Agenda item - 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

 

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:

• Policy: Ensuring sustainability is effectively built in to decision-making, including strategic planning, policy development and implementation; and at all stages of commissioning;
• Performance: Improving environmental and sustainability performance across the council using an Environmental Management System approach, including improving awareness and understanding of potential risks and opportunities;
• Partnership: Supporting the development and implementation of the Brighton & Hove Sustainable Community Strategy, and its work streams, including climate change mitigation and adaptation planning.

 

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:

 

• 10:10 – committing the council to working for a significant reduction in its CO2 emissions in 2010/11;
• supporting the city-wide 10:10 campaign;
• supporting the offshore wind farm; and maximising its local economic impact
• more electrical vehicle charging points across the city

 

 

 

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:

• tackling climate change – the city quickly cutting greenhouse gas emissions; and planning and adapting well to a changing climate locally
• transforming the city for wildlife and people – applying for UNESCO Biosphere Reserve status
• reducing the city’s ecological footprint from the equivalent of 3.5 planets per person to one planet living

 

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 policies in place only supports this process, through removal of risk, setting defined guidelines and demonstrating the necessary avenues of communication if such as project is applied. It would also set guidelines on the sorts of technologies to be used. We also expect the policy to strengthen the work around the environmental management system.

 

Q.        What RE projects are being planned by the Council e.g. incorporating into new build programmes, incorporated in schools?

 

AD:     The Architecture and Design team had incorporated a number of renewable projects around the city, particularly in schools. We have also looked at our building maintenance programmes and have tried to incorporate renewables into boiler replacements, insulation projects and window replacements.

           

            The Council had actively promoted sustainable solutions using its developing sustainable design policy. This was possible due to our close links with the Planning team and Sustainability team.

 

            Projects carried out by Property’s Architectural and Education Capital Project teams were working towards designing to BREEAM ‘excellent’ where practical, and ‘very good’ on larger primary capital schemes for schools and other corporate capital projects.  Sustainable designs for the education and corporate capital programmes have to date incorporated where appropriate: ground source heat pumps for space heating, solar panels on the roofs to heat hot water, wind turbines, rain water harvesting, passive ventilation and sedum, roofs. These projects have played an educational role as children are learning about renewables and actually seeing how they work through our installations Future projects incorporating similar technologies are planned for Somerhill School, Westdene, Goldstone and Queens Park Primary schools. In some of these schools additional technologies such as air source heat pumps are also being incorporated.

 

            We have learned from others. A city property group, incorporating all our public sector partners, talks about shared services, accommodation, energy reduction, carbon reduction and travel.

 

GB & AD:       The experience with Birmingham Council, and others, is that they wanted to lead by example by rolling out renewables on a large scale which may not be particularly suitable. Other Councils are taking completely different stances and so there doesn’t appear to be a common approach with Council-led renewable projects.

 

            Some Councils have taken the lead by forging partnerships to share ideas and knowledge. For example, a joint partnership with energy managers which is a useful way of sharing knowledge and experience. Although B&H doesn’t have the same level of scope, SERENE (the South East Region Energy Network) which includes membership from Kent county Council to Hampshire county Council, recently incorporating Surrey, Southampton and Portsmouth has been an invaluable source of information. For example, it has become clear that Southampton has particular expertise and experience dealing with district heating systems and CHP.

 

Q:        What potential is there in the city for the Council to join forces with other organisations?

 

The Council was setting up a pilot large generation project across the road at the Norton road car park. This would incorporate large scale PV. This project would also encourage training and apprenticeships as well. There is also the potential for joint projects within the city, which would be assessed on a case by case basis on the strength of the business case before any final decisions were made.

 

At present the experience has been that the majority of offers being put on the table from these groups are simply at the idea stage and would leave the Council financially vulnerable.

 

One way we have tried to support community schemes, was to strengthen the sustainability criteria within the procurement stage, removing the obstacles that some of the smaller companies often experience during this process.

