Bus stops will be made fully accessible, as well good quality facilities will be provided, such as seating, lighting and litter bins. More broadly, the operation of buses through the area will be considered. If current measures will be considered to improve the speed and reliability of bus passage through the area through the creation of additional bus priority or through traffic management alterations, such as removal of on-street parking where it is hampering bus access to and from stops.

Other measures that might be considered include: • Partial or full road closures to restrict through traffic (whilst allowing pedestrian and cyclist access); • Creation of “residential traffic cells” where road closures and other traffic restrictions are used to discourage rat-running, such that only traffic with a destination inside the cell will access it. This will help to reduce traffic speeds and volumes, making the areas more amenable for walking and cycling; • Creation of 20mph zones on residential streets in order to control traffic speeds, to enhance conditions for walking and cycling or the creation of Home Zones; • Creation of controlled parking zones to solve problems of excess parking and the attendant road safety/ amenity problems they can cause.

The proposals in the Transport Policy and Action Plan 2008 are good. However, it is important to note that the Plan proposes that infrastructure changes ‘lock- in’ the reductions made by STS, not to further them, and this needs to be rectified and the plan revised to reflect One Planet Living targets for Sustainable Transport. Currently only transport for Hackbridge is mentioned in terms of One Planet Living, whereas transport for the whole Borough needs to meet these aims, though specific projects may be trialled in Hackbridge prior to rolling out to the whole Borough.

91 http://www.smartertravelsutton.org/_uploads/documents/SustainableTransportPolicyandActionPlanJune2008.pdf

Sustainable Transport for organisations Every school in Sutton now has a Travel Plan – a fantastic achievement – and the only action needed is to continue to give schools that support and to ensure that they set year on year improvement targets, in line with One Planet Living transport targets. This is explored further in the Sustainable School Travel Strategy 2008-9 DRAFT October 2008.

Smarter Travel Sutton aims to have provided 23% of the employees in the Borough with Travel Plans by March 2009. There are 5,630 businesses in Sutton and only 390 (7%) of these businesses have more than 20 employees. However, it is likely these businesses account for the majority of the workforce and it should be possible to reach the majority of workers by providing the larger businesses with travel plans.

The 2001 Census data indicates that there is a strong local workforce in Sutton. In 2001 there were 66,707 people working in the Borough and 57% (38,226) of these people also lived in Sutton. It is likely therefore, that the majority of worker will be reached either at home 92 or at work, or both. It would only be those workers who travel into Sutton from another Borough, and work for a businesses with less than 20 employees that would not have received travel advice.

92 It is envisaged that every home in the Borough will have access to a tailored Sustainability Action Plan and this will cover transport

Sustainability Action Plan – Sustainable Transport

Sutton Council Staff Travel & Fleet

Ref Target Baseline Indicator Monitoring Comments

T3.1 CO 2 emissions from Sutton Council fleet and travel for work to Tbc CO 2 emissions EMAS reduce by 50% by 2017

T3.2 Less than 10% of Council staff to travel to and from work as 51% 2007 % staff driving to/ EMAS/ staff single occupants of cars by 2017 from work alone travel survey

Ref Actions Who Timing Resource Comments implication

A3.1 Review staff travel plan in light of the new targets Travel team 2010 Cost implication

A3.2 Incorporate new transport targets into EMAS Katrina Lloyd 2010 Cost neutral

Borough-wide

Ref Target Baseline Indicator Monitoring Comments

T3.3 Biennial poll of 1100 residents 93 shows that 50% have 33% baseline in % of residents MORI poll received and acted on Sustainable Transport advice by 2012 2006/7 94

93 Existing MORI poll 94 From PTP exercise

T3.4 50% reduction in CO 2 from road transport within Sutton 269,000 tonnes of Defra (NI CO 2 in 2005 186) T3.6 All new developments to include 1 bike space per resident and Presence of bike DC 1 bike space per employee and all new developments of 20+ spaces in new homes to include a car share vehicle i.e. through a car club developments

T3.7 All new developments to have a maximum of 0.6 car parking Number of car spaces per household parking spaces in new developments

T3.8 All new development to reduce the need travel by providing Mixed nature of new live, work, retail and leisure space, or being situated in walking development distance of existing facilities.

T3.9 100% of households and businesses to be within 400m of a 82% % of households and EMAS bus stop with frequent bus service (at least 3 per hour) businesses

Ref Actions Who Timing Resource Comments implication

A3.3 Continue to provide travel plan advice to residents in the All Ongoing Cost Borough (also as part of general One Planet Living implication Communications)

A3.4 Review Enabling Smarter Travel Choices: Sutton's STS 2008 Cost The plan is in Sustainable Transport Policy and Action Plan 2008 to ensure implication draft form and that it reflects One Planet Living targets revisions can still be made. However, there may be cost implications for the measures themselves, if not for the plan.

A3.5 Incorporate new transport requirements for new build into the Planning 2009 Cost saving Developers can LDF save money by reducing car parking

A3.6 Improve transport infrastructure and provision in each of the Council/ JMP 2010 - ongoing Cost district centres, to include; more cycle and pedestrian paths, implication improved public transport service, more car clubs, pedestrian only areas and speed restrictions.

A3.7 Develop a broad sustainable parking policies to encourage Parking services Ongoing Cost neutral use of less polluting vehicles to include an equality and diversity assessment to protect less well off households

Businesses

Ref Target Baseline Indicator Monitoring Comments

T3.10 100% of businesses with 20+ employees to have travel plans 77 out of 390 Number of EMAS by 2020 businesses have businesses with travel plans travel plans

T3.11 Alternative fuels including waste cooking oil and renewable Tbc Number & location of EMAS electricity charging points available in at least 1 filling station filling stations per district centre by 2015 stocking alternative fuels

Ref Actions Who Timing Resource Comments implication

A3.8 Continue to provide travel plan support to businesses in the Travel team, Ongoing Cost neutral Borough SWELTRAC and CEN

A3.9 Encourage garages to stock alternative fuels e.g. waste Travel team From 2009 Cost neutral Could start with cooking oil and renewable electricity Therapia Lane to supply Council fleet and then expand

Local and Sustainable Materials The sustainable use of materials covers both construction materials and consumer goods, both long and short lived. The target is to bring this in line with One Planet Living, i.e. a two third reduction in Ecological Footprint and a 90% reduction in the embodied CO 2 of these materials. The average Sutton resident buys consumer goods annually that account for 0.79 gha Ecological Footprint (15%) and 1.62 tonnes of personal CO 2 (14%). In addition there is the significant impact of construction materials for housing, public service infrastructure and businesses. The use of construction materials has a significant impact and account for: 19% of the UK’s Ecological Footprint, 23% of the UK’s total greenhouse gas emissions, 420 million tonnes of material and 30% of all road freight on UK roads.

Some reduction can be made by using more sustainable alternatives to standard products, but ultimately this will require a shift for consumer society away from building and buying new things, to a focus on repair, refurbishment and maintenance. Sutton Council can have a significant impact on the materials they buy through their procurement policies. To a much lesser extent the Council can influence residents. The majority of ‘green lifestyle’ articles in the mainstream media focus on buying sustainable products. Advice on Local and Sustainable Materials can be given as part of One Planet Living communications, but the likely impact of communicating a ‘buy less’ message is unknown. Practical projects should focus on making it easy for residents to share goods and hire rather than buy new. Sutton Council can also influence construction practises in the Borough through planning policy and this will also be explored.

Local and Sustainable Materials – long term targets Target date All new development and refurbishment in the Borough should use: 20% reclaimed materials by value, 25% recycled From 2010 content by value and 50% local materials by weight

Sutton Council

Procurement Policy Sutton Council procures goods and services worth £150,000,000 annually and every pound spent needs to reflect the values of One Planet Living as well as delivering best value for the Council and the residents of the Borough. Goods and services are procured for the Council by: 1. Procurement team 2. IT (covered Zero Carbon) 3. Construction 4. Departments All teams are expected to follow procurement policies but the extent to which this happens is variable. With goods and services individual departments buy, the staff may not have the knowledge they need to make ethical procurement choices.

Sutton Council has made a commitment to save 3% per annum on procurement from 2008-09 to 2010-11. Buying fewer goods leads to a lower Ecological Footprint so this policy is beneficial in terms of sustainability as well as delivering better value to tax payers. Ethical procurement policy also has to deliver cost savings. However, the Council’s procurement team consider whole life costing and are not obliged to choose the lowest quote for a product or service. For example, if one product is cheaper but may have high waste disposal costs, the Council may choose a more expensive product with low waste disposal costs. Social and environmental costs may also be considered as well as financial implications.

