The Environment Scrutiny Commission was scheduled to meet on Wednesday 30 April 2025 to discuss topics ranging from Thames Water's street works to Transport for London's (TfL) contributions to environmental health. The commission was also expected to review responses to draft supplementary planning documents (SPDs) and an environmental health scrutiny review report. Additionally, they were scheduled to discuss internal project management for highways and the commission's work programme.

Thames Water and Network Management

The commission was scheduled to discuss what could be done to ensure that streets are returned to their previous condition after Thames Water sub-contractors complete their work. James Abbott, Local Engagement Manager, Public Affairs, Thames Water, was expected to attend the meeting along with colleagues, Ian Law, Traffic Manager, and Paul Lowbridge, Roads and Street Works Manager. Thames Water is the UK's largest water and wastewater services company.

Transport for London (TfL)

TfL was invited to contribute to the scrutiny review on Environmental Health. The discussion was expected to cover infrastructure updates to increase active travel¹, partnership work to deliver Streets for People², and improvements to cycling safety, particularly in safety hotspots.

Climate and Environment & Householder Draft SPD Commission Response

The Environment Scrutiny Commission was scheduled to note the completed response to the draft Climate and Environment SPD and draft Householder SPD.

The commission's response highlighted several areas for attention, drawing on past reviews related to energy and biodiversity. These included:

• Energy Review: The commission suggested that projects targeting Passivhaus³ certification should be 'deemed to comply' with Southwark's SPD requirements. They also called for addressing the use of timber and other low embodied carbon materials in more detail. The commission felt that the SPD could do more to minimise greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, including scoring bids on whole life-cycle carbon efficiency for land owned by the local authority. They also suggested setting minimum levels for the use of reused and recycled materials for public projects.

• Prioritising Retention and Retrofit: The commission felt that the SPD could place more emphasis on prioritising retention and retrofit over demolition and rebuild, noting that Southwark’s NSP Energy Hierarchy gives insufficient prominence to retaining existing buildings. They referenced the Built Environment Hierarchy from London’s Circular Economy Route Map, which defines a hierarchy for building approaches (diagram below) which maximizes use of existing materials, with the ideal being to retain existing buildings. Diminishing returns are gained by moving through the hierarchy outwards: working through refurbishment and re-use through to the least preferable option of recycling materials produced by the building or demolition process.

• District Heating Networks: The commission felt that the SPD did not take due account of recommendations regarding district heating networks and continues to presuppose that large developments will simply be connected to SELCHP⁴. They expressed concern that energy supplied by district heating networks often originates from SELCHP, which they say is not genuinely a low carbon source.

• Biodiversity Review: The commission welcomed recommendations within the Climate SPD that relate to improving biodiversity in the borough but would welcome a more ambitious approach. They centred their main recommendations around the creation of ecological networks and a green infrastructure strategy, including adoption of depaved as default to improve the borough’s natural environment and better manage flood risk.

• Ecological Network: The commission suggested that the SPD provides an opportunity to bring forward an Ecological Network in advance of producing a Green Infrastructure Strategy. They noted that an agreed Ecological Network is a vital missing link required to provide coherence to many of the council’s present plans and strategies, which refer to nature corridors that have not yet been mapped out.

• Biodiversity Improvements: The commission suggested exploring methods of delivering biodiversity improvements through the planning process beyond the minimum 10% BNG specified in the Environment Act 2021 when undertaking the 2027 review of the Southwark Plan. They also suggested this should be combined with more ambitious Urban Greening Factor (UGF) targets.

• Householder SPD: The commission was disappointed that there is no mention in the Householder SPD of air-conditioning and suggested that the SPD should alert householders to the considerable harms of air conditioning technology in terms of increased energy bills and GHG emissions. They also suggested that the council should adopt a default position of refusing applications for installation of air-conditioning technology that relies or potentially relies on the national grid or otherwise on fossil fuels as an energy source.

• Wildlife Friendly Features: The commission suggested exploring how domestic planning applications could be conditioned or, at least, applicants could be encouraged to include wildlife friendly features such as green roofs, flow-through planters, rain gardens, swift bricks and water butts, and to minimise impermeable hard surfacing.

• Vehicle Footway Crossovers (VFCs): The commission suggested that the council should adopt a default position that recognises installation of Vehicle Footway Crossovers (VFCs) and associated hard standings as an environmental and social ill which stands at odds with council policies including the Climate Emergency Action Plan, the Climate Emergency Resilience and Adaptation Plan, the Streets for People strategy and the Equal Pavements Pledge.

• Retrofit of Homes in Conservation Areas: The commission noted that residents in conservation areas often raise concerns regarding barriers to retrofitting their homes with carbon/energy saving measures and would like to see a more pro-active approach to enabling installation of proportionate and appropriate carbon/energy saving measures in conservation areas.

Highways Internal Project Management Review

Officers were scheduled to outline the purpose and scope of the Highways Internal Project Management Review.