Climate
← all policy areas
Since taking control of county and unitary authorities in May 2025, Reform-led councils have moved consistently against the discretionary climate policy they inherited: the symbolic declarations, the self-imposed targets, the dedicated committees and strategies, and their own-estate green spending. The statutory duties and centrally-funded delivery those same councils carry have largely continued unchanged.
The recorded rationale is remarkably uniform across authorities: ‘value for money’, affordability, and a shift from carbon targets toward adaptation, food security and protecting farmland. It is not universal: several councils reaffirmed their targets, and most statutory work was left untouched.
Key figures
10 Reform-led councils scrapped, deferred or downgraded their net-zero / carbon-neutral target
Kent County CouncilAt its 4 November 2025 meeting the Growth, Environment and Transport Cabinet Committee, on an item presented by Cabinet Member for the Environment Mr D Wimble, endorsed adopting a new Energy Efficiency Plan to replace Kent County Council's existing Net Zero 2030 Plan, with members querying what targets would be measured following removal of the 2030 target; the decision was carried 10 for, 1 against and 4 abstained.
“ADOPT the Energy Efficiency Plan for KCC’s estate and operations to support our environmental goals (and replace the existing Net Zero 2030 Plan)” source ↗
Durham County CouncilCounty Durham scrapped its net-zero targets: at its July 2025 meeting the new Reform administration resolved to remove the council's net zero targets and undeclare the climate emergency. The Audit Committee (29 September 2025) recorded that the Climate Change entry was consequently deleted from the Strategic Risk Register because the target it referred to no longer existed.
“Climate Change had been removed on the back of the Council resolution in July to remove the net zero targets and undeclare a climate emergency. The risk that had been in the Strategic Risk Register related to the Councils ability to hit the net zero target, therefore this was no longer a risk as the target had been scrapped.” source ↗
West Northamptonshire CouncilOn 16 July 2025 West Northamptonshire Council's Cabinet approved its "Sustainability Strategy Review" (Agenda Item 7), withdrawing the council's declared net-zero targets — net zero in its own operations by 2030 and for residents and businesses by 2045 — and replacing them with a non-target "Sustainability Project". Councillor Nigel Stansfield presented the report and recommended "Option 4" (withdrawing from the current targets); Councillor Charlie Hastie proposed and seconded the recommendations, which Cabinet approved.
“Approved the proposal to no longer retain the current targets for achieving net zero carbon emissions: to be net zero in its own operations by 2030 and for residents and businesses by 2045.” source ↗
North Northamptonshire CouncilOn 9 September 2025 North Northamptonshire Council's Executive took a KEY DECISION (Item 7, Carbon Management Plan Review) to reset the Council's existing 2030 carbon neutral target and realign its carbon neutral ambitions to the UK net zero target of 2050, stated to be in line with the policy position of the new (Reform) administration.
“To reset the Council’s carbon neutral target, in line with the policy position of the new administration” source ↗
Warwickshire County CouncilCabinet on 11 May 2026 endorsed the FINAL, adopted version of the Council Plan 2026-30 for onward consideration by full Council on 14 May 2026, confirming the net-zero de-emphasis carried through from the draft into the adopted plan: opposition Councillor Jonathan Chilvers objected that the final version still gave insufficient attention to climate change, and Leader Councillor George Finch replied that improved outcomes were not to be achieved solely via net zero measures.
“He emphasised that improved outcomes could be achieved through a range of measures and were not limited to increased adoption of solar panels or a focus on net zero emissions.” source ↗
Leicestershire County CouncilOn 15 July 2025 Leicestershire County Council's Cabinet, on a report of the Director of Environment and Transport and at the request of the Leader of the Council, approved a 'Proposal to Re-prioritise Net Zero Action Plans' (a KEY DECISION): it reallocated the £2m earmarked carbon-reduction reserve to flooding mitigation and severe-weather adaptation, and changed the focus of the Net Zero Action Plan away from carbon reduction to climate adaptation, projects delivering financial savings, and other benefits — members commenting that if investment continued to be made in Net Zero it would be difficult to see the impact on the climate.