Sutton Council’s procurement policy also needs to reflect the values of the National Procurement Strategy, the key themes of which are: • Providing leadership and building capacity • Partnering and Collaboration • Doing business electronically • Stimulating markets and achieving community benefits • Corporate procurement strategy developed, owned by: chief executives, members and senior officers • Strategy's implementation regularly measured • Approach to partnering in construction and service delivery set out • Approach to collaboration and new trading powers set out • Appraisal of service delivery models included in Best Value reviews • Staff consulted on employment issues in procurement processes and contracts • 2003 Act and 03/2003 Circular built into processes and contracts • Publish a Selling to the Council guide (website) • Ensure corporate procurement strategy is addressing sustainability and equality issues, helps to achieve the community plan and involves the voluntary sector • Conclude a compact with the local voluntary and community sectors

The Council’s Rules of Procedure 95 state:

• Where the value of supply is above £5,000 (per order or per annum based on the value of supply in the previous financial year) all suppliers and contractors must have a documented environmental policy. • Where the value of the supply is above £100,000 all suppliers and contractors, must either have a registered environmental management system, for example ISO14001 or EMAS, or implement an environmental improvement programme. The Council will agree the programme and monitor performance yearly.

Most goods or services procured are done so through the Council’s online procurement system Agresso. The Procurement team need to set each supplier up on Agresso if staff want to order from them and so are in a position to check the ethical credentials of suppliers.

95 Rules of Procedure Revised July 2006

For contracts £100,000 the Council is a strong position to influence contractors’ sustainability performance and can lead by example by making the Council’s EMAS validated Annual Environmental Performance Report and this Sustainability Action Plan available as best practise case-studies.

For those contracts between £5,000 and £100,000 Sutton Council are not in a good position to influence environmental performance, or other aspects of corporate social responsibility. The fact that a contractor has a documented environmental policy does not in itself mean that they behave in a way that limits their impact on the environment. A supplier of locally produced, vegetarian food is likely to have a vastly reduced Ecological Footprint compared to a supplier of imported meat and fish based food, regardless of whether either company had an environmental policy or not. Furthermore, both EMAS and ISO14001 only require that an organisation monitor environmental performance and improve, they do not require that an organisation work towards best practise benchmarks for that product or service. It would seem sensible therefore, that the Council makes this a requirement as part of their procurement policy. As an alternative to EMAS and ISO14001, Council contractors could opt to implement a One Planet Living Sustainability Action Plan, for which BioRegional could provide a template and guidance.

Requiring an environmental policy could also preclude small and micro enterprises from acting as suppliers for contracts of this size as they are less likely to have one. As the vast majority of businesses in Sutton are micro, with less than four employees, local, small businesses could be being put at a disadvantage. This could be detrimental to the local economy. If Council money is re-spent locally then it helps to strengthen Sutton’s economy. The procurement team acknowledge this and will sometimes select suppliers on the proviso that they introduce environmental management, if the preferred supplier does not yet do this.

Sutton’s Commissioning & Procurement Strategy 2008-2011 acknowledges that “environmental requirements are based upon contract value rather than the environmental impact of each procurement” and timetables a revised approach. Step one is to identify the highest areas of environmental impact in procurement spend and come up with guidance for those products and services. Step two is to revise the Council’s environmental stance to concentrate environmental procurement attention to where there is the greatest environmental impact and ability to reduce it.” Through REAP BioRegional can rank these services by Ecological Footprint and pollution although other factors like embodied water also need to be considered. Until BioRegional have done the analysis it is difficult to propose bespoke recommendations though, from experience, recommendations are likely to include avoiding disposal goods and products with high embodied energy. Alternatives tend to be made from recycled, reclaimed and low impact materials, products with longer lifespan and products that cane be recycled or re-used.

Case study: Furniture re-use Furniture is often landfilled during refurbishment. However there are a number of companies that resell furniture for commercial and residential applications, for example Green-Works. Almost all of BioRegional’s office furniture comes from these sources. BioRegional Reclaimed’s involvement in the redevelopment of three schools in Lambeth resulted in the reuse of nine tonnes of school furniture by local youth and charity groups.

The Commissioning & Procurement Strategy makes reference to: • Social Sustainability • Equality and Diversity • Environmental Procurement • Economic Sustainability

However, it is not possible to provide guidance as to how these considerations are weighted or to what extent these aspects of ethical procurement outweigh the need to reduce Council costs. For all products and services that the procurement team buy the process is bespoke. If there is a conflict between the different aspects of sustainable procurement, the weighting could be different depending on the product or service.

New Economics Foundation have developed two tools which could help Sutton Council assess the impact of their spending on the residents and businesses in the Borough, the Local Multiplier Tool or LM3 96 and the Social Return on Investment (SROI) tool. 97

Training BioRegional held an ethical procurement workshop with EMAS representatives on 08/09/2008 which revealed that there was confusion as to what to buy, and what seems to be needed is a single point of contact so that staff could seek advice before making a decision, or some training and guidance to empower them to make informed decisions. What they did not want is another strategy or policy and it does seem that the existing guidance documents are not generally read by staff before making a decision. For this reason BioRegional feel that training is the best option.

Construction Materials As a One Planet Living Borough, Sutton Council will need to follow the following guidance for construction projects, and include this guidance in planning policies:

• Measure the embodied CO 2 of the development • Design to minimise infrastructure – i.e. reduced car parking/roads – which will favour adaptation of existing infrastructure before building new • Minimise the impact of construction and estate management through the use of low impact, durable and robust construction materials; timber products and local reclaimed and reused materials • Design for reuse to ensure the impact of the materials can be spread over more than the lifetime of this project, design for deconstruction (such as use of lime mortar for brick wall construction) • Retention and utilisation of as much as possible of existing built environment as possible (avoid demolishing existing ‘carbon capital’) • Design for easy maintenance and longevity • Avoidance of high impact materials (e.g. PVC, Aluminium)

Sutton Council’s Construction and Property Services Sutton Council’s Construction and Property Service is responsible for all non-domestic Council buildings: from schools to libraries and leisure centres. The department has an average turnover of £25m per year and an average of 10-12 projects are on site at any one time. The Council is responsible for appointing

96 “LM3 is an impact measurement tool that enables organisational leaders – from social enterprises to businesses to local authorities – to measure how income to their organisation or initiative is spent and re-spent in the local economy, especially when that local economy is in need of regeneration. The purpose of tracking and measuring this spending is to identify opportunities to strengthen linkages in the local economy so that efforts can be made to keep money circulating locally. 97 SROI aims to maximise the ‘public value’ created by tax payers’ money and public procurement policy.

the architects, conducting the feasibility study and project management, including framework agreements and contractor management. It also maintains ownership and responsibility for buildings for up to 12 months after construction has been completed. There is therefore significant scope to influence the impact of construction materials in this area.

The department is already demonstrating best practice in requiring all new projects larger than £0.5m (which makes up the majority) to meet BREEAM standards (Very Good). Contractors and suppliers must also comply with the Greening the Supply Chain Standing Order 55 which requires contractors and suppliers to have an environmental management system and improvement plan; for contracts worth over £100,000 an environmental assessment is carried out and the department also has a specific EMAS Action Plan. There is an opportunity to use EMAS to include the One Planet Living construction targets of 20% reclaimed materials by value, 25% recycled content by value and 50% local materials by weight.

It is important to note that whilst best practice is being followed there is a balance to be made between environmental performance and construction costs, for example, in some cases projects have no longer been feasible in Sutton due to these higher costs. It is therefore important to find a balance between cost and environmental performance whilst working towards achieving the One Planet Living targets. As the department is already doing well, the actions will focus on reclamation which is an area that has not been developed as much and can deliver cost savings as well as considerable environmental savings, though eventually, all of the targets need to be met.

Case study: Middleton Circle library in Sutton was due for demolition but had recently built a new extension. Research was undertaken to find an end use for the extension and the extension ended up being used in a local school, saving both organisations money.

Planning Policy The Council also has an important role in influencing the impact of construction materials through its planning policy. The LDF should reflect the One Planet Living construction targets and guidance outlines above.

Consumer Goods (residents)

The impact of consumer goods in on Sutton Residents’ Ecological Footprint and CO 2 is shown in Table 14.