 

Which technology would be best to consider for the Council properties?

 

GB:     As previously highlighted, the possibility for solar panels existed on a list of sites. The wind speed analysis has highlighted areas that could lend themselves for wind turbines however these locations would be more likely to receive a significant amount of opposition. With large refurbishment projects, the potential exists for ground and air source heat pumps. There is also potential for CHP as well as large and small scale absorption chilling technology in partnership with ESCOs. The heat mapping exercise will hopefully strengthen the case for that.

 

AD:     The Council’s accommodation strategy has concentrated mainly on carbon reduction although renewables will have a place where appropriate. The buildings that have been reviewed for the accommodation strategy are included within the ESCo project which incorporated investigations into CHP technology. ‘Workstyles’ is a way in which Property & Design have worked within the Council’s accommodation strategy. By looking at alternative ways of working, such as, home working, to reduce travel and the carbon footprint of our offices. These issues would be addressed in our plan which would look at the next 5 -10 years and where the appropriate technologies can be applied.

 

What is the Council doing to increase the amount of renewable energy procures?

 

AD:     As previously mentioned, 100% of the Council’s electricity came from renewable sources. We have looked at the potential for green gas, but looking at the short to mid-term, the market simply is not available. We have already covered the potential for CHP.

 

Q:        What do think about the benefits of flagship projects?

 

GB:     The City had a strong reputation with regard to environmental issues and it was easy to build on this, particularly with the fast pace of change and the potential benefits from the Feed-in Tariff. It is important not to leap in to these projects, as we have already seen the price of solar panels has come down considerably. The Norton car park is an example of a flagship project.

 

Q:        How would you describe the Councils relationship with the distribution network operator?

           

GB:     We have been party to proposals that are being taken to Government and are encouraging the reduction in the distribution charges.  This would allow companies and authorities to generate at one site and export to the grid and then offset usage at another owned site without having to pay high distribution charges or having to lay independent supply cables. The current charges were approximately 13p per Kilowatt. Proposals pushed for a nominal charge in the cost of distribution, which could be significant for projects in the future.

 

            With regard to new projects, we were working closely with distribution networks, suppliers and companies to ensure that all new developments are meeting the demand requirements.

 

The potential for reducing the Council’s energy bill using the sites highlighted for renewables, still stands at approximately 5%. We have been told to expect utility costs increases of up to 10% or even higher which will provide a significant focus with regard to the application of renewables.

 

Q:        What have been the key findings of the work that has been done to assist the potential for PV in possible sites?

 

This has mostly been covered previously

 

AD & GB:       People came forward requesting that the Council donate sites. We have looked at these on a case by case basis, but we would really need a sustainable business case.

 

Q:        How has SALIX loan funding worked and can it support renewables?

 

GB:     The SALIX funding ramped up significantly again last year. Although this funding did support renewables, it was not always possible to meet a lot of the compliance criteria that is set for that type of technology. They prefer smaller scale projects such as insulation, BMS upgrades rather than renewables. The compliance criteria looked for very short payback times and strict £ per tonne of CO₂ returns. Although we have looked at it we have realised there are more advantageous sources of funding out there.

 

Q:        You have mentioned the future projects for schools such as Queen’s Park, what is already being done at Whitehawk Primary? Could we have some examples?

 

AD:     Promised to provide the panel with examples.

 

Q:        Are the educational benefits from installing renewables in these schools being realised?

 

AD:     Yes. That was the exciting bit!

 

GB:     We visited the schools and met with teacher about how the energy factors can be blended into the curriculum.

 

Q:        What is your timetable for renewable energy development?

 

TC:      The ambition was to get this to the next Sustainability Cabinet Meeting in March. However with elections coming up this can be difficult.

 

Jugal Sharma (JS) - Lead Commissioner Housing

 

JS:      Jugal told that panel that there were roughly 180,000 properties in the city. 25,000 were in the private rented sector, 12,000 homes were in the public sector and 2,000 leaseholders.

