1.1. Spelthorne Borough Council remains committed to achieving net zero Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions by 2030 through delivery of the Green Horizon Programme. This report provides a summary of the progress of the Green Horizon Programme from its inception April 1^st 2025 to March 31^st 2026.

1.2. In FY 2025/2026, total emissions reduced to 1166.25tCO2e, a 15.76% decrease from the previous year, and 2.41% below the baseline. Net emissions reduced to 873.39tCO2e, a 16.72% decrease from the previous year. Overall the programme can account for 510.92tCO2e of emission reductions. This reduction reflects a combination of operational improvements, renewable electricity procurement (market-based), and initial land-use sequestration.

1.3. Emissions reductions were uneven across workstreams. Electricity emissions fell significantly (–30.1%) due to reduced consumption and procurement changes, while fleet emissions (-9.35%) and gas emissions (-14.08%) showed more modest improvements.

1.4. Not all reductions are attributable to programme interventions. Electricity savings were driven by a combination of demand reduction, asset changes (e.g. billing scope), and renewable procurement, while some reductions in fleet fuel consumption appear linked to operational variation rather than structured delivery.

1.5. Overall, the programme is delivering incremental improvements, but these fall short of the structural change required to meet the 2030 target. Current net emissions exceed the required pathway level (2020 modelled trajectory) by 395.38tCO2e, indicating a significant delivery gap.

1.6. The programme delivered £27,570 in operational savings during FY 2025/26, primarily through reduced electricity, gas and fleet fuel consumption. Total programme investment was £314,682, of which £181,506 was secured through external funding, helping to reduce pressure on Council budgets while supporting delivery of key decarbonisation projects.

1.7. Figure 1: Line chart demonstrating the decarbonisation pathway against the net emissions by financial year

1.8. At current levels of delivery, the majority of emissions reduction is being driven by electricity-related changes, while the largest future reductions required remain dependent on underperforming areas such as fleet transition and low carbon heat.

1.9. To meet the 2030 target, emissions reductions must accelerate significantly. Based on the current trajectory, sustained annual reductions of approximately 174tCO₂e per year will be required. This will depend on substantial progress in fleet transition, low carbon heat, and enabling infrastructure. Without delivery at this scale, operational improvements alone will not achieve the required emissions reductions.

1.10. Delivery is constrained by limited capital funding, service capacity, and dependencies on infrastructure and technical systems. These constraints have already delayed progress in key areas such as fleet transition and gas decarbonisation and must be addressed to achieve sustained emissions reduction.

1.11. Figure 2: Scope 1&2 Emissions from FY 2020/2021 to FY 2025/2026

Scope	Emission Type	20/21	21/22	22/23	23/24	24/25	25/26
Scope 1	Vehicles	593.44	659.66	675.78	688.23	635.88	576.40
	Gas	220.58	286.51	291.36	353.77	407.72	350.32
	Oil	5.09	5.53	5.09	5.09	5.09	4.91
	Fugitive Emissions	0	0	0	0	0	0
Scope 2	Purchased Electricity (location-based factor)	208.72	205.62	277.04	289.96	335.80	234.62
Total Scope 1&2 Emissions	-	1027.83	1157.32	1249.27	1337.05	1384.49	1166.25

Reduction	Land Use	0	0	0	0	0	-58.24
Reduction	Green Tariff (Market-Based Electricity Factor)	0	-205.62	-277.04	-289.96	-335.80	-234.62
Reduction	Offsets	0	0	0	0	0	0
Total Reductions	-	0.00	-205.62	-277.04	-289.96	-335.80	-292.86

Total Net Emissions		1027.83	951.70	972.23	1047.09	1048.69	873.39

1.12. The sustainable procurement workstream has been discontinued due to limited resourcing and the absence of a robust measurement framework. This reflects a prioritisation of resources toward delivery of Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions reductions.

1.13. Figure 3: Waterfall chart showing year-on-year change (FY24/25 vs. FY25/26) in total emissions (tCO2e), broken down by key drivers including electricity reduction, fleet, gas, renewable electricity procurement, and land-use sequestration.