Table 14 Ecological Annual impact of consumables by private Footprint CO 2 CO 2 households in Sutton per capita 98 gha kg % Tobacco 0.02 10 1 Clothing 0.03 126 8 Footwear 0.01 34 2 Furniture, furnishings, carpets and other floor coverings 0.06 150 9 Household textiles 0.02 59 4 Household appliances 0.13 262 16 Glassware, tableware and household utensils 0.01 32 2 Tools and equipment for house and garden 0.02 40 2 Medical products, appliances and equipment 0.01 34 2 Telephone and telefax equipment 0.00 3 0 Audio-visual, photo and inf. processing equipment 0.09 210 13 Other major durables for recreation and culture 0.01 19 1 Other recreational items & equipment 0.16 156 10 Newspapers, books and stationery 0.04 85 5 Personal care (e.g. cosmetics) 0.04 97 6 Personal effects (e.g. jewelry, watches) 0.14 267 17 Capital investment 0.01 34 2 Total 0.79 1617 100

While many of these goods have a high environmental impact, they are also perceived to contribute to quality of life. Personal effects (e.g. jewelry, watches) account for 267 kg of CO 2 per annum, 17% of the CO 2 impact of consumer goods or 2.3% of a resident’s total CO 2 footprint. But it is not the Council’s place to

98 REAP

advise people on what not to buy. What can be done is to encourage residents to measure their Ecological Footprint so that they understand where their impacts lie, and can then choose where to make reductions. Through One Planet Living and other Council communications, partners can promote re-use and buying second hand goods by providing information about where and how to do so. There is potential for the Kimpton Park Way Civic Amenity site to be used as a re-use centre and this is explored in the Zero Waste section.

In new developments and refurbishments, there is significant potential to reduce the impact of furniture, furnishings, and carpets and other floor coverings, household textiles and household appliances which together make up 29% of the impact of consumer goods. The developer can choose items with lower impacts though of course can not influence what residents will choose once they move in. For common household appliances that are not typically used daily, central and communal facilities could be included instead of each home having an appliance. Communal laundry facilities, for example, are common in the US and in some Scandinavian countries. Neighbourhood lending centres could be built into a development lending items to residents such as vacuums, brooms, mops, lawn mowers, ladders, hoses, etc, so that residents don’t all need to buy individual items. These are not new ideas – tool hire shops and launderettes are both common place – but also need to be on the checklist for sustainable development.

If a community is close knit, sharing goods becomes much more likely. In a recent BedZED residents’ survey 99 when BioRegional asked what the village square was used for, one resident responded: “I use the village square for bring and buy, jumble sales, BBQs, petanque, generally I stand there if I need to borrow a drill or a phone and wait for someone to walk by.” So by providing a community space and encouraging a sense of community, through good design and community activities, a developer can also help to reduce the impact of consumer goods.

99 BedZED Monitoring Report 2007, Jessica Hodge and Julia Haltrecht, BioRegional

Sustainability Action Plan - Local and Sustainable Materials

Ref Target Baseline Indicator Monitoring Comments

T4.1 All new development in the Borough and all Council Not known % of materials Development To be included development and refurbishment should use: 20% reclaimed fulfilling the criteria control and in procurement materials by value, 25% recycled content by value and 50% EMAS policy and the local materials by weight LDF

Ref Actions Who Timing Resource Comments implication

A4.1 Include Local and Sustainable Materials targets in the LDF Planning 2009 Cost neutral Should be cost and other relevant planning policy neutral for developer and council

A4.2 Encourage developers to include communal appliances and Planning 2009 Cost saving lending centres

A4.3 Introduce the requirement that all contractors for contracts Procurement team 2009 Cost neutral This should be a worth more than £100,000 are required to have an requirement for environmental management system and be working towards all new contracts best practise for that product or service. and should be introduced when existing contacts are renewed.

A4.4 Include One Planet Living as an approved EMS for suppliers Procurement team 2009 Cost neutral If the Council and contractors. and BioRegional move from EMAS to One Planet Living, it would make sense to also offer this as an option to suppliers

A4.5 Introduce ethical procurement training for EMAS reps for Katrina Lloyd 2009 Cost neutral Contracts over contracts under £5,000/ annum that are generally procured by this size go departments through the central procurement team

A4.6 Rank Council procurement of goods and services according to BioRegional 2009 Cost neutral BioRegional can Ecological Footprint and pollution do this as part of contract if the Council provide spend on different sectors. Info has been requested from Teresa Robson.

A4.7 Find best practise alternatives or guidance for those products Procurement team 2009/10 Cost neutral This is already in and services with the highest impacts. Review contracts and the environmental management programmes accordingly. Commissioning Incorporate changes into Agresso and Procurement Strategy

A4.8 Consider establishing an Ecological Footprint baseline for the Procurement team 2010 Cost Council’s operations using Triple Bottom Line implication £20,000

A4.9 Whilst some elements such as temporary roads and Construction and From 2010 Cost saving construction boards are being re-used there may be scope to Property Services increase this. A list of re-useable materials should be developed and responsibility for re-use assigned.

A4.10 Ensure that a reclamation survey is undertaken for each Construction and From 2010 Cost saving demolition project and where feasible link with new or existing Property Services developments to re-use

A4.11 Most projects have significant storage space (such as car Construction and From 2010 Cost saving parks) – these could be used to store re-useable materials for Property Services re-use on the site or neighbouring developments / set up roving material re-use centre on unused land during development

A4.12 Link up with local material re-use centre when/ if one is Construction and Not known Cost saving established in Sutton Property Services

A4.13 Keeping up to date with sustainable construction materials Construction and Cost This reduced could be achieved through access to ‘One Planet Products’ Property Services implication of cost applies methodology and technical support £5,000 per when Sutton http://www.oneplanetproducts.com/ annum become an official One Planet Living Partner

Local and Sustainable Food

The One Planet Living Local and Sustainable Food Principle considers measures to minimise food-related carbon dioxide emissions and other environmental impacts. This includes promoting and enabling the consumption of local, seasonal and organic produce, with reduced amounts of animal protein. Initiatives to support increased consumption of fresh food are acknowledged in benefiting health and wellbeing. Reducing food waste and packaging are covered in the Zero Waste principle though inevitably there is some overlap between the principles.

The emphasis of practical projects should be on access to and provision of healthy and sustainable food in the Borough. However, making such foods available does not mean that people will choose them. The sustainability of food will be explained to residents as part of One Planet Living in Sutton communications so that residents are able to make informed choices, but again, this does not mean that they will. There is parity with campaigns for healthy diets. A recent WHO report asserted that “ heart disease is caused not by a lack of coronary care units but by the lives people lead, which are shaped by the environments in which they live; obesity is not caused by moral failure on the part of individuals but by the excess availability of high-fat and high-sugar foods.” 100 It could be argued that ‘excess availability’ of those foods is in turn caused by consumer demand; certainly the Council need to approach the problem from both sides; supply and demand; while recognising that Council influence is limited.

Together with partners, the Council needs to find ways of bringing down the cost of healthy and sustainable food or it is unlikely that residents with low incomes will make that choice. This will be the major factor in making sustainable food accessible.

While Ecological Footprinting shows us that there is more than sufficient global hectares of grazing and crop land, the growing population and the competing demands on land for energy and materials, means that we also need to significantly reduce the Footprint of our food consumption. Around 20% of the UK’s contributions to greenhouse gas emissions are caused by our food and drink 101 .

BioRegional’s research 102 shows that the most effective method of reducing the environmental impact of the food we eat is to follow an animal free diet and not to waste any food. As a vegan diet is not likely to be popular with all of the UK population it is interesting to note that if a low meat organic diet is followed then there is not a significant difference between the low meat and vegan diets. Overall it would be possible to reduce the impact of the food we eat by over 55% simply by changing our diets and being more careful about where the food we eat has come from and how it has been produced. The scenarios BioRegional assessed are: • Low waste; a 30% reduction in food waste is assumed • Organic agriculture; balances the impact of reduced artificial inputs against reduced yields • Low transport; assumes that where possible food is sourced locally • Dietary change; as meat and dairy can have an ecological footprint ten times that of vegetables for the same weight this option assesses the impact of both a low meat diet and also an animal-protein free diet.

100 Closing the gap in a generation: Health equity through action on the social determinants of health, WHO http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2008/9789241563703_eng.pdf 101 Feeding the Olympics 102 Z-squared: The impact of food; Providing Sustainable Diets in the Thames Gateway, Benjamin Gill, BioRegional Consulting Ltd 15.07.05

Figure 8 shows the possible Footprint reductions for each of the scenarios. In Scenario A, 0% represents the Average UK diet, compared to which a low meat diet offers a further 27 percentage point reduction and a vegan diet has a further 36 percentage point reduction. While the following scenarios show further reductions, it is clear that the two major impacts are animal protein and waste. Scenario B’s low meat diet offers a 22 percentage point reduction compared to Scenario A, whereas Scenario E’s low meat diet only shows a further 8 percentage point reduction compared to scenario B.