 

            It was been calculated that 70% of all deprivation was focused around Council estates, with a large proportion also in HMOs and on the sea front. The biggest factor contributing to inequality in the most deprived areas has been energy costs. A disproportionate increase in either electricity or gas, combined with travel costs, has meant that an average income in the East of the city - which started at £7,500 - has now dropped to £4,500. So 70% of people living in our houses are suffering from poverty or one sort or another and/or are on benefits. Our main focus has been to identify the key sources of inequality. We have mapped our estates and have a master plan with all of our properties within the HRAOs. We have found that the pockets of depravation are centred around the streets rather than specific areas, for example between Whitehawk and Queen’s Park.

 

We have recognised that there needed to be a way of addressing the neighbourhood in terms of deprivation, which balances the building of new Council homes with refurbishment of existing ones. Meeting the government’s targets around decent homes has been one objective, but the bar is very low and did not address multiple needs. Fitting a new kitchen or re-wiring a house, did not necessarily address the wider issue of deprivation or poverty.

 

            Key meters have the biggest impact on deprivation. Levels of deprivation could swing dramatically from one week to the next, based on the fact that one week residents are not able to charge their meter key. Key meters have a disproportionately high level of charge for electricity when those who use them are often the most deprived. We have not succeeded in lowering meter charges. We explored the possibility of becoming suppliers of key meter charging machines by entering into contracts with energy suppliers but this would have only succeeded in reducing the mark up placed on the keys by retailers without impacting on the cost of electricity. Therefore it was not considered to make a significant saving for the customer.

 

            In the private rented sector there were 25,000 private rented sector properties in the city. 70% of deprivation sits on the seafront and mostly people living in HMOs. A disproportionately high number of these people are on benefits and income in these areas has dropped. People leave temporary accommodation and move into Council owned property, this lies mostly in the East of the city which creates a pocket of deprivation.

 

The level of deprivation drives regeneration. While the number of decent homes within the Council rented sector has dropped to around 50%, the number of decent homes in the private sector has gone up. There are a higher number of homes in the private sector that do not meet the decent home criteria, than in the public rented sector.

 

We used a number of measures in conjunction with East Sussex. We have bid for, and been successful for, large sources of funding which have gone into energy efficiency measures. This has enabled us to spend about £1m per year on various forms of efficiency measures. These have been targeted to the unemployed and older people. We had a disproportionate number of older people living in the private rented sector whose homes do not meet the decent homes standard.

 

            We have had an energy partner (Climate) who has very successfully administrated the energy efficiency measures on our properties for a while. 18 months ago we asked them to conduct a study on Council estates, to asses where we could generate additional income to continue the level of energy measures that we currently had. They determined that around 1,200 Council homes could be installed with solar PV, along with 360 communal blocks.  This would mean around 1600 solar PV installations on Council properties out of a total stock of 12,000. These 1600 houses and 67 communal were chosen because they were south facing, had the least risk of overshadowing and had the correct orientation for solar panels.

 

The biggest driver was the potential for this to generate income for us over a 25 year period. The Housing Revenue Account (HRA) would borrow £15-16m, this would have a net return of 8-10%, generating around £500,000 per year for the HRA. We could invest the £500,000 in other energy measures. The investment could be used in the houses which face East and West, and could receive hot water instead of Solar PV. This could generate another £500,000 to be reinvested into the HRA. As an investment this only deals with levels of deprivation on Council owned properties. In terms of carbon savings this project makes 48,000 tonnes over 5 years.

 

           

Q:        Has there been any resistance from tenants?

 

            I have only talked about the £500,000 that we get. There is another £400,000 which potentially tenants could have as free electricity. The proposal is not to give away £400,000 worth of free electricity to just 1600 people. The rest could be used for further energy saving measures. Additionally with rising gas and electricity costs, that free electricity becomes a very valuable resource which we should be maximising.

 

Q:        This seems to be a perfect opportunity. Who are we working with, what is the timeframe, where are these sