Agenda for Scrutiny Panel on Renewable Energy Potential on Wednesday, 16th February, 2011, 2.00pm
navigation and tools
Find it
You are here - Home : Council and Democracy : Councillors and Committees : Agenda and minutes
Agenda and minutes
PDF 202 KBVenue: Committee Room 2, Hove Town Hall. View directions
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
Minutes: Procedural business
The Chair welcomed everybody and thanked them for coming. This was the fourth panel meeting. Its purpose was to learn what is happening with renewable energy in the city at the moment, where potential lies in the future and what the Council will do in the future. One of the things learned from previous meetings was just how distributed the field of renewable energy is and therefore how beneficial it is to have everyone around the same table.
Declarations of interest
There were no declarations of interest.
Apologies
Apologies from Cllr Pete West who was unable to attend.
Approval of minutes
Martin Randall (MR): Page 14 – threshold of homes written as 10 homes corrected to 1 home. Thurstan Crocket (TC): Mistake made, minutes will be amended.
Other communications
David Watkins (DW): Use of Skype at the previous meeting was a big success.
|
|
|
Chairman's communications Minutes: Adrian Smith (AS): The Feed-In Tariff review which was announced last year is significant for certain projects such as solar PV although may not affect all projects.
|
|
|
Minutes of the previous meeting The draft minutes of the previous meeting are attached. Minutes: The minutes of the previous meeting were approved. |
|
|
Witnesses
The Panel will hear from:
Thurstan Crockett, Head of Sustainability and Environmental Policy, Brighton & Hove City Council (BHCC)
Martin Randall, Head of Planning & Public Protection, BHCC with Roger Dowty, Design & Conservation Manager, BHCC and Samuel Rouse, Senior Technical Advisor, Air Quality, Environmental Protection Team, BHCC
Angela Dymott, Head of Property & Design, BHCC & Glynnan Barham, Energy & Water Manager, BHCC
Jugal Sharma, Lead Commissioner Housing, BHCC
Nigel Manvell, Value For Money Programme Director, BHCC
Minutes: Witnesses:
Thurstan Crocket - Head of Sustainability and Environmental policy
TC had provided a written response to the Panel which stated that the Sustainability Team provides specialist consultancy services, working across the council to promote a consistent and practical approach to reducing environmental impacts, and working together with city partners to encourage good practice and wider sustainability benefits.
Key areas of work included:
The team provided support to the City Sustainability Partnership (CSP), which formed part of the Brighton & Hove Strategic Partnership, as well as the Council’s Sustainability Cabinet Committee, which met on a regular basis to make decisions or recommendations to Cabinet on sustainability issues that are not the sole responsibility of other Cabinet members.
As Head of Sustainability & Environmental Policy, as well as leading the team, his role included managing and helping the CSP, advising senior managers, the leadership and members, and providing advice and support for policy development work, such as the work of this panel.
Current city policy, position, targets, monitoring and review
Relevant city policy and targets stemmed from the current Brighton & Hove Sustainable Community Strategy, in a chapter headed Living within environmental limits and a section on tackling climate change:
What we plan to do (extract from that section): “Achieve, from a 2005 baseline of 5.53 tonnes per capita, a 12% reduction in city CO2 ‘direct’ emissions by 2012/13, a 42% reduction by 2020 and an 80% reduction by 2050….
…Develop consolidated action around the expansion of sustainable and renewable energy generation. Produce a (‘big users’) heat map of the city to promote district heating scheme plans, using new developments as a catalyst. Establish an energy service company (or companies) to support local sustainable and affordable energy delivery. Install, and support the widespread installation of new energy generating technologies including supporting plans for a large offshore wind farm off the coast of Sussex, and undertaking feasibility studies for marine (tidal, wave) and wind energy for the city. Identify sites for larger scale sustainable energy facilities through development policies and the Site Allocations Development Plan Document.”
The marine studies were now likely to be dropped from any immediate action planning due to strong evidence that there is insufficient wave or tidal resource locally to make investment viable. This strong steer came from the renewables industry itself.