Figure 8: Food Ecological Footprint Reduction Scenarios

60% Average UK diet Low meat diet Vegan diet 50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% A: Standard B: Low food waste C: Low waste, D: Low waste, low E: Organic, low organic transport transport, low waste

Our REAP analysis of BedZED 103 shows that a resident with a healthy vegetarian diet with 30% reduced food waste, could achieve a food Footprint of 0.67 gha and this seems like an appropriate target for Sutton residents, provided that they have the same access to affordable organic food as BedZED residents and that guidance is given on diet and food waste. It is important to note that there is greater potential for reducing food waste. WRAP estimate that 30% of

103 BedZED Monitoring Report 2007, Jessica Hodge and Julia Haltrecht

food bought by consumers is wasted; whereas the low waste scenario only assumes a 30% reduction in food waste i.e. 21% food waste instead of 30%. If wastage food processing and through discarding of misshaped Vegetables were included the reduction in Ecological Footprint would be even lower.

The Living Planet Report 104 suggests that reducing the Ecological Footprint of food “is achievable without decreasing calorific intake or the nutritional value of food consumed by reducing the proportion of global crop used for animal feed.” 105

Given that residents are already able to change their diets to achieve the target food Footprint 0.67 gha, the Action Plan for this principle will focus on making it easy for residents to choose low impact food. There is a lack of understanding of the real impacts of food, and workshops with residents have shown that there is a much greater awareness of food miles than the other, more important aspects of sustainable food procurement.

Local and Sustainable Food – long term targets Target date Increase the number of residents choosing low meat diets to 75% from a UK baseline of 33% 2020 Increase the number of residents eating 5 or more portions of fruit and vegetables per day to 75% from a UK baseline of 2020 24%

Baseline Residents of the London Borough of Sutton have an average food Ecological Footprint of 1.31 gha which is 0.7 gha higher than the UK median and 0.21 gha higher than the Borough of Corby which has the lowest per capita Footprint in the UK 106 , though 0.1 gha lower than the highest which is Kensington and Chelsea. Ecological Footprint is linked to wealth - Kensington and Chelsea also has the highest average household income in the UK.

We do not have a baseline for the Council’s food consumption but will base the Council’s food procurement policies on the Ecological Footprint of different foods and so a current baseline for the target is not needed.

What is a sustainable diet? Fruit and Vegetables It is recommended that a healthy diet should include at least five portions of a variety of fruit and vegetables (excluding potatoes) a day. The 2003 Health Survey for Britain shows that on average “ women consumed 3.5 portions per day and men consumed 3.2 portions. More women (26%) than men (22%) consumed

104 Living Planet Report 2006, WWF 105 Living Planet Report 2006, WWF, p24 106 Carbon Footprints Ecological Footprints Data Comparison Tool 2007 (2001 data) REAP

the recommended amount of five or more portions of fruit and vegetables per day” 107 . Although the ‘5 a day’ campaign asks people to eat five or more portions of fruit or vegetables, Ecological Footprinting may show that a greater proportion of vegetables than fruit is needed to ensure that environmental as well as health benefits are realised.

In 2006, 24 per cent of adults (aged 16 or over) in England were classified as obese 108 . This represents an overall increase from 15 per cent in 1993. Improving health in the Borough is a priority for the Council, PCT, NHS and One Planet Living (this is explored further in the Health and Happiness section) and clearly promoting a low meat, high vegetable diet can help us reduce the Ecological Footprint of residents and improve health.

Low meat, dairy and fish We do not have a baseline for the percentage of Sutton residents who are vegetarian or choose a low-meat diet. Research and industry sales figures indicate that a third of the UK population eat meat only occasionally 109 and over 7% of UK adults consider themselves to be vegetarian 110 and BioRegional have used these figures as the Sutton baseline.

A low meat diet in itself is not necessarily a health benefit. Previous studies of vegetarian diets have shown that they lead to higher life expectancy but it is likely to because of lifestyle or other dietary factors rather than the proportion of meat.

"British vegetarians have low mortality compared with the general population. Their death rates are similar to those of comparable non-vegetarians, suggesting that much of this benefit may be attributed to non-dietary lifestyle factors such as a low prevalence of smoking and a generally high socio- economic status, or to aspects of the diet other than the avoidance of meat and fish." 111

However, a low meat diet is essential in reducing our Ecological Footprint. Figure 82 shows that meat and dairy represent a significantly higher proportion of our Food Ecological Footprint than the rest of our diet. Furthermore meat and dairy tend to have much higher embodied water; a kilo of beef takes 16,000 litres to produce for example, and so a low meat and dairy diet is beneficial to global water resources.

107 Health Survey for England 108 Obesity classified as having a Body Mass Index (BMI) of over 30. BMI is kg/m2 109 Gallup Poll for Realeat, 2001 110 BMRB Access Panel research for Key Note May 2004 111 Timothy J, et al. , "Mortality in British vegetarians 2003

Figure 9: Ecological Footprint of food versus quantity consumed

100% meat products (8-18ha/t) 90% dairy products (3-15ha/t) vegetables (1-3ha/t) 80% cereals (2-3ha/t) 70% fats and oils (12ha/t)

60% fruit (1.6ha/t) other animal (fish, eggs) (7ha/t) 50% sugar (2ha/t) 40% alcohol (3ha/t) other 30%

20%

10%

0% quantity consumed Ecological Footprint The importance of a low meat and dairy diet is beginning to become known, aided by a recent call to change diets to mitigate climate change from Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 112 Camden Council’s Sustainability Task Force encountered political opposition when they tried to promote low meat diets to Council staff and residents, but as meat accounts for 18% of global greenhouse gas emissions it is a hugely important area to target and should be considered in a sensible way, through staff and resident engagement, as part of One Planet Living in Sutton.

The Living Planet Report reveals a 27% decline in the marine species index from 1970 to 2003 and a 28% decline in the freshwater species index. Fish has long been promoted as an essential part of a healthy diet although there is some debate about its importance.

“Public health advice is that people should eat at least two portions of fish a week, and that one should be oily. However, a recent study published in the British Medical Journal found that the benefits of the fatty acids in fish were unclear and particularly in relation to heart attacks, found “no strong evidence of a reduction in combined cardiovascular events”. 113

112 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7600005.stm 113 The Mayor’s Food Strategy, May 2006

Local food Although food miles are a relatively minor factor in the Ecological Footprint of food, there are many other benefits to choosing local food. As well as reducing the carbon dioxide emissions and pollution from transporting food, buying local food has obvious benefits to the local economy and helps to engender a sense of place. There is also a health benefit; storage of fresh produce reduces its vitamin content, this is especially apparent for the case of vitamin C in leafy vegetables where 90% of the vitamin C is lost within a day. Therefore local food initiatives, organic or otherwise, are helping to reduce ‘food miles’ while at the same time benefiting health by maximising the nutritional value of the produce.

If we do not heavily promote local food, food miles are likely to increase, especially as consumption of fruit and vegetables increase; “Food is travelling much further – between 1978-1999 “Food Miles” increased by 50% and now some 40% of all freight is related to food. 29% of the vegetables and 89% of the fruit we eat, for example, are imported.” 114 The easiest way to avoid air freighted food is to avoid out of season fruit and this is a simple message to convey to residents.

Organic Food Organic agriculture can help to reduce the energy used in food production because the use of artificial fertilisers and pesticides is either forbidden or restricted. This can lead to significant energy saving per kilogram of food produced, though generalisations are difficult as the reduction in energy inputs varies significantly, not just between food groups but also within them. For example for cabbage the energy saving (of organic cabbage compared to non-organic 115 cabbage) is over 70%, whereas for carrots it is only around 20% . An emphasis on organic food is important not only in reducing the CO 2 and Ecological Footprint of food but also for the benefits to biodiversity and possibly also for human health.

Food growing at home Growing food at home has health benefits, in terms of exercise and increased consumption of fruit and vegetables. There may also be a link between growing food and an awareness of what is seasonal, and therefore may decrease the purchase of unseasonal and therefore imported produce and produce grown locally but in heated green houses. Perhaps growing fruit is most important, given the high proportion of imported fruit and the importance of fruit in a healthy diet.

Packaging We would like to encourage residents to choose products with no or low packaging but this will be explored in more detail under Zero Waste.

114 The Mayor’s Food Strategy, May 2006 115 Z-squared: The impact of food; Providing Sustainable Diets in the Thames Gateway, Benjamin Gill, BioRegional Consulting Ltd 15.07.05

Council Procurement of Food The boundary for this scope of the Council’s internal target for food will be those suppliers listed on Agresso. This procurement system is used by all Council offices but not by all buildings. The Plan will also cover Sutton Catering which provides meals for primary schools and nurseries (although schools can chose not to use Sutton Catering).

The Plan will cover vending machines such in Council buildings but not food that staff buy off-site for themselves. Council staff buy their own tea, coffee, milk and sugar for the office. While some teams choose Fair Trade tea and coffee and organic milk, some do not. The Council have made a commitment to be a Fair Trade Council but this covers what they buy, not what their staff buy to consume in their offices. However, the Council could sell these items (perhaps through vending machines) to make it easier for staff, or as a minimum provide information and a list of local suppliers. The vending machines are controlled by the Council and these could be improved in terms of commitment to Fair Trade, healthy and sustainable food.

Sustainability Action Plan – Local and Sustainable Food

Food Procurement

Ref Target Baseline Indicator Monitoring Comments

T5.1 All food procured by the Council must meet the following Baseline not Proportions of EMAS criteria: established different food types • 75% of meals should be meat and dairy free procured • 30% of food by cost should be organic • 50% of food by cost should be local – within 50km of Sutton

Ref Actions Who Timing Resource Comments implication

A5.1 Specify minimum quantities vegetarian, organic and local food Procurement team 2009 Cost saving Food from animal for all contracts and orders, regardless of size. protein tends to be more expensive.

A5.2 Provide training for all food contractors on the environmental BioRegional 2009 Cost neutral impacts of food and workshop ideas on how to achieve the procurement target.

A5.3 Find out numbers, locations and stock in Council vending Survey & audit 2009 Cost neutral machines. Review food and drinks on offer through vending through EMAS reps machines in line with One Planet Living requirements and survey staff to better understand what they want.

A5.4 Communicate to Council staff the importance of buying fair Insight magazine 2009 Cost neutral trade/ organic tea, coffee, milk and sugar through Insight and EMAS reps. magazine and EMAS reps.

Food for the Borough

Ref Target Baseline Indicator Monitoring Comments

T5.2 100% of Sutton residents and workers should: Needs to be Distance of homes GIS or other o be within 400m (easy walking distance) of a established from these services mapping local & organic food supplier analysis o have access to food growing, either at home, work or in shared spaces o have received information on reducing the Footprint of their diet

T5.3 Enable easy food Footprint reduction to 0.67 gha 1.31 gha Food Ecological REAP Footprint analysis

T5.4 75% of residents will choose a low meat diet by 2020 33% (UK) Number of residents IPSOS Mori ‘Low meat’ choosing low meat poll defined as no diet more than 4 portions of meat or cheese per week. However, low meat was not defined for baseline.

T5.5 75% residents will eat 5 or more portions of fruit and 24% (England) Number of residents IPSOS Mori May need to vegetables per day by 2020 eating 5 or more/ day poll or specify proportion Health of vegetables Survey for within the total England

Ref Actions Who Timing Resource Comments implication

A5.5 Seek funding to help food businesses implement sustainable BioRegional/ LBS 2008/9 Cost saving Applying to food strategies National Lottery Local Food fund

A5.6 Seek funding to map current sustainable food provision in the BioRegional/ LBS 2008/9 Cost saving Applying to Borough and identify gaps. National Lottery Local Food fund

A5.7 Seek funding to facilitate the supply of affordable sustainable BioRegional/ LBS 2008/9 Cost neutral Applying to food in the Borough National Lottery Local Food fund

A5.8 For new developments with planned cafés, restaurants and 2009 Cost neutral food retail, provision of healthy, sustainable food in those outlets will be recommended through the LDF and by Development Control.

A5.9 Ensure that all new developments provide some private or Planning/ DC 2009 Cost neutral communal food growing space

A5.10 Communicate Sustainable Food to residents through the BioRegional/ LBS Ongoing Cost Part of website, media, home visits and workshops and other ‘green implication overarching lifestyles’ work communications strategy

Sustainable Water

Local supplies of freshwater are often insufficient to meet human needs due to pollution, disruption of hydrological cycles and depletion of existing stocks. The Sustainable Water Principle states that country-specific best practice standards in water efficiency and recycling must be agreed and that these targets will need to be stricter in areas with water shortage problems. This principle also requires that all residents must have access to safe potable water and that projects in areas of flood risk should have an acceptable 100 year flood risk strategy, both of which are already required in the UK.

The Local Context The South East of England is the driest area in the UK. Conversely, Sutton is also at risk of flooding, and both unpredictably and heavy downpours and lower annual rainfall are likely consequences of climate change.

The Sustainability Action Plan has to reflect the Council’s influence. The Council is responsible for: • Water in Council buildings • Water standards in new build (through planning regulations) • Flood risk (with the Environment Agency)

Sutton and East Surrey Water is responsible for providing potable water for the Borough and for reducing water consumption. Thames Water is responsible for removal and treatment of waste water. Sutton and East Surrey Water have a suite of water saving projects covering water conservation (behavioural change) as well as water saving technologies, for example, all business in the Borough can request a free water audit which will show them how to save water, and residents are eligible for free water saving devices for the toilet. Furthermore, Sutton and East Surrey aim to install water meters in all homes in the Borough by 2030. Sutton’s Sustainable Water Action Plan focuses on their areas of responsibility although the Council will give water advice to businesses and residents as part of their Sustainability Action Plans and will work with Sutton and East Surrey to ensure that this advice is consistent with best practise.

Sustainable Water – long term targets Target date All new build homes to have maximum mains water consumption of 80 litres per person per day 2014 All Council buildings to be water efficient to best practise standards e.g. <1.5 m 3/ office worker year 2017 Biennial poll of 1100 residents 116 shows that 50% have received and acted on water conservation guidance 2020

116 Existing MORI poll

Existing homes

Average water consumption in Sutton is 171 litres per person per day: • 177 litres/ person/ day (without a meter) • 143 litres/ person /day (with a meter)

Homes with meters tend to save 5% of their water, the greater difference between metered and unmetered properties shown above reflects the tendency of low water users to request meters – they are not yet mandatory for all homes though they are for new homes and conversions.

Leakage is estimated to be 30% of all water supplied, although reducing this wastage is clearly the responsibility of water companies rather than residents or the Council.

Even accounting for leakage, water use in homes is a very small proportion of our total use; in addition to the water in our taps UK residents use an estimated 4,645 litres 117 of the world’s water every day through manufacturing and processing goods that we consume 118 . For example: • 1 kg beef has 16,000 litres of embodied water • A pair of jeans 10,850 litres of embodied water • A car has about 400,000 litres of embodied water

So although the UK has a relatively abundant supply of water relative to use, we are importing water embodied in goods from other far more water stressed regions. Embodied water is not covered in this principle as it is more pertinent to the Local and Sustainable Materials and Food principles. Like energy use, water consumption has increased through the greater prevalence of technologies such as power showers. Increased water consumption is exacerbated by the decrease in household size; two people living in the same home consume less water than two people living alone. The growth of gardening as a hobby has also led to increased water consumption and has a huge impact; using a hosepipe for an hour equates to around 1,000 litres of mains water. One Planet Living advises food growing and gardeing for health, happiness and biodiversity, and so it is important that rain water or re-used water is specified rather than tap water.

100% of the potable water delivered to homes in Sutton is treated to drinking standard, yet less than 2% of it is consumed. We are treating water unnecessarily and need to find better ways of re-using water and making use of rainwater, and to conserve the mains water through behavioural change and 3 water saving technologies. Treated mains water has an embodied CO 2 level of 0.6 kg per m (this includes the energy it takes to supply potable water and

117 http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/UnitedKingdom 118 www.waterfootprint.org

119 120 remove and clean foul water) . Reducing mains water consumption by 50% would result in a saving of 48 kg CO2 per household per year (approximately 2% 121 ).

It is possible for residents to reduce water consumption to 90 litres per person per day through conservation (behavioural change) and by replacing existing appliances with water saving versions when they replace them. Residents’ Sustainable Water Action Plan, (actions shown below), will be communicated through www.oneplanetsutton.org , home visits, workshops, and written communication, as and when funding allows.

