On 6 March 2026, Kingston's Place Committee confirmed what many had suspected: the borough is not on track to meet its own net zero target. The committee acknowledged the council is falling short of its environmental commitments — but the papers stopped well short of explaining exactly where the emissions are coming from, or whether green investment is reaching the wards that need it most.
That gap between ambition and accountability is worth examining closely.
Kingston has a stated goal of becoming carbon neutral, but the Place Committee's March meeting did not publish a ward-by-ward breakdown of emissions, nor a map of where EV charging points, solar panel installations, or retrofit programmes have actually been delivered.
Without that granular data, residents cannot tell whether the council's green spending is concentrated in wealthier, owner-occupied wards — where households have the roof space, the savings, and the time to engage with grant schemes — or whether it is genuinely reaching the high-density, rented, and lower-income neighbourhoods where retrofit is hardest and transport emissions tend to be highest.
This is not a trivial question. It goes to the heart of whether Kingston's net zero strategy is an environmental policy or a middle-class subsidy.
Kingston's 19 wards are not interchangeable. They differ significantly in housing stock, population density, car ownership rates, and access to public transport.
Wards with higher concentrations of pre-1919 terraced housing — common across much of the older, inner parts of the borough — tend to have the worst energy efficiency ratings and the highest per-household heating emissions. These are often private rented properties where landlords have little financial incentive to insulate, and tenants have no legal power to compel them.
By contrast, newer housing developments on the borough's edges, and owner-occupied suburban wards, are more likely to have received loft insulation, heat pump grants, or solar installations — not because the council targeted them, but because their residents were better placed to apply.
EV charging infrastructure tells a similar story. If the council is installing charging points predominantly in areas with off-street parking, it is primarily benefiting residents who already own cars and could afford to switch to electric. Residents in flats and terraces — who depend on street-level public chargers — are left waiting.
Kingston residents are already paying more. The total Band D council tax bill for 2026/27 is £2,608.12 per year, up from £2,488.35 the previous year — a rise of £119.77, or 4.99%. That increase is composed of a 2.99% general rise plus the 2% adult social care precept.
At the same time, the council is staring at a projected £18 million budget gap over the four years to 2030, against reserves of just £14.2 million. In that environment, every pound of capital spending on environmental programmes needs to be justified — and justified transparently.
If the council cannot demonstrate that its net zero investment is reaching the wards with the highest emissions and the least capacity to self-fund green improvements, it risks spending scarce public money on projects that look good in annual reports but move the needle very little on actual carbon output.
The 6 March decision was a moment of honesty — acknowledging the target is being missed is at least better than pretending otherwise. But honesty is not a plan.
Residents should be asking:
Which wards have the highest residential carbon emissions per household? The council almost certainly holds this data, or can access it through the London Datastore. Publishing it would allow residents to scrutinise whether investment is following need.
How many EV charging points have been installed in each ward, and at what cost? A full register, broken down by ward and by year of installation, would show whether provision is evenly spread or clustered in easier-to-serve locations.
How many households in each ward have received retrofit support — insulation, heat pumps, solar — through council-backed or council-signposted schemes? Without this, there is no way to assess whether the programme is equitable.
What is the revised timeline for reaching net zero, and what are the measurable milestones by ward? A target without a timetable and without geographic accountability is not a target — it is an aspiration.
How much of the council's own estate — offices, depots, leisure centres — has been decarbonised, and what remains? The council should be leading by example on its own buildings before asking residents to act.
Several London boroughs publish annual climate action scorecards that include ward-level data on emissions, energy efficiency ratings by tenure type, and infrastructure rollout maps. Kingston could do the same.
The Place Committee has 48 councillors across 19 wards heading into full elections on 7 May 2026. Every one of those councillors will shortly be asking residents for their vote. It is entirely reasonable for residents to ask, before casting it, what their ward councillor has done to ensure green investment has reached their street — and what they plan to do when Kingston is still missing its net zero target.
The admission on 6 March is a starting point. But without ward-level transparency on both emissions and investment, residents cannot hold the council accountable for what happens next.
Want to ask your ward councillor where Kingston's green investment has actually gone in your area? Council Clarity makes it straightforward. Use our tool to message your councillors directly and ask for a ward-by-ward breakdown of EV charging, retrofit support, and emissions data — before the May 2026 elections. Your councillors are required to respond. Message your councillors now through Council Clarity.
Share this post
Want to have your say on this issue?
Contact your local councillor through Council Clarity. Your message becomes a public thread.
Message your councillor →