Current council policy was set out in the 2008-11 Corporate Plan: Under Priority One: Protect the Environment While Growing the Economy: “We…want to reduce the city’s carbon footprint, and play a full part in tackling the international challenge of climate change”. We will have succeeded if, by 2011: • CO2 emissions per head and CO2 emissions from council activities have reduced • More wind, solar and other sustainable energy is installed locally.” C For the council and its own estate, a strategy was established in March 2007 in a Carbon Management Programme Strategy & Implementation Plan. This committed the council to reducing its emissions by 20% from a 2005/6 baseline by April 2012. Under the Plan section “Long-term programmes, policies and projects” there is a paragraph on Renewable Energy in Council buildings:
“An investigation into the potential for implementing renewable energy sources for council buildings. This will include reviewing current buildings and investigating the potential to utilise renewable energy resources, as well as working closely with the Architecture and Design Team to ensure that all new builds and refurbishments include renewable energy elements where possible. An initial target of 5% of the council’s electricity consumption from its own renewable sources by April 2012.”
The average 4% per year emissions reduction aim was also reflected in the council’s Local Target L26 for NI185 in the Local Area Agreement with the government, of 12% over three years, from a 2008/9 baseline year. DECC has not yet reported figures for our 2009/10 achievement.
Similarly the LAA target for city-wide carbon emissions was a 12% per capita reduction in CO2 emissions over 3 years, against a 2005 baseline; the position was that the city has achieved about 6%, though there was a two year lag in the availability of this data, so the latest figures are for 2008. This was in line with the national figure for England.
The Leader of the council subsequently committed the council, as one of her 2010 priorities, to signing up to 10:10 and so aiming for a 10 per cent reduction in the council’s CO2 emissions in 2010/11 from a 2009/10 baseline.
None of these targets and action plans had specific renewables actions in them as the emphasis was on demand reduction i.e. energy efficiency, as the priority.
Council officers were currently working on a corporate renewables policy to ensure a consistent approach across the council for its land and buildings.
The city council has developed and implemented and Environmental Management System (EMS) accredited to ISO 14001. The EMS created a framework for managing and reducing the organisation’s environmental impacts.
The EMS currently covered the Brighton Centre, the Hove Centre, Hove Town Hall and all outdoor events taking place in the city. There were plans to roll out the EMS across the council.
The EMS was guided by B&HCC Environmental Policy. The policy had been signed by both the Leader and Chief Executive of the council and it set out the high level environmental aims of the organisation. The policy specifically committed to the installation of renewable energy systems where they were appropriate and to procuring energy from renewable sources. It was a high level document which covers a wide range of environmental aims and it was not specific about how these aims will be achieved. In order to ensure that its aims were delivered in a co-ordinated way, further policy guidance was required. The Corporate Renewable Energy Policy would provide more detail to those involved in delivering renewable energy projects on how they should be managed.
An important element of an EMS was identifying the activities within the organisation with significant environmental impacts and introducing procedures to manage and reduce them. One of the significant impacts identified for B&HCC was the energy used at all locations. Creating clear and co-ordinated procedures for the introduction of renewable energy installations supports the systematic approach needed to maintain accreditation to the ISO 14001 standard.
Monitoring of the amount of installed renewable energy in the city was reported in City Planning’s Annual Monitoring Report; experience has shown that sourcing reliable data for this was a real issue, as planning permission is no longer required for many installations.
Ambitions and leadership
The CSP drove city ambition on carbon reduction and this included renewable energy. This was reflected in its drafting contribution to the Sustainable Community Strategy and current development of a revised city Climate Change Action Plan. The planning process had included a review of the original 2006 version and will also reflect the agreed outcomes from this Panel’s recommendations.
The current council leadership priorities under a Sustainable City theme were:
Cross-council co-ordination
The Council’s Carbon Management Board, now headed by the Strategic Director for Resources, co-ordinated carbon reduction activity across buildings, fleet, staff travel and street lighting. There was also a wider cross-council officer working group.
The Resources Unit, including the Policy, Performance & Analysis teams, supported cross-council co-ordination relating to work across the city, including partnership working. Increasingly this was also the focus of the Strategic Director for Place, linked to the new commissioning programme.