It is important to note that advising residents to reduce water consumption has much less effect than actually fitting water saving devices. If carrying out home visits a save-a-flush bag could be fitted in less than 5 minutes and result in immediate water savings of 4,198 litres water/ household/ year 122 whereas advising the resident to order a save-a-flush bag, or leaving one there for a resident to fit may not lead to any change. Follow up calls after BioRegional’s home visits in Hackbridge revealed that only 6 households out of 58 suitable households 123 (10%) had installed the save-a-flush left for them and a further 5 said that they would in the future. This may be overstated as some people’s responses are affected by their sense of what is socially acceptable.

Water audits in Crawley 124 showed that only 2 premises out of 21 (10%) installed save-a-flush bags when they were advised to, whereas when the auditor offered to install the save-a-flush bags there and then, 19 premises out of 33 did (58%), with additional premises requesting them once approval from head office had been gained. Although the audit in Crawley was of commercial premises the benefit of installing the water-savers during the audit applies to households as well.

Water use Behavioural change Physical change Potential water saving Toilet Insert a Save-a-flush 1 litre per flush Choose low water toilet when Up to 7 litres per flush replacing Taps Turn off when brushing teeth, Fit flow regulators washing up, cleaning vegetables etc When running the hot tap Choose low flow taps when Up to 12 litres per minute save the cold water that replacing comes out first Shower Limit use to a 4-minute Avoid power showers and Up to 10 litres per minute

119 Public Sector and Local Authority Building Magazine, February 2007, p41 120 Based on current average annual household consumption of 158 m 3 per household per year 121 Based on 11.17 tonnes of CO 2 per capita and 2.3 people per household 122 Based on 5 flushes/ person/ day and 2.3 people/ household 123 Suitability determined by resident reported flush volume 124 Saving Water in Crawley’s Hospitality Sector; A report for SEEDA under the BREW project, Oct 2007, ECH2O

shower choose ‘champagne’ shower if replacing Bath Have a shallow bath and re- Replace existing bath with a Up to 170 litres per bath 125 use the water in the garden lower volume version Washing machine Wash full loads Replace machine with water efficient model Watering the garden Use a watering can rather Fit a water butt to make use Up to 17 litres per minute 126 than a hose of rain water

Re-use bath water in the Choose drought resistant garden plants Collect cold water when running the hot tap for use in the garden Washing the car Use a bucket of water Up to 17 litres per minute instead of a hose Monitor water consumption Request a meter from Sutton Homes with meters tend to and East Surrey save 5% Collect rain water Install a water butt Up to a third if using for all toilet flushing Install a rain water harvesting system for use in toilet and washing machine

New Buildings

Sutton’s Sustainable Design and Construction IPG demands a maximum of 105 litres of mains water per person per day for new build. However, UK best practise is 80 litres per person per day (Code for Sustainable Homes Level 6). Pioneering sustainable housing shows that it is possible to reduce further than this; in 2007 BedZED residents use only 72 litres of mains water per day, topped up by 15 litres of recycled or rain water. Even in the hot summer of 2003, consumption was 76 litres per person per day. Therefore the LDF will set a maximum of 80 litres per person and, as with the IPG, sustainable design and construction statements for new developments should include a rainwater-harvesting feasibility study. Homes with gardens will be supplied with water butts.

125 Bath volumes range from 130 litres to 300 litres and submerged adult takes up approximately 70 litres 126 Based on 1,000 litres/ hour of hose use

We do not recommend that developers introduce grey or black-water recycling unless the system saves energy compared to using the conventional sewerage system. Residents of new developments will also receive the Sustainable Water Action Plan outlined above.

For non-domestic buildings it is more difficult to specify maximum water usage as it varies enormously according to building use. Therefore developers of new non-domestic buildings and refurbishments should meet the maximum credits available for water use in BREEAM Excellent standards for the relevant building type; healthcare, industrial, prisons, offices, retail and schools. This will be replaced by the Code for Sustainable Buildings in due course.

Flooding and Climate Change Adaptation River flooding is natural and will inevitably occur to some extent in times of heavy and prolonged rain fall. Climate change is likely to lead to less predictable and more severe rain storms though less rainfall overall. Local authorities can not stop flooding but they can help to reduce risk.

The floods in July 2007 showed that Sutton has a real need for Sustainable Water strategies, climate change adaptation and mitigation. Sutton Council is already working with architects and the Environment Agency to consider the use of public green space to be used for flood control – for example, storm water could be stored on parks or playing fields rather than overloading the sewers and causing flooding.

Heavy rainfall is exacerbated by the lack of absorbent surfaces in urban areas. Vast areas of hard roofs, tarmac and concrete landscaping mean that rain drains into gutters and then the storm water and sewerage system. If Sutton gets more rain than can be stored, foul water has to be released into the water ways in order to prevent drains flooding. Building owners can help by avoiding hard surfaces – using green roofs, soft landscaping or porous paving for example, and by collecting as much rain as possible to re-use it or divert to soakaway.

Sutton Council has worked with the London Boroughs of Merton, Croydon and Wandsworth together with the Environment Agency to prepare of a joint Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) for the Wandle catchment area. This identifies likely flood risk in different areas. National policy states that new development in high flood risk areas will only be allowed if there are no suitable sites in areas of low flood risk, or if the benefits of development outweigh the flood risk. Any new developments in flood risk areas will be required to be flood resistant and resilient and for flood risk to be managed.

New developments will be required to have a Sustainable Urban Drainage ( SUDs ) strategy which will limit water run off, instead returning it to the water table or storing it.

From 1 st October 2008 home owners no longer have the automatic development right to pave over gardens using impermeable surfaces; planning permission is needed for non-porous surfaces over 5 square meters 127 and this will help prevent further impermeable surfaces. However, there is still considerable work

127 The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No. 2) (England) Order 2008 No. 2362

do be done with existing buildings where paving has already gone in and in adapting homes in flood risk areas to be able to better withstand unavoidable flooding. Sutton will exceed the national requirements outlined above by communicating adaptation and mitigation needed to all homes in the flood risk area. Council buildings Sutton Council had a target to reduce water consumption in Council-owned non residential buildings by 27.5% by March 2008 compared to 2000/1. The baseline for 2000/1 is 155,000 cubic metres of water and so in 2008/9 it is likely to be 112,375 cubic metres. The reduction (which has now been achieved) was through the identification and repair of leaks and the installation or urinal controls and waterless urinals. While this is laudable it is also important to ascertain how the Council compare to best practise for similar building types and this will be the focus of the Council’s Action Plan.

The Environment Agency provide best practise figures for sector buildings and the Council will now use these as benchmarks: • Office: 6.4 m³ per worker per year • Primary School without Pool: 2.7 m³ per pupil per year • Primary School with Pool: 3.1 m³ per pupil per year • Secondary School without Pool: 2.7 m³ per pupil per year • Secondary School with Pool: 3.6 m³ per pupil per year • Museum: 0.181 m³ per m 2 floor area per year • Nursing Home: 68.5 m³ per resident per year • Public Lavatory: 6.0 m³ per m 2 floor area per year • Sports Centre: 0.0305 m³ per visitor per year • Library: 0.128 m³ per m 2 floor area per year • Community Centre: 0.173 m³ per m 2 floor area per year

However, some of the benchmarks can clearly be improved on, for example, BRE suggest that less than 1.5m³ per office worker per year is regarded as best practice. Passing the benchmark should not be seen as a signal to stop saving water if there are still cost-effective water-saving solutions to implement. Where no benchmarks exist, the Council will continue to monitor water use for that building against the previous year. The Council’s overall consumption should still be reported on in order to ensure that improvements continue to be made across the board.

Case study: University of Glasgow 128 The University of Glasgow reduced water use on its main campus by around 33% between 1993 and 2005, with minimal capital investment on water saving devices and new equipment. The benefits of better water management included; total cumulative cost savings of over £493,000 and cumulative reduction in water use and effluent generation of over 329 700 m3. The majority of the changes made had payback periods of less than 2 years including urinal controls; push taps; and fitting time-controlled water flow valves.

128 A Case Study at the University of Glasgow, Envirowise

Sustainability Action Plan – Sustainable Water

Sutton Council’s Buildings

Ref Target Baseline Indicator Monitoring Comments

T6.1 All Council buildings to be meet best practise guidance on Needs to be Cubic metres of EMAS water usage for that building type established mains water consumed

Ref Actions Who Timing Resource Comments implication

A6.1 Establish a baseline for Council water for each building Energy Manager 2008 Cost neutral

A6.2 Establish best practise for each building type and use as Energy Manager 2008 Cost neutral benchmark

A6.3 Ensure that low water use appliances are specified through Procurement and 2009 Cost neutral procurement Energy Manager

A6.4 Set annual reduction targets to achieve a reduction in water Energy Manager 2009 Cost neutral use from the 2007/8 baseline to best practise by 2017.

A6.5 Incorporate new water targets into EMAS Action Plans and Environmental 2009 Cost neutral promote to all EMAS and ECG reps. Sustainability Officer

A6.6 Sustainable water workshop for all building managers to cover BioRegional 2009 Cost neutral low water use appliances, rainwater harvesting, greywater recycling and SUDS as a means of managing stormwater runoff

A6.7 Building managers to create and implement water reduction All building and 2009 Cost neutral Some capital plans which may include: procurement costs but will pay • Flow regulators on taps managers. back • Waterless urinals and/ or urinal controls Environmental • Rain water harvesting Sustainability • Save-a-flush devices Manager and • Identifying and repairing leaks Energy Manager to coordinate

Homes

Ref Target Baseline Indicator Monitoring Comments

T6.2 All homes in the Borough to have received tailored guidance 0 homes have Number of EMAS Could be done on how to reduce household water consumption by 50% by received guidance households receiving by Sutton and 2011 guidance East Surrey Water or done by us as part of other outreach work and supported by S&ES.

T6.3 All homeowners in the flood risk area to have received tailored 0 homes have Number of EMAS guidance on how to adapt buildings by 2011 received guidance households receiving guidance

T6.4 All new homes to have maximum water use of 80 litres per Current building Inclusion in LDF Development person per day from 2014 regulations 130 Control litres, IPG 105 litres

Ref Actions Who Timing Resource Comments implication

A6.8 Identify homes in the flood risk area LBS 2009 Cost neutral

A6.9 Provide tailored guidance on water saving to all households LBS/ BioRegional/ 2009 and ongoing Cost through the website, home visits, workshops, letters and the Sutton and East implication media Surrey

A6.10 Incorporate new water targets for new build in LDF Planning 2009 Cost neutral

A6.11 Write and disseminate guidance for flood risk adaptation LBS/ BioRegional 2010 Cost implication

Businesses

Ref Target Baseline Indicator Monitoring Comments

T6.5 Top 100 businesses in the Borough to have received tailored 0 businesses have Number of guidance on how to reduce water consumption to best practise received guidance businesses receiving standards for that businesses type guidance

T6.6 All business owners in the flood risk area to have received 0 businesses have Number of tailored guidance on how to adapt buildings received guidance businesses receiving guidance

T6.7 All new non-residential buildings to have maximum water use Inclusion in LDF Development as specified by BREEAM excellent Control

Ref Actions Who Timing Resource Comments implication

A6.12 Incorporate new water targets for new build in LDF Planning 2009 Cost neutral

A6.13 Encourage top 100 water users to write and implement BioRegional/ LBS 2009 and ongoing Cost Sustainability Action Plans which will include tailored guidance implication on how to reduce water consumption to best practise standards for that businesses type

A6.14 Identify businesses in the flood risk area LBS 2010 Cost neutral

A6.15 Write and disseminate guidance for flood risk mitigation and BioRegional/ LBS 2010 Cost adaptation implication

Natural Habitats and Wildlife As our Ecological Footprint rises, biodiversity declines. The aim of this principle is to regenerate degraded environments and halt biodiversity loss, protect or regenerate existing natural environments and the habitats they provide to fauna and flora, and to create new habitats.

Sutton has competing demands on land use for new buildings, amenity space and wild space for other species. The ultimate aim of One Planet Living is that 30% of biocapacity should be allocated for other species. However, there are some ecologists who feel that this is not enough to stem biodiversity loss. Currently over 30% of Sutton’s land area is classified as green space though this does not mean that it is being managed for biodiversity.

Sutton’s Biodiversity Action Plan, 2005-2010 sets out the steps the Council will take to protect habitats and to bring new areas under active management for biodiversity. Therefore the Sustainability Action Plan does not cover actions for this principle; however, strategies for other principles will respect natural habitats and wildlife.

Sutton’s Biodiversity Action Plan can be found here: http://www.sutton.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=1033&p=0

When the Biodiversity Action Plan 2010-2016 is produced, it should recognise the need to allocate 30% of our biocapacity for other species, and the actions should reflect this.

100

Culture and Heritage

Access to cultural and heritage experiences, and participation in them, are key to Sutton’s future as a thriving community. Learning about our varied histories; experiencing the best that our local theatres have to offer; participating in the revival of local industries and festivities; playing sport with family and friends; these are a few ways in which residents can enjoy life in Sutton. New developments have the potential to both damage this future, or to enhance it. This principle sets out strategies and targets to achieve three aims: first, to “do no harm” to existing sites, facilities and communities; second, to fit in with and enhance the local area; and third, to help communities in Sutton thrive.

Although a draft Action Plan has been written for this principle, it was felt that more input from the Council and stakeholders was needed. BioRegional will now re-write the Culture and Heritage Action Plan with regard to the Cultural Strategy for Sutton 2007-2010 and in collaboration with relevant teams.

101

Equity and Fair Trade One Planet Living communities are expected to adopt an exemplar approach to the four key themes below, exceeding legal requirements and international basic practice, and aspiring to global best practice. • Employment; • Inclusiveness; • Participation and democracy; • Ownership and affordability.

In addition, One Planet Living communities are expected to improve the welfare of disadvantaged populations and contribute towards a thriving, equitable future for all. Equality is inherent in One Planet Living’s commitment to a fair share of Ecological Footprint and carbon dioxide.

Equity and Fair Trade– long term target Target date Ensure that One Planet Living is affordable for all Sutton residents 2025

Employment

Our aim is that everyone of working age in Sutton should be able to attain a decent standard of living through meaningful local employment. Providing local employment is vital for a sustainable local economy and for reducing transport emissions from travel to and from work.

Sutton Council is an exemplar employer. All employees of the Council are paid London’s Living Wage as a minimum and have good employees’ benefits. While the Council can lead by example, the influence the Council has limited influence on business’ employment policies in the Borough.

Sutton is a Fairtrade Borough and employee a Fairtrade officer to encourage other Sutton businesses and organisations to commit to buying and selling Fairtrade produce. “Fairtrade is a tool for development that ensures disadvantaged farmers and workers in developing countries get a better deal through the use of the international FAIRTRADE Mark.” 129 In this way the Council can help to improve employment practices globally.

The key employment sectors for Sutton’s local economy are 130 :

129 http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/what_is_fairtrade/fairtrade_certification_and_the_fairtrade_mark/the_fairtrade_mark.aspx 130 London Borough of Sutton Economic Strategy 2007-2010

102

• Public Service (dominated by Health); 26% growth in employment between 1995 and 2004 • Financial and Business Services; 23% of total employment • Retail; 14% of total employment, which is higher than the London average • Construction; Proportion of local employment in this sector is 11% higher than the regional average • Leisure; 14% growth in this sector between 1995 and 2004

The State of the Borough Report 2007 131 identified that the knowledge economy was growing in Sutton; “underlying trends suggest Sutton is building upon its knowledge economy, with knowledge-driven sector employment growing by 17.9 per cent (compared to by 11.6 per cent in London as a whole) and public service sector employment growing by 12.5 per cent between 1998 and 2005”. However, the same report identifies that Sutton has a modest or weak enterprise culture; “The Borough records an average level of business ‘churn’ in terms of business formation and closure rates, as well as an average self- employment rate relative to national levels. Furthermore, the Borough has a below-average business density rate and records approximately static levels of VAT-registered stock. Consequently, the Borough is ranked 2nd from bottom among the London Boroughs.”

Employment levels in Sutton are above UK and London averages and above the EU target. “Sutton records a high employment rate of 78.2 per cent in 2006, comfortably above the EU Lisbon Strategy target of 70 per cent. This ranks the Borough 147th nationally and 1st out of the London Boroughs. Unemployment was below the national rate at 1.5 per cent in September 2007; of those, only 13.0 per cent was classed as long-term unemployed (out of work for at least a year), compared to 18.7 per cent in London and 16.0 per cent in Britain. Youth unemployment was also quite low by London and national standards. Furthermore, recent figures suggest a positive direction of travel, with employment recording a very slight increase despite a decline overall in London and Britain during the 2004-2006 period.”

As Sutton has a high level of employment and an existing Economic Strategy, this Action Plan focuses on exploring options for encouraging new, sustainable business in the Borough; this can also help to deliver many of the solutions identified by this Action Plan from local builders renovated our housing stock to new food outlets stocking affordable organic and healthy food. With this in mind BioRegional has been working with the New Economics Foundation (NEF) on their Decarbonising Local Economies project.