“That support be given to a change of focus in the activities delivered under the Net Zero Action Plan from carbon reduction to:” source ↗
Lancashire County CouncilLancashire County Council carried Notice of Motion 3 (moved by County Councillor Martyn Sutton, seconded by County Councillor Russell Walsh) directing the Cabinet to review all previous non-statutory Net Zero commitments, cease voluntary carbon reporting, draft all future strategies without non-statutory Net Zero commitments, and act to rescind any remaining Net Zero goals should national legislation permit. An amendment affirming man-made climate change was LOST and the substantive Motion was CARRIED, materially downgrading the council's non-statutory net-zero commitments.
“Ensure that all future council strategies and policies are drafted without non-statutory Net Zero commitments that impact on the delivery of efficient and value for money services.” source ↗
Staffordshire County CouncilAt Full Council on 9 October 2025, Councillor Mynors moved (seconded by Councillor Murray) a motion to rescind the July 2019 Climate Emergency Declaration and abandon the council's long-term Net Zero targets, replacing them with a new non-target "Environmental Strategy"; the stated rationale was that the pursuit of Net Zero had been "a distraction" and that the council "does not need... long-term Net Zero targets". A Labour amendment to retain climate-mitigation duties was lost and the substantive rescinding motion was carried.
“The County Council does not need a Climate Emergency and long-term Net Zero targets to fulfil our environmental responsibilities and reduce our own impact on the environment.” source ↗
Lincolnshire County CouncilLincolnshire County Council's new Environment Policy scraps the council's declared 2050 carbon-neutrality / net-zero target. At the Environment Scrutiny Committee on 13 February 2026, Executive Councillor for Environment Danny Brookes introduced the policy by announcing the scrapping of the obligatory 2050 carbon neutrality target; members noted the abandonment of net zero targets and concern at the scrapping of the Green Masterplan, and the Executive Councillor said the administration would still work towards net zero goals but they would no longer be pegged to an obligatory target. Councillor Baxter asked for his vote against to be recorded.
“Danny Brookes, the Executive Councillor for Environment introduced the new policy by highlighting key announcements such as the scrapping of the obligatory 2050 carbon neutrality target and prioritisation of agriculture and food security in Lincolnshire.” source ↗
Derbyshire County CouncilAt Derbyshire County Council's 9 July 2025 Full Council (the first under the new Reform administration), a question to Cabinet Member for Net Zero and Environment Cllr Carol Wood noted that the Leader had declared meeting net-zero targets was not a priority; Wood's reply set out only adaptation/resilience measures and confirmed the council's net-zero strategy is being replaced, and in a supplementary he stated the new strategy would contain no explicit emissions-reduction measures.
“we will not be putting in any strategies explicit measures to reduce greenhouse gases” source ↗
Derived from an exhaustive search for “net-zero / carbon-neutral target (Climate Change Act 2008)”, counted against the corpus as of 2026-07-01.
6 Reform-led councils formally opposed or moved to restrict large solar farms or battery storage on farmland
Kent County CouncilKent County Council developed and adopted a 'Solar Developments Position Statement' formally opposing large-scale solar developments and battery energy storage systems on high-grade agricultural land (Grades A1-A3); presented by Cabinet Member David Wimble as reflecting a manifesto policy commitment to protect the county's food economy, it was endorsed by the Scrutiny Committee by majority vote on 7 July 2026 (a rival recommendation to defer for a fuller policy document was put to the vote and lost).
“A position statement had been developed opposing large-scale solar developments and battery energy storage systems on high-grade agricultural land (Grades A1–A3).” source ↗
Warwickshire County CouncilOn 17 March 2026 Warwickshire County Council carried, by a majority, a 'Restore Britain Group Motion' moved by Councillor Scott Cameron and seconded by Councillor Luke Cooper, whose adopted text states that productive farmland must be protected from the installation of solar farms (alongside mass housing / industrial development), on food-security and rural-economy grounds.
“Productive farmland must be protected from mass housing / industrial development and the installation of solar farms whilst ensuring farmers are more easily able to diversify” source ↗
Derbyshire County CouncilAt its 8 October 2025 full council meeting (item 80/25, Notice of Motions), Derbyshire County Council carried "Motion One – Opposition to Large-Scale Solar and Battery Storage Developments", moved by Councillor Graves and duly seconded; after Councillor A Dale's amendment widening the scope from South Derbyshire to all Derbyshire district councils was accepted, the substantive motion was declared won and carried, resolving to record the council's opposition, in principle, to the development of large-scale solar farms and battery energy storage systems on greenfield sites in Derbyshire.