Ambitions of the CSP
The CSP had 3 top priorities:
The Partnership, like the city council, saw increasing renewable energy generation locally in the context of its carbon and resource reduction priorities, rather than as an end in itself.
A key point was that renewable energy needs to be seen in the context of energy management and sustainability. Demand reduction would always be higher up in the hierarchy than renewable energy.
Although Feed-in Tariff provided financial incentives for renewables now, good energy management also meant considering the potential for efficient, sustainable energy options as a transition to a low carbon future, such as gas fired Combined Heat and Power (CHP).
Q: On page three of your written response, the policy commits to securing renewable energy how does this fit with value for money?
Angela Dymott (AD): The Council began to purchase renewable energy 5-6 years ago and was the first Council to do so. At this time it cost approximately 10% more, but tax is refunded through the climate change levy which more-or-less balanced out the cost. The levy has decreased recently due to the increase in renewable energy suppliers. The Council has continued to purchase green energy.
Q: Regarding the CSP, Is Brighton ahead of the curve or lagging behind?
TC: As both Partnership manager and the council’s Head of Sustainability it is hard to answer that question due to the potential conflict of interest.
But trying to answer it objectively, the perception of the CSP as a whole is that:
· The city has a greater responsibility as a whole to reduce carbon emissions than it is realising · This is across a very broad area of polices and practices · It is not meeting city ambitions and targets in the Sustainable Community Strategy · So it is not meeting the partnership’s ambitions · The Council is a key player, but not the only one
The chair of the Partnership has written to other partnership chairs to ask what they are going to do to better enable to city to meet targets. The perception with regard to CO2 reduction is that all parties and major stakeholders in the city could do much better, not just the Council.
Q: How can commitments to reduce traffic in the city be achieved without committing to increase the number of electric car charging points?
TC: This is a political issue and it isn’t really for me to say. Although on the subject of electric vehicles, people don’t buy them unless the charging infrastructure exists to support them and the number is increasing.
Martin Randall (MR): This issue touches upon parking standards and the number of parking spaces allocated to developers. This message is somewhat cloudy to partners and developers and parking standards related to new developments can be tricky. The message to developers from the Planning Committee, allied to the Council’s planning document, needs to have a pragmatic line which ensures that development is not restricted whilst retaining the city’s sustainability credentials.
Q: The Corporate Renewable Energy Policy brings together many roles within the Council to co-ordinate. Has any thought been given to how to bring the ideas and experiences of outside groups, such as developers or community groups, to the table?
TC: The Draft Corporate Renewable Energy Policy is essentially about the Council and its estate. The outcome of this panel is more likely to inform wider policy.
AD: The Draft Corporate Renewable Energy Policy is a framework for the Council. It enables us to bring together all the different elements within the Council. Glynnan Barham has developed this Policy.
Q: Clearly the Council takes a lead role within the city, what can it do to involve other partners and groups within the city?
AD: It [The Draft Corporate Renewable Energy Policy] does cover some of that.
Glynnan Barham (GB): The policy does have a primary focus on Council property but it understands the need to look wider than the Council to offer support and experience for other sections within the city.
Martin Randall - Head of Planning and Public Protection
MR: Martin Randall told the panel that it is worth remembering that Town Planning’s statutory purpose is to deliver “sustainable development”. There is a supportive national planning framework and a comprehensive set of local policies.
Council planning policies to promote the use of renewables have been around since 2001. This approach has been crystallised in our Sustainable Design Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) from 2008. The overall planning policy framework provides support and advice including planning advisory notes on subjects such as microgeneration.
Our approach has been ‘zero carbon’ rather than aiming for a specific renewable energy target. This reflects the hierarchy that Thurstan has already touched upon (i.e. reduction then efficiency then renewables). This also enables the Council to use more imaginative solutions when seeking carbon reduction. Renewables are part of this equation but it is important to keep our eye on what it is we intend to achieve overall.
The Council has achieved high levels of compliance with its planning standards and been recognised as ‘best practice’ from a number of sources. The monitoring that has been undertaken shows a significant uplift in standards in new builds. An example is that since September 2008 when our Sustainable Design SPD was installed, every single new residential development new-build has been at least code 3 which is an excellent achievement. Of 111 units, 19 have achieved code 4 and some have achieved code 5.