The secondary focus will be on improving the quality of employment, especially in terms of eliminating working poverty. Encouraging employers to pay a Living Wage could be a starting point.

Inclusiveness Sutton is an inclusive Borough. “The Council’s commitment to diversity is evidenced in the priority placed on being a Borough where people from different communities get on well together. The London Borough of Sutton works hard at ensuring excellent community relationships – notably through the Sutton

131 The State of the Borough, An Economic, Social and Environmental Profile of Sutton, December 2007

103

Partnership where a voluntary sector-led Community Engagement Network provides a voice for communities at the partnership table, and through the Equality & Diversity Forum. The Council has achieved Level 3 of the Equality Standard and is aiming for Level 4 by April 2009 and Level 5 in 2010/11.” 132

With policies already in place, and an ambition to achieve the top level of the Equality Standard for Local Government, no further actions are proposed in this plan. Participation & democracy Sutton Council is an inherently democratic organisation. In addition to local elections there are regular opinion polls of staff and residents and many opportunities to participate in consultations. Sutton has held UKYP (UK Youth Parliament) elections since 2000 and had a Member of Youth Parliament (MYP) and Deputy MYP representing the Borough. However, improvements can be made in participation levels. In the May 2006 elections turn out by ward varied from 32.74% in Wandle Valley to 52.62% in Carshalton South and Clockhouse. Ideas for increasing participation should be explored.

Case study: Participatory Budgeting in Keighley 133 On “Decision Day” community organisations allocated a total of £130,000 to local projects using the participatory budgeting. The Keighley process was led by Bradford Vision’s neighbourhood manager for the area with the support of the senior team.

In March 2006 it was agreed that the Neighbourhood Partnership for Keighley could use Participatory Budgeting (PB) for the 2006/07 round of Neighbourhood Renewal Funding. Bradford Vision secured a total of £130,000 to be spent on Children and Young People, Safer and Stronger Communities and the Environment to be spent only in areas of relative deprivation. A reference group was formed comprising Bradford Vision staff, Keighley Voluntary Services, the Council’s area coordinator and a representative from the UK PB unit. Priorities were established through community events and door to door interviews. Voluntary organisations and local groups were then invited to submit bits which were then scrutinised by a panel made up of local Councillors, members of the PB reference group, and staff from local statutory organisations.

All residents involved in the bidding process were then invited to a Decision Day where all the projects were presented and voted on.

132 Equality & Diversity Policy 133 http://www.participatorybudgeting.org.uk/case-studies/keighley-decision-day-bradford

104

Ownership & affordability

“The Borough is home to a large share of knowledge workers generating high levels of prosperity by national standards. However, the significant levels of deprivation suggest that average prosperity is skewed by some very high incomes; deprivation is accompanied by high levels of crime and poorer levels of health.” 134

Ecological Footprint and personal CO 2 emissions increase with affluence though those people with lower incomes are less likely to identify themselves as sustainable. One Planet Living’s emphasis on behavioural change means that cost-saving approaches to sustainability are favoured. The promotion of sustainable transport, re-use and less waste are good examples. However, there are some behavioural changes that will cost more; buying organic food for example. Most of the physical changes we recommend to residents are cost saving though may require initial capital outlay and partners need to find ways of making this affordable. There are also many renewable energy technologies that currently cost more than fossil fuels and other options for reversing this should be explored, perhaps through the Sustainable Communities Act.

“As part of the Sustainable Communities Act, the Secretary of State has invited local authorities to send in proposals on what central government can do to help improve the economic, social or environmental well-being of their local areas. The innovations put forward could provide local solutions to any number of issues. For example, Communities could make proposals to: • Tackle climate change at a local level - cutting energy consumption or creating more green areas for communities to cultivate • Strengthen the local economy - finding ways in which to support local businesses and producers • Increase social inclusion, including an increase in involvement in local democracy.” 135

For changes relating to the home; water and energy saving for example, residents may be limited in their capabilities if they do not own their home. The Council and BioRegional need to work with social and private landlords and encourage them to also work towards One Planet Living.

134 The State of the Borough, An Economic, Social and Environmental Profile of Sutton, December 2007 135 http://www.communities.gov.uk/news/corporate/993184

105

Sustainability Action Plan – Equity and Fair Trade

Sutton Council

Ref Target Baseline Indicator Monitoring Comments

T9.1 All employees, contractors and sub contractors of the Council All Council Employee and HR team to be paid London’s Living Wage by 2017 employees are paid contractor wages a living wage but we do not have a baseline for contractors

Ref Actions Who Timing Resource Comments implication

A9.1 Engage with Council contractors and undertake an analysis of Economic and 2010 Cost This study the impacts on the local economy of extending the parameters Regeneration and implication should look at of the Living Wage policy to include all contractors/ sub Procurement teams the cost to contractors employers as well as benefits to the employees and the economy.

106

Borough-wide

Ref Target Baseline Indicator Monitoring Comments

T9.2 All schools and colleges to be Fairtrade, and 75% of Not known Number Fairtrade workplaces and places of worship to be promoting and buying officer Fairtrade

T9.3 One Planet Living in Sutton to be affordable for all residents TBC Ability of low, average REAP and and high income BioRegional households to achieve cost analysis OPLS recommendations

T9.4 Increase election turn out rate to and decrease differential May 2006 differential Number of voters and Local The Council between lowest and highest ward turnout was 19.88 turnout by ward election should decide on percentage points turnout targets.

Ref Actions Who Timing Resource Comments implication

A9.2 Continue to recruit Sutton organisations to Fairtrade Fairtrade officer Ongoing Cost neutral Current work

A9.3 Approach Sutton Housing Partnership to develop a BioRegional and 2008/9 Cost Identified in Zero Sustainability Action Plan for their homes, representing 10% of Sutton Housing implication Carbon Sutton’s housing stock. Partnership Workshop 20/07/2008

A9.4 Continue to work with NEF on Decarbonising Local Economies BioRegional 2009 and ongoing Cost neutral and other partners to identify ‘green’ enterprise opportunities in Sutton and investigate financial mechanisms for delivering sustainable solutions.

A9.5 Cost analysis of One Planet Living in Sutton for typical low, BioRegional 2009 Cost neutral average and high income Sutton households

A9.6 Come up with strategies to make One Planet Living in Sutton BioRegional and 2010 and ongoing Cost neutral affordable for all if cost analysis shows need. LBS

107

A9.7 Analyse the benefits to the local economy of different Procurement team 2010 or when Cost neutral These tools are procurement strategies using NEF’s LM3 and Local Alchemy procurement policy is free tools due for an update

108

Health and Happiness

The Health and Happiness principle aims to increase health and quality of life of One Planet Living community members and others by promoting healthy lifestyles and physical, mental & spiritual well-being through well-designed structures and community engagement measures, as well as by delivering on social and environmental targets.

As the Council, the PCT and the NHS have policies in place to improve the health of the borough, One Planet Living in Sutton will focus on happiness. There are many benefits to Health and Happiness from recommended Actions in the other One Planet Living principles; walking and cycling as sustainable transport, food growing and income (shown in Figure 1) for example.

Figure 10: Influence of income on life satisfaction 136 Life satisfaction and Household income in the UK While Health and Happiness workshops were held as part of Hackbridge Week and with EMAS representatives, there was no consensus on what the Council’s role should be in 8.00 making the borough happy. For this reason, BioRegional propose that this principle is st 7.50 explored further over the next year, and an Action Plan added during the 1 annual review of the Sustainability Action Plan. 7.00 6.50 BioRegional do recommend that Sutton Council include a standard life satisfaction question in the biennial ISOS MORI survey; “Taking all things together, how satisfied 6.00 are you with your life as a whole these days? Are you very satisfied, satisfied, not very 5.50 satisfied, not at all satisfied?” or by asking residents to rate their wellbeing from 1 to 10.

LifeSatisfaction (0-10) 5.00 £0 £20, 000 £40, 000 £60, 000 £80, 000 £100, 000 £120, 000 £140, 000

Household total net income

From emerging positive psychology and health promotion research we know that the most important determinants of health and happiness are: • Diet • Exercise • Relationships

136 New Economics Foundation

109

• Life long learning • Meaningful work • Giving something back, involvement in civic life • Safe and comfortable environments • Interaction with nature • Using talents and creativity • Values: people that value interdependence, creativity and adventure have higher levels of wellbeing, than those who value wealth, success and safety.

Over the next year BioRegional will work with Sutton Council, residents. The PCT and NHS to determine the extent to which these factors are covered by existing policies and therefore what more we need to do through the Sustainability Action Plan.

110