2. Programme Overview

2.1. The Green Horizon Programme is the Council’s delivery framework for achieving net zero Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions by 2030. It was established to address gaps in the existing Climate Change Strategy and provide a clear pathway for delivery.

2.2. The programme responds to a disconnect between ambition and delivery. Emissions increased from the 2019 baseline and existing plans lacked defined action pathways, consistent data management and service level accountability.

2.3. Green Horizon consolidates all corporate decarbonisation activity into a single programme. It defines specific tasks, assigns responsibility to services and introduces structured monitoring and reporting.

2.4. The programme is structured around two delivery pathways. Mitigation focuses on reducing greenhouse gas emissions from buildings, fleet and operations. Adaptation focuses on improving resilience of council assets and land to climate impacts. This report focuses on the mitigation pathway.

2.5. Delivery is organised through defined workstreams including energy efficiency, low carbon heat, fleet transition, renewable electricity, infrastructure deployment and land use management. These workstreams align to the Council’s main emission sources and reflect the areas of highest carbon impact.

2.6. Each activity within the programme is supported by a defined measurement framework. This includes clear targets, consistent data collection and reporting to the Environment and Sustainability Committee. This structure is intended to improve transparency and ensure accountability across services.

2.7. Programme Objectives

2.7.1. The Green Horizon Programme has a defined set of operational objectives focused on delivery, governance and performance.

2.7.2. 1. Deliver a defined pathway to net zero: Establish a clear set of actions required to achieve net zero by 2030 with measurable targets for each task and workstream.

2.7.3. 2. Integrate all decarbonisation activity: Bring all projects and interventions linked to the Council’s net zero target into a single coordinated programme.

2.7.4. 3. Assign ownership and accountability: Allocate responsibility for delivery to relevant services and implement structured reporting to ensure accountability for performance.

2.7.5. 4. Strengthen data and reporting: Implement consistent data management and monitoring frameworks to enable accurate tracking of emissions and progress.

2.7.6. 5. Improve cross service coordination: Ensure engagement across all relevant services including assets, neighbourhood services, procurement and climate change teams to support delivery.

2.7.7. 6. Focus on organisational emissions: Prioritise actions that directly influence the Council’s Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions and operational footprint.

2.7.8. These objectives establish a delivery-focused programme designed to close the gap between current performance and the emissions reduction required to meet the 2030 target.

2.8. Scope & Workstreams

2.8.1. The Green Horizon Programme is focused on reducing emissions within the Council’s operational boundary. This includes Scope 1 emissions from fuel use in buildings and fleet and Scope 2 emissions from purchased electricity.

2.8.2. The programme targets the Council’s highest emission sources. These are buildings energy use, fleet fuel consumption and electricity demand. Workstreams are aligned to these sources to ensure that delivery is focused on areas of greatest carbon impact.

2.8.3. Workstreams are structured under the mitigation pathway with supporting activity in land use and infrastructure.

2.8.4. Energy and Buildings:

· Building energy efficiency

· Gas consumption reduction

· Delivery of renewable electricity tariff

2.8.5. This workstream targets emissions from council buildings and energy systems. It focuses on reducing demand and improving system performance.

2.8.6. Fleet and Transport:

· HVO fuel deployment

· Electric vehicle transition

· Fleet efficiency improvements

· Supporting EV infrastructure at operational sites

2.8.7. This workstream targets emissions from operational vehicles and fleet activities.

2.8.8. Land Use and Nature:

· Tree planting

· Carbon sequestration assessment

2.8.9. This workstream supports emissions reduction through natural carbon removal and contributes to wider environmental objectives.

2.8.10. These workstreams reflect a task-based structure where each activity has defined targets, delivery ownership and measurement frameworks.

2.9. Governance & Delivery

2.9.1. The Green Horizon Programme is delivered through a structured governance model designed to improve accountability and coordination.

2.9.2. Delivery responsibility is assigned to specific services. Assets lead on buildings and energy. Neighbourhood Services lead on fleet. The Climate Change Team provides programme assistance, oversight and reporting.

2.9.3. Programme performance is monitored through defined reporting pathways. Progress is reported quarterly to the Environment and Sustainability Committee to ensure senior oversight and accountability.

2.9.4. A cross-service officer group supports delivery. During FY 2025/2026 the Climate Change Working Group was expanded and renamed as the Climate and Nature Working Group. This reflects the integration of climate and ecological priorities and aligns delivery with both the climate emergency and the emerging nature emergency.

2.9.5. The governance model is supported by improved data management and monitoring frameworks. Each task within the programme has defined metrics and reporting requirements. This enables consistent tracking of performance and supports evidence-based decision making.

2.9.6. This approach is intended to ensure accountability while maintaining alignment to the Council’s net zero target.

3. Performance Dashboard

3.1. The Green Horizon Programme tracks delivery against defined targets for FY 26/27. Performance in FY 25/26 shows strong progress in electricity and nature-based activities, while fleet transition, gas reduction, and infrastructure delivery remain significantly below target. Overall performance reflects an imbalance between low-cost operational improvements, which are progressing, and capital-intensive interventions, which are not yet delivering at the required scale. This limits the programme’s ability to close the gap to the 2030 target.

3.2. Figure 4: RAG status distribution across all programme targets, showing the proportion of Green, Amber, and Red indicators

3.3. Figure 5: Energy & Buildings GHP Targets & Outcomes

Measure	Target FY 26/27	FY 25/26 Outcome	RAG
Energy efficiency	-30% energy reduction	-10.8%	Amber
Gas reduction	-30% emissions reduction	-14.78%	Amber
Renewable electricity	100% REGO Delivered	Delivered	Green

3.4. Electricity-related activity is the strongest performing area, with renewable electricity fully delivered. However, energy efficiency and gas reduction remain significantly below target, indicating that demand reduction measures are not yet delivering at the required scale.

3.5. Figure 6: Fleet & Transport GHP Targets & Outcomes

Measure	Target FY 26/27	FY 25/26 Outcome	RAG
HVO deployment	Deliver	In delivery phase	Amber
EV transition	20 vehicles	2 vehicles	Red
Fleet fuel reduction	-10%	-9.35%	Green
EV infrastructure	30 chargers	0	Amber

3.6. Note: 32 EV chargers were installed in June 2026 but fall outside the FY 25/26 reporting period and are not reflected in this table.

3.7. Fleet transition and infrastructure represent the most significant areas of underperformance. EV deployment (2 vehicles vs target of 20). %) indicate that this workstream is not currently delivering the level of emissions reduction required. As one of the largest emissions sources, this represents a critical risk to achieving the 2030 target. However, fuel reduction (–9.35% vs –10%) is demonstrating progress despite specific intervention.

3.8. Figure 7: Land Use & Nature GHP Targets & Outcomes

Measure	Target FY 26/27	FY 25/26 Outcome	RAG
Tree planting	2,000 trees	2,415 trees	Green
Sequestration assessment	Deliver	Initial desktop- model complete and included on GHG Report	Amber

3.9. Headline Positions

3.10. Electricity and renewable energy delivery represents the strongest area of performance, accounting for the majority of emissions reduction in FY 25/26.

3.11. Nature-based delivery has exceeded targets; however, its contribution to overall emissions reduction remains limited and is not yet fully integrated into reporting.

3.12. Fleet transition and supporting infrastructure are significantly behind trajectory, representing the most critical constraint on future emissions reduction.

3.13. Gas reduction and energy efficiency improvements are progressing but remain below the level required to deliver sustained emissions reduction.

3.14. Overall, the programme is delivering improvement through operational measures, but key structural interventions required for long-term decarbonisation are not yet delivering at scale.

3.15. RAG status remains weighted toward Amber (6), indicating partial delivery across most workstreams, with one Red (EV transition) highlighting a significant delivery risk.

4. Performance by Workstream

4.1. Performance is assessed against FY 26/27 targets using FY 25/26 outturn data. Results show strong delivery in electricity and nature-based activity, but significant underperformance in fleet transition, gas reduction, and infrastructure. This imbalance reflects reliance on lower-impact operational measures, while the higher-impact interventions required to close the emissions gap are not yet delivering at scale.

4.2. Figure 8: Carbon Impact by Workstream

Workstream	Estimated Impact (tCO2e)	Contribution	Notes
REGO Tariff	234.62	Very high	REGO tariff brings market-based emissions to 0
Electricity Reduction*	101.18	High	Dominated by demand changes but also noted behaviour changes
Fleet & transport	59.48	Medium-low	Limited by slow EV transition
Gas / buildings	57.40	Medium	Incremental efficiency improvements
Land use	58.24	Medium	Currently incomplete assessment

4.3. Electricity-related interventions represent the largest source of emissions reduction, although a significant proportion is driven by renewable procurement rather than physical reduction. Fleet transition remains the largest unrealised opportunity, with current delivery significantly below target. Gas reduction and building efficiency are delivering consistent but relatively small improvements, highlighting the need for more substantial interventions such as low carbon heat.

4.4. Figure 9: Bar Chart of Emissions Reduction by Workstream

4.5. Energy and Buildings

4.6. Building Energy Efficiency

4.6.1. Energy consumption reduced by 10.8% across FY 25/26. Performance remains Amber against the FY 26/27 target of 30% reduction.

4.6.2. This delivered cost savings of £18,297.49 across electricity and gas. Performance was driven by the Building Decarbonisation Action Plan, BMS optimisation (costing £18,283.24), operational engagement with Assets and Building Services and delivery of the Hydromx Pilot Project at the Greeno Centre (costing £10,150).

4.6.3. Early performance was strong with reductions of 12.9% in Q1 and 30.3% in Q2. Year-end performance reflects sustained reductions supported by behaviour change and improved data accuracy following removal of Eclipse Leisure Centre billing.

4.6.4. Mid-year disruption from delayed BMS upgrades (costing £18,283.24) and Hydromx issues involving radiator and system leaks (costing £2,103.38) was resolved in Q4. Performance stabilised but further acceleration is required to meet the FY 26/27 target. A proportion of the observed reduction is linked to changes in billing scope and improved data accuracy, meaning the attributable impact of programme interventions should be considered moderate rather than fully representative of physical energy reduction.

4.7. Gas Usage Reduction

4.7.1. Gas emissions reduced by 14.78% across FY 25/26. Performance remains Amber against the FY 26/27 target of 30% reduction.

4.7.2. This equates to approximately 57.40tCO2e of emissions savings. Performance varied through the year with early reductions offset by a Q3 increase driven by BMS delays and sub optimal Hydromx performance.

4.7.3. Technical issues linked to glycol mix ratios were resolved in Q4. This restored expected system efficiency improvements.

4.7.4. Reductions reflect boiler optimisation, BMS control improvements and site level engagement. Performance remains below trajectory, but the resolution of delivery issues provides a stronger baseline for FY 26/27. As a major emissions source, continued underperformance in gas reduction represents a key constraint on overall emissions reduction and reinforces the need for low carbon heat interventions rather than efficiency improvements alone.

4.8. Green Tariff

4.8.1. A 100% renewable electricity tariff was delivered and maintained across FY 25/26. Performance is Green against the FY 26/27 target.

4.8.2. This avoided approximately 234.62tCO2e from the REGO tariff and 101.18tCO2e from electricity reductions driven by billing changes and behaviour changes. This represents one of the largest single contributions to emissions reduction.

4.8.3. The tariff incurred an additional cost of £4,639.22. Despite this it provides a high impact and low complexity intervention. Alternative procurement models were assessed but not progressed due to increased cost and limited additional benefit. The current approach remains effective and flexible for future changes.

4.8.4. The renewable electricity tariff resulted in a market-based reduction of approximately 349.48tCO₂e, reflecting procurement of REGO-backed electricity. This does not represent a reduction in physical electricity consumption, but a change in the carbon intensity of electricity supply.

4.9. Fleet and Transport

4.10. HVO Fuel

4.10.1. The HVO project remains Amber against the FY 26/27 delivery target.

4.10.2. Progress was delayed due to procurement and capacity constraints. By year end the project has progressed to delivery and commissioning stages. Site validation is complete and contracts are nearing finalisation. No emissions savings have been realised to date. Delivery is expected to begin in FY 26/27 with emissions reductions materialising from Q2 onwards.

4.10.3. As a near-term decarbonisation option for fleet operations, delays in HVO deployment limit the programme’s ability to deliver immediate emissions reductions while longer-term electrification is developed.

4.11. EV Transition

4.11.1. Two electric minibuses were delivered in FY 25/26 against a target of 20 by FY 26/27. Performance is Red.

4.11.2. Vehicles were funded through external grant funding and deployed within the Spelride fleet. Delivery is below trajectory due to a strategic shift to end of life replacement of fleet vehicles. This approach improves financial efficiency but slows short term emissions reduction. A pipeline of seven vehicles is planned for Q1 FY 26/27 which will begin to increase delivery pace.

4.12. Fleet Efficiency

4.12.1. Fleet fuel consumption reduced by 9.35% across FY 25/26. Performance is Green against the FY 26/27 target of 10% reduction.

4.12.2. This delivered approximately 59.48tCO2e in emissions savings and £9,272.72 in cost savings. This reduction appears to be driven primarily by operational variation and informal behavioural changes, rather than structured programme interventions. As a result, the attributable impact of the fleet efficiency workstream remains low. Further work is required to identify drivers and establish a formal efficiency programme.

4.13. EV Infrastructure

4.13.1. No formal delivery was recorded within FY 25/26 against a target of 30 chargers. Performance is recorded as Amber. However, 32 chargers were installed at Eclipse Leisure Centre in June 2026, outside the formal reporting period. This represents a significant increase in infrastructure capacity but is not reflected in current performance reporting.

4.13.2. This creates a disconnect between reported delivery and actual infrastructure availability. Future reporting will align delivery recognition with operational readiness.

4.14. Land Use and Nature

4.15. Sequestration Assessment

4.15.1. Progress remains Amber against the FY 26/27 delivery target.

4.15.2. The original consultant led approach was replaced by an internal model. Initial output is based on tree survey data and remains limited in scope. Outputs have not yet been incorporated into formal reporting due to incomplete land coverage. Further development is required to expand modelling across all land assets.

4.15.3. As a result, sequestration currently plays a limited role in overall emissions reduction and should be considered supplementary rather than a primary delivery mechanism.

4.16. Tree Planting

4.16.1. Tree planting significantly exceeded targets with 2,415 trees delivered in FY 25/26. Performance is Green against the FY 26/27 target of 2,000 trees.

4.16.2. Delivery was enabled through external funding with £12,060 secured from the Tree Council and £2,100 from internal budgets.

4.16.3. This included delivery of two Miyawaki forests and additional planting across council sites.

4.16.4. The programme has exceeded its FY 26/27 target one year early. This demonstrates the effectiveness of externally funded delivery and provides a strong foundation for future expansion.

4.17. Overall Summary

4.18. Overall performance reflects strong delivery in electricity and nature-based activity, but insufficient progress in fleet transition, gas reduction, and infrastructure. Current delivery is weighted toward lower-cost, lower-impact interventions, while the larger structural changes required for long-term decarbonisation are not yet delivering at scale. As a result, the programme is not currently achieving the level of emissions reduction required to meet the 2030 target.

5. Financial Summary

5.1. The Green Horizon Programme combines revenue savings with capital investment and external funding. Current financial performance shows that spend is heavily weighted toward infrastructure and fleet transition, while savings are primarily driven by energy and fuel reduction.

5.2. Figure 10: Total Programme Spend

Category	Breakdown	Cost
Total programme Spend	EV Transition	£169,446.00[SA1]
	EV Charging Infrastructure	£96,000.00[AS2]
	Planting Trees	£14,060.00[AS3]
	Green Electricity Tariff	£4,639.00
	Hydromx Project	£10,150.00[AS4]
	Assets Decarbonisation (BMS & Hydromx Fixes) *	£20,387.00
	Total	£314,682.00

*Building Management Systems (BMS) maintenance and upgrades was attributed to £18,283.24 with leak and system repairs associated with Hydromx totalling £2,103.38

5.3. Programmes spend is heavily concentrated in fleet transition and infrastructure, which together account for the majority of total investment. These areas represent the most capital-intensive elements of the programme and are critical to delivering long-term emissions reduction.

5.4. Figure 11: Savings Achieved (FY 25/26)

Category	Breakdown	Cost
Savings Achieved	Electricity	£15,412.00
	Gas	£2,886.00
	Fleet Fuel	£9,273.00
	Total	£27,571.00

5.5. Savings are primarily driven by reductions in electricity and fuel consumption. However, total savings (£27,570.21) remain low relative to overall programme spend, reflecting the early-stage nature of the transition.

5.6. Figure 12: External Funding Secured

Category	Breakdown	Cost	Source
External Funding Secured	EV Transition	£169,446.00	MHCLG Shared Prosperity Fund
External Funding Secured	Planting Trees	£12,060.00[AS5]	Tree Council (DEFRA TOW Fund)
	Total	£181,506.00	-

5.7. External funding accounts for a significant proportion of total programme delivery, particularly in fleet transition. This reduces pressure on internal budgets but introduces dependency on uncertain funding streams.

5.8. Figure 13: Internal Funding Spent

Category	Breakdown	Cost	Source
Internal Funding Spent	EV Charging Infrastructure	£96,000.00[AS6]	GIF
	Planting Trees	£2,100.00	Climate Budget & Env. Enhancements budget
	Green Electricity Tariff	£4,639.00	Utilities Budget
	Hydromix	£10,150.00	GIF
	Assets Decarbonisation (BMS & Hydromx Fixes)	£20,387.00	Assets Budget
	Total	£133,276.00	-

5.9. Figure 14: Net Programme Cost

Category	Breakdown	Cost
Net Programme Cost	Costs	£314,682.00
Net Programme Cost	Savings	£27,571.00
	Total	£287,111.00

5.10. The net programme cost of £287,111.00 reflects upfront investment in infrastructure and transition activities. At this stage, financial returns are limited, as cost savings typically follow capital deployment over a longer timeframe.

5.11. The Green Horizon Programme delivers a combination of operational savings and targeted investment. Financial savings are primarily generated through reduced energy and fuel consumption while programme spend is weighted toward enabling infrastructure and fleet transition.

5.12. External funding plays a significant role in delivery and reduces the burden on core council budgets. Internal funding is used selectively to support critical infrastructure and high impact interventions like EV charging infrastructure and assets decarbonisation where external funding is not available.

5.13. The overall financial position reflects an early-stage transition profile where upfront investment is required ahead of full financial return. While short term savings are modest relative to total spend the programme establishes the foundation for long term emissions reduction and future cost efficiency.

6. Risks, Issues & Lessons

6.1. Risks

6.1.1. The Green Horizon Programme has demonstrated measurable progress in FY 25/26; however, it has also highlighted a set of structural risks that directly constrain the Council’s ability to achieve the emissions reductions required for the 2030 target. These risks are primarily linked to delivery capacity, funding availability, infrastructure dependency, and the scale of intervention required.

6.1.2. The most significant risk relates to delivery performance. Several core projects are not delivering at the rate required to meet FY 26/27 targets. This is most evident in fleet transition, EV infrastructure and gas decarbonisation where progress remains below trajectory. There is a risk that delays in these enabling areas will restrict emissions reduction across multiple workstreams and limit overall programme impact.

6.1.3. Financial risk remains a key constraint. The programme relies on a combination of internal capital and external funding. Internal funding is limited and external funding is not guaranteed which creates uncertainty in long term planning. This constrains the ability to scale high impact interventions such as fleet electrification and low carbon heating.

6.1.4. Delivery is also dependent on enabling infrastructure and technical systems. Performance in energy and gas workstreams has already been affected by delays in BMS upgrades and technical issues with Hydromx systems. These dependencies create a risk that even well-defined interventions cannot deliver expected outcomes without supporting systems in place.

6.1.5. At a strategic level the programme remains off trajectory for achieving net zero by 2030. Current progress reflects incremental improvement rather than sustained transformation. There is a risk that without a shift toward larger scale capital interventions the programme will not achieve the required emissions reduction.

6.2. Issues

6.2.1. A number of key delivery issues were identified during the reporting year. Procurement delays and limited-service capacity created bottlenecks in mobilisation of projects such as HVO fuel and EV infrastructure. These constraints slowed delivery and reduced the ability to respond to emerging opportunities.

6.2.2. Technical issues also affected performance. Delays in BMS upgrades and sub optimal Hydromx performance reduced expected efficiency gains particularly in gas reduction workstreams. Although these issues were resolved later in the year they limited overall performance across the reporting period.

6.2.3. Infrastructure delivery has not aligned with fleet requirements. While significant EV charging capacity has now been delivered this was not reflected within the reporting period, creating a disconnect between programme reporting and actual infrastructure availability.

6.2.4. In some areas delivery has been unstructured. Reductions in fleet fuel consumption were achieved without a defined intervention strategy which limits the ability to replicate or scale these outcomes. This highlights the need for clearer planning and ownership across all workstreams.

6.2.5. Methodology gaps also remain. Sequestration modelling is still at an early stage and has not been fully integrated into reporting. This limits the ability to capture the full impact of land use and nature-based interventions.

6.3. Lessons Learned

6.3.1. The programme has generated a number of clear lessons. Delivery is most effective where there is a defined structure with clear ownership and consistent data. This is demonstrated in energy management where planned interventions and monitoring frameworks have produced stable performance improvements.

6.3.2. Low-cost operational measures have delivered early impact. Actions such as energy optimisation and behaviour change have generated immediate savings and emissions reductions. However, these measures alone are not sufficient to deliver the scale of change required for net zero.

6.3.3. The importance of enabling infrastructure is clear. Fleet decarbonisation and wider system change depend on infrastructure readiness. Delays in infrastructure and technical systems have directly impacted delivery and highlight the need for clear sequencing of projects.

6.3.4. External funding has been a critical enabler. Projects supported through external funding have delivered significant outcomes particularly in fleet and nature-based interventions. Maintaining a strong pipeline of funding opportunities will remain essential for future delivery.

6.3.5. Overall, the programme requires acceleration. Current delivery reflects incremental progress but not the level of transformation required to meet the 2030 target. Future delivery will require a shift toward larger scale interventions alongside continued optimisation of existing systems.

7. Figures

7.1. Figure 1: Line chart demonstrating the decarbonisation pathway against the net emissions by financial year

7.2. Figure 2: Scope 1&2 Emissions from FY 2020/2021 to FY 2025/2026

7.3. Figure 3: Waterfall chart showing year-on-year change (FY24/25 vs. FY25/26) in total emissions (tCO2e), broken down by key drivers including electricity reduction, fleet, gas, renewable electricity procurement, and land-use sequestration.

7.4. Figure 4: RAG status distribution across all programme targets, showing the proportion of Green, Amber, and Red indicators

7.5. Figure 5: Energy & Buildings GHP Targets & Outcomes

7.6. Figure 6: Fleet & Transport GHP Targets & Outcomes

7.7. Figure 7: Land Use & Nature GHP Targets & Outcomes

7.8. Figure 8: Carbon Impact by Workstream

7.9. Figure 9: Bar Chart of Emissions Reduction by Workstream

7.10. Figure 10: Total Programme Spend

7.11. Figure 11: Savings Achieved (FY 25/26)

7.12. Figure 12: External Funding Secured

7.13. Figure 13: Internal Funding Spent

7.14. Figure 14: Net Programme Cost