A key message was that early stage discussions, i.e. pre application, needs to take place around the development process so that sustainability and renewables are not treated as ‘bolt-ons’ afterwards. Developments which have add-on bits, later in the development process, often end up not looking very good. Another benefit of pre-application work is minimizing the risk of deterring developers from investing in the city. This element was integral to the planning message. The earlier discussions are had in the planning process with developers, the more straight forward the process was.
The AmEx building was a good example with regard to carbon reduction and finding imaginative solutions. Investment for a local school’s boiler was secured through a Section 106 agreement where the building’s specifications didn’t quite achieve the carbon reduction standards required in the planning process.
Retrofitting has been a big challenge. Planning often needs to find imaginative solutions and a balance must be struck between carbon standards and preserving listed buildings.
Planning framework was changing continually. Ground and air source heat pumps, solar PV, biomass and Combined Heat and Power (CHP) are now easier to secure in planning but caveats still exist around conservation areas and listed buildings. The framework does not include wind turbine guidance.
The panel should be mindful of the new National Planning Statement which should clarify the role for planning in supporting zero carbon technologies. This should aim to bring together a plethora of advice including renewables. We needed to adopt the Core Strategy. This will formalise some important opportunities, for example carbon offsetting.
Neighbourhood planning and localism needed to be addressed. The Localism Bill provides an opportunity for neighbourhood plans which will feed into the wider plan for the city.
More and better monitoring is crucial. The Council has been supported by the Building Research Establishment (BRE) regarding estimates in kilowatts of the potential savings made by residents. A capacity study would be beneficial. For example, studying heat loads and assessing both where heat is generated and where it is needed in the city.
The Council was about to become the first local authority to use the Energy Saving Trust’s new modelling tool to measure carbon emissions. This involved measuring carbon emissions at the design stage. This will continue to provide useful advice and support for developers in the planning process.
Roger Dowty (RD) – Design and Conservation Manager
Roger Dowty told the panel that in respect to retrofitting within conservation areas, residents now had much greater freedom with regard to installing solar panels without needing planning permission. However people often choose to live in conservation areas, because of the controls placed on these areas and the limits to the amount of change. The attitude towards solar panels being placed on roofs in conservation areas was probably 50-50 for and against. Few enquiries were made about solar panels, even fewer about wind turbines. Loft conversions and roof alterations were more common. The expertise involved in loft conversions and roof alterations may lead to an opportunity to be coupled with solar installations. The installation of solar panels was encouraged on listed buildings with invisible roofs. Solar slate tiles were a suitable alternative to concrete roof tiles on listed/conservation buildings.
Sam Rouse (SR) - Air Quality Advisor
Sam Rouse told the Panel that Nitrogen dioxide in Brighton & Hove (B&H) did not comply with the national air quality strategy whose targets are legally binding, a problem within most of the city centre. There was a lot of common ground between carbon reduction and other air quality problems, so joined up thinking was encouraged.
· Most air quality issues in B&H were traffic related but this might not always be the case if CHP or biomass was incorporated into the city. · There was an opportunity for renewable energy to feed into sustainable transport for example electrification of railways and busses. · Cars were not the only problem, busses and commercial vans also contributed to lowering air quality.
Common ground has been identified between the Government’s sustainable transport priorities of sustainable development local economy and carbon with local air quality. Part of the air quality action plan was to implement the low emissions strategy which was currently in development across Sussex. This fed into the local transport plan and the air quality action plan. Both documents were currently being finalised, following a period of public consultation.
The air quality problems in B&H were not unique. The city was the worst in Sussex, but not as serious as in central London. The Council shared best practice around the UK. The Council received Planning applications for small power provision installations such as biomass and wood burners. In conjunction with Environmental Protection UK, the Council produced guidance for local authorities on how do deal with such applications. The general consensus was that some sites in the city were less suitable for biomass or wood burning boilers, because they would contribute to lowering local air quality. The costs for managing dispersion could be prohibitively expensive and chimneys and stacks would have an impact on conservation. Biomass could be a possible source of renewable energy on the outskirts of Brighton, to be reviewed on a case by case basis.
Q: What are you experiences of the problems with wind turbines and noise?
SR: Noise from wind turbines is improving as technology advances. We don’t get many complaints about noise from turbines. Most applications for turbines tend to be on industrial sites or off shore, where there is little concern for noise pollution. We don’t really anticipate there being a statutory nuisance issue from wind turbines. Shadow and flicker are not really our remit.
Q: Could you give us more information on this golden vision of providing bus routes powered by locally derived renewable electricity. Has this been done elsewhere? How has it been achieved and were the costs shared between the transport provider and local authority?
Also as sources of funding become scarce and the Council looks more to s106 as a means for financing projects - are renewable energy projects likely to take a back seat as by they can be less visible?
SR: There are 5 key bus routes in B&H which take on the majority of passenger traffic. Buses are a source of air quality problems and they could only be clean if they were electric. Pilot projects are in progress for hydrogen fuel cell buses. Diesel busses do contribute to particulate pollution. The potential for offshore power generation would be key to that.
Q: How much more could be achieved in this area?
SR: Manchester is a good example. As with vehicle charging points, they are very new and it takes time to change behaviour. Good practice exists elsewhere and it would be worth looking into.
MR: It would be worth getting the Transport team involved to find out exactly what we are doing in this area.
There is no doubt that securing s.106 money for renewable projects will become increasingly difficult, so it will be important that we are not reliant on s.106 money. Although AmEx is a good example of how s.106 can be used, it is important to stress that carbon reduction should be achieved as part of the development process. If good planning advice is given, drawing upon best practice from elsewhere, s.106 will not be depended upon for renewable developments.
The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) provides the opportunity to draw together development proposals when the strategic need for that infrastructure has been identified. This may be the way forward to provide funding for CHP and district heating proposals. Although the detail around the CIL has not yet been finalised.
Q: If the school boiler example was a partial offset, what was learned from the AmEx example about how much funding is required for total offset in line with carbon targets? Also what lessons can be learned about not scaring off developers?
The negotiations can be quite tough. This is because developers want to see the justification for any s.106 agreements. So it is important that the best possible data is available during the negotiations and using broad figures is not enough to persuade developers to meet our targets. Clear statistics need to be gathered early enough to prove genuine energy savings.
Baseline averages are available as industry standards. For example data exists on the emission levels for a two bedroom flat, it does however require both the data and the expertise to interpret it in order to successfully turn it into a negotiating position.
Q: Do you feel that you have that data at the moment and are able to negotiate with developers as an equal partner?
MR: The AmEx example demonstrates that we did, but it did require a lot of last minute work to secure that particular data. It shows that good monitoring is crucial and we would be in a better negotiating position if good data was readily available at the outset.
Q: As the AmEx building was a new development, were they not willing or unable to make the adjustments to meet the carbon reduction targets?
MR: It is more likely that they were unable to meet the targets.
Q: In that case is the bar being set too high for developers?
MR: We do set a high bar, but it isn’t too high. With AmEx it related to the particular form of development needed. Where we do have to be flexible is in understanding the business operation. When the Council settles for a particular design, it needs to understand both how this might impact on the business and the danger that developers choose to relocate elsewhere.
Within the framework it was clear that AmEx couldn’t do everything we wanted. Some of the performance enhancements such as triple glazed windows were ‘bolted-on’ after the design stage to increase the carbon reduction. A gap still existed at the end of the development, which led us to go down the s.106 route. An element of the negotiation process is not scientific and requires the developer and the Council to realise what is possible within the framework.
Q: Where solar panels are placed Houses in Multiple Occupation, does only one of the dwellings receive the benefits of the renewable energy produced? On listed buildings, are there any alternatives to solar panels that won’t spoil the look of the building?
RD: It is a key point that listed buildings are often HMOs, so there are technical and social issues surrounding the delivery of renewables.
Having regard to the special duties regarding historic buildings, the industry is continually developing alternatives for listed buildings such as very slim double glazing units that can be accommodated within existing traditional window frames and solar slates, that do not spoil the character or appearance of the building. However, these alternatives are more expensive.
AD: The Council’s property portfolio is very wide and varied. It consists of operational buildings such as schools, residential buildings, libraries and museums. Its investment portfolio includes many of the city’s shops, retail and industrial buildings and farmland. Our aim is to reduce carbon emissions and renewables are a solution within that.
Glynnan Barham (GB) – Energy and Water Manager and Angela Dymott (AD) – Head of Property and Design
GB: Glynnan told the Panel that the opportunities for renewables had increased significantly over the past year. This was shown in the monitoring information which was now available. The main focus of the Energy and Water team was to ensure that it had robust information. They hoped to have post-completion information about all its properties to clearly monitor those sites and provide information about their carbon footprint. Then it can be identified where sufficient energy management can be put in place. This was the primary focus and when management efficiencies have been met then perhaps could identify other savings such as from renewables.
The installation of AMR Smart Meters should help gather some of this monitoring information. They were due to be installed by the end of this year and will provide more accurate data about the energy usage of the Council’s property portfolio.
The key opportunities within the Council, relating to renewables, were in the use of Council owned land. Following investigations - the civic buildings, galleries, museums, schools, housing sites and industrial farmland have been highlighted has having the greatest potential for renewables.
The barriers encountered were largely financial although the introduction of the Feed-in Tariff, and the possible introduction of the RHI, may alleviate some of these issues. However the fast changing national policy has caused the need to continually make adjustments in light to new policy directions.
Q: What were the key financial opportunities to the renewable sector and what is the Council doing to take advantage of those in light of the Feed-in Tariff and Renewable Heat Incentive?
GB: The Council had looked at where it could make financial savings with the energy offset through the application of renewables and looking at the revenue that those areas can generate. In order to be able to take advantage of these schemes, the Council had drawn up a list of suitable sites that lend themselves to the application of PV panels and the result of this investigation was due soon. A thorough desktop exercise had been carried out, looking at the vast array of Council owned properties and identifying those which have the right orientation and a low risk of overshadowing and are structurally sound. This had been narrowed down to a suitable list.
The Team had looked particularly at the key areas that the Feed-in Tariff appeared to encourage, especially solar PV and wind turbines. A desktop exercise was conducted into assessing wind speed information which concluded that certain specifications had to be met for the turbines to be effective. Though turbines below this specification may not be hugely beneficial, the Council would not necessarily discourage applications for planning permission. The wind mapping exercise identified that many of the areas with sufficient wind were often in conservation areas or areas where planning might not necessarily be possible to obtain. The Council was also looking at carrying out a city wide heat mapping exercise. This would identify where the heat areas are within the city and where there may be opportunities to create partnerships and a heating network.
Q: How far are the plans for the city to develop energy services companies, what should be in energy services contracts in the cities?
GB: The Council was currently modelling Energy Service Companies (ESCOs) based on the one successfully employed by the Natural History Museum in London. This is where I was previously employed and hade experience of an ESCO which set up a large scale CHP plant. It was a successful application which could be replicated in Brighton.
Two schemes were currently being developed. Firstly, Woodvale Crematoria to look at the potential for electricity to be generated from the heat captured. This would be used for offsetting within the crematoria and provide heating for the local area. The final report from the Woodvale Crematoria project was due this week and the project was nearing completion.
The civics ESCO was being developed for Kings House, Hove Town Hall, Bartholomew House and Brighton Town Hall. This would look at general parts replacement as well as CHP schemes, and should come to completion towards the end of the financial year.
We are investigating the energy use for potential ESCOs for all Council properties, alongside the use of the heat mapping.
Q: What are the key aims on outcomes of the planned renewables policy that we are producing? And how will the plans encourage growth in the renewable energy sector?
GB: The principle aim behind the Renewables Policy has been to strengthen the drive and focus the Council has on renewables. From the policy we expected a standardisation of processes to tackle the issue of renewables, removing the risk of a splintered approach on such matters. As the Council strives for a developed and strengthened EMS, having such ... view the full minutes text for item 20. |
|
|
A.O.B |