“To record its opposition, in principle, to the development of large- scale solar farms and battery energy storage systems on greenfield sites in Derbyshire.” source ↗
Staffordshire County CouncilOn 11 December 2025 Staffordshire County Council passed a Notice of Motion, moved by Councillor Mynors and seconded by Councillor Large, resolving that on County Council-owned farmland it will not support renewable energy production and storage, and endorsing the Cabinet's 19 November 2025 position that the County Farms Estate will not allow renewable energy production and Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) on farmed land unless agriculture is not significantly impacted; the motion cited food security and the ad hoc siting of such infrastructure on rural farmland.
“For County Council owned farmland, we will not support the provision of renewable energy production and storage until we are satisfied the Government has provided a much more coherent policy position to address the many conflicts.” source ↗
Lincolnshire County CouncilOn 9 June 2025 Lincolnshire County Council's Planning and Regulation Committee resolved to lodge a formal objection to the Springwell Energy Farm Development Consent Order — an up-to-800MW ground-mounted solar and battery-storage NSIP on roughly 1,280 hectares of predominantly agricultural land, ~42% of it Best and Most Versatile — the Council being a statutory consultee, not the determining authority. On a motion by Councillor C L E Vernon, seconded by Councillor T J G Dyer, it was carried 8 in favour, 2 against, 3 abstentions.
“On a motion proposed by Councillor C L E Vernon, and seconded by Councillor T J G Dyer, it was RESOLVED (8 in favour, 2 against, 3 abstentions) That the Committee informs the Examining Authority of the Council’s objection to the Development Consent Order application as noted in the report.” source ↗
Durham County CouncilAt its County Planning Committee on 2 July 2025, Durham County Council refused a ground-mounted solar farm application: Councillor Bell moved refusal on the grounds of landscape harm (seconded by Councillor S Franklin), and despite officers recommending approval and the Planning Lawyer warning the reason was not sustainable and risked costs at appeal, the Committee resolved that the application be REFUSED for unacceptable harm to the landscape, contrary to County Durham Plan Policies 10, 39 and 33 and Part 15 of the NPPF.
“the proposal would result in unacceptable harm to the character, quality and distinctiveness of the landscape in conflict with County Durham Plan Policies 10 and 39 and Part 15 of the National Planning Policy Framework” source ↗
Derived from an exhaustive search for “large-scale solar / Battery Energy Storage on agricultural land”, counted against the corpus as of 2026-07-01.
3 Reform-led councils rescinded or revoked their Climate Emergency Declaration
Durham County CouncilOn a motion moved by Councillor D Grimes and seconded by Councillor K Allison, Durham County Council resolved to rescind its Climate Emergency Declaration and instead declare a 'County Durham Care Emergency' prioritising children's social care and SEND. An amendment was lost (24 for, 61 against) and, on a named vote, the substantive motion was carried by 62 votes to 7, with 17 abstentions.
“Rescind the Climate Emergency Declaration made on 20th February 2019” source ↗
Kent County CouncilOn 18 September 2025 Kent County Council carried a motion — moved by Mr Hespe and seconded by Mr Chamberlain — to rescind the county's Climate Emergency declaration and to resolve that the council be 'open-minded but sceptical of anthropogenic climate change'; the motion was carried on a recorded vote of 50 for, 20 against and 3 abstentions.
“rescind the prior declaration of a Climate Emergency” source ↗
Staffordshire County CouncilStaffordshire County Council resolved to rescind its Climate Emergency Declaration. On a motion moved by Councillor Mynors and seconded by Councillor Murray, a rival amendment was lost and the substantive motion was carried, resolving to 'Rescind the Climate Emergency Declaration made in July 2019' and, 'rather than chasing long-term targets', to focus on value-for-money environmental action and a new Environmental Strategy; asked directly whether the council would revoke the 2019 declaration, the cabinet replied 'Yes'.
“Rescind the Climate Emergency Declaration made in July 2019” source ↗
Derived from an exhaustive search for “Climate Emergency Declaration”, counted against the corpus as of 2026-07-01.
2 Reform-led councils dropped or downgraded voluntary carbon / greenhouse-gas reporting
Lancashire County CouncilAt Full Council on 16 October 2025, Lancashire County Council (Reform UK-led) carried Notice of Motion 3, moved by County Councillor Martyn Sutton and seconded by County Councillor Russell Walsh, resolving to ask Cabinet to cease production and publication of the council's voluntary Annual Emissions Report and related greenhouse gas inventories (except where required by national law), and instructing the Chief Executive to work toward rescinding remaining non-statutory Net Zero goals. A pro-climate amendment moved by County Councillors David Whipp and David Howarth was put to the vote and lost; the substantive motion was then put to the vote and carried.
“Cease the production and publication of voluntary carbon reporting, including the council’s Annual Emissions Report and related greenhouse gas inventories, except where required by national law.” source ↗
Warwickshire County CouncilWarwickshire County Council's Communities Overview & Scrutiny Committee received a dedicated 'Annual Sustainable Futures Report' each February (last seen 26 Feb 2025, presented by the Head of Climate Change and Sustainability, covering net-zero targets, carbon literacy status and carbon-emission reduction progress) before the May 2025 Reform takeover. In the equivalent slot one year later (25 Feb 2026), no standalone Annual Sustainable Futures Report was presented; climate performance instead appeared only within the general Quarter 3 Integrated Performance Report, where officers confirmed council climate strategies (fleet decarbonisation, estates decarbonisation, tree/woodland) were delayed and three climate-change measures were rated underachieving/challenging.
“the three underachieving measures relate to climate change” source ↗
Derived from an exhaustive search for “voluntary carbon / GHG reporting (Annual Emissions Report)”, counted against the corpus as of 2026-07-01.
2 Reform-led LGPS administering councils weakened a pension-fund net-zero commitment or rejected fossil-fuel divestment
Derbyshire County CouncilAt the 25 March 2026 Derbyshire County Council meeting, Councillor R Hatchett asked Councillor M Benfield, Chair of the Pension Fund Committee, whether the council would end investments in stranded fossil-fuel assets given the risks from global energy-price volatility; Benfield's written answer rejected blanket fossil-fuel divestment, citing the fund's fiduciary duty to members and taxpayers and the risk to investment returns.
“We will not support blanket divestment from entire sectors if doing so risks weakening returns or increasing the burden on taxpayers.” source ↗
Lancashire County CouncilAt Full Council on 16 October 2025 (item 17, Notice of Motion 3), Lancashire County Council -- the LGPS administering authority for the Lancashire County Pension Fund -- resolved, on a motion moved by County Councillor Martyn Sutton and seconded by County Councillor Russell Walsh, to ask the Pension Fund Committee to review all ESG requirements and Net Zero targets of the Fund so that Net Zero commitments do not go beyond statutory requirements and impinge on fiduciary duty to pensioners, alongside directing the Cabinet/Chief Executive to strip non-statutory Net Zero commitments from council policy and cease voluntary carbon reporting. An amendment by County Councillors David Whipp and David Howarth that would have prefaced the same resolve with an acknowledgement of man-made climate change was LOST, and the substantive motion (without that preamble) was CARRIED.
“Ask the Pension Fund Committee to review all Environmental, Social and Governance requirements and Net Zero targets of the LCC Pension Fund to ensure that Net Zero commitments do not go beyond statutory requirements and impact on the Fund's fiduciary responsibility to current and future pensioners.” source ↗
Derived from an exhaustive search for “LGPS pension-fund net-zero / fossil-fuel divestment (fiduciary duty)”, counted against the corpus as of 2026-07-01.
The pattern: discretionary cuts, statutory continuation
The rollback is concentrated where action was voluntary and symbolic. Where a council withdrew or reset a carbon target the stated reason was money and mandate: an unfunded target that would ‘require diverting funds from essential services’ (West Northamptonshire), a saving to be banked (County Durham booked £2.2m from ‘removing the cost of chasing net zero targets’; Leicestershire redirected its earmarked carbon-reduction reserve to flood mitigation), or a manifesto commitment to ‘cut the net zero agenda’ (Warwickshire). The mechanism varied by council: a Cabinet or Executive decision replacing a Net Zero plan with a non-target strategy (Kent, West Northamptonshire, Lincolnshire, Derbyshire), a reset of the target date to the UK’s statutory 2050 (North Northamptonshire), or a Full Council motion (Lancashire, Staffordshire). Staffordshire framed the pursuit of Net Zero as ‘a distraction’.
Against that, statutory and grant-funded work continued: the same councils delivered their duties and kept externally-funded programmes running, so the effect is a retreat from voluntary ambition rather than a withdrawal from environmental function. Several were explicit that they would ‘still work towards net zero goals’ but no longer against a binding target (Lincolnshire).
Councils: West Northamptonshire Council, Durham County Council, Leicestershire County Council, Warwickshire County Council, Kent County Council, Lincolnshire County Council, Derbyshire County Council, North Northamptonshire Council, Lancashire County Council, Staffordshire County Council
Sharp single-council actions
Some of the most concrete cuts sit at a single council and so do not form a cross-council figure. Derbyshire went furthest on governance: at its first meeting under the new administration it abolished its dedicated climate scrutiny committee, the body ‘responsible for monitoring the council’s climate goals’, folding its functions into a general Places committee, and later confirmed the deletion of posts within the Climate Change Team as part of budget savings.
County Durham made the largest spending reversal: its Cabinet cancelled the solar-panels-on-council-buildings programme, removing it from the capital programme (including borrowing that was to be repaid from future energy savings), with the Deputy Leader summarising the choice as ‘wheelchairs over windmills… care over carbon’. Separately the council handed unspent Home Upgrade Grant money back to the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero before the deadline, cutting the corresponding capital budget.
The retreat also reached active travel: Warwickshire watered a road-safety motion down so that a proposed rollout of 20mph limits around schools became only a review of the existing criteria, the Leader citing the potential expenditure the original wording implied.
Councils: Derbyshire County Council, Durham County Council, Warwickshire County Council
The notable zeros: where nothing was rolled back
The following areas were searched and showed no rollback.
No Reform-led council was found to have delayed or scaled back its statutory Local Nature Recovery Strategy or biodiversity duty (Environment Act 2021); these were delivered on schedule everywhere the question was asked. Tree-planting commitments continued (missed targets were treated as delivery shortfalls, not policy reversals). Local Plan net-zero housing standards were untouched at the county tier because those plans are made by the district and borough councils, not the upper-tier authorities here. Bus decarbonisation and Bus Service Improvement Plans, funded by the Department for Transport, continued, and in one case were expanded; public EV charging rollout likewise carried on. No council was found rescinding a Clean Air Zone, Air Quality Management Area or workplace parking levy as a climate measure, and none faced live onshore-wind proposals to oppose after the 2015–2024 restrictions.
The consistent line is that discretionary, symbolic policy was cut while statutory duties and centrally-funded delivery ran on.
Councils: Durham County Council, Derbyshire County Council, Kent County Council, Lancashire County Council, Leicestershire County Council, Lincolnshire County Council, North Northamptonshire Council, Nottinghamshire County Council, Staffordshire County Council, Warwickshire County Council, West Northamptonshire Council
Contested and reaffirmed cases
The direction of travel was not unanimous. Warwickshire ran the other way on the declaration itself, carrying a motion to reaffirm its Climate Emergency even as its wider council plan downgraded the net-zero ambition. At Nottinghamshire the 2030 carbon-neutrality target still stands: the only relevant vote was an opposition motion asking the new administration to recommit to it, which was defeated. A ruling group voting down a green motion is not itself a rollback, and it is not counted in the figures above. Where rescissions did pass they were typically carried over the objection of opposition members, several of whom asked for their votes against to be formally recorded.
Councils: Warwickshire County Council, Nottinghamshire County Council
Qualified and deferred cases
A further set of moves point the same way but are too partial to count as headline figures. Staffordshire did not so much abolish as absorb: it moved climate scrutiny off its corporate committee’s work programme, renamed the climate action plan, did not retain a dedicated climate cabinet portfolio, and its Pensions Committee declined to continue the fund’s dedicated Climate Change Strategy, folding each into a broader remit rather than deleting it. Warwickshire’s Reform budget banked savings ‘in the climate change service’ and rejected a Green amendment to fund estate solar, a refusal to invest rather than a reversal of policy. And at West Northamptonshire and Nottinghamshire the pension funds’ responsible-investment and net-zero reviews were questioned against fiduciary duty but deferred rather than decided: cases to watch for supersession as those reviews report.
Councils: Staffordshire County Council, Warwickshire County Council, West Northamptonshire Council, Nottinghamshire County Council
Council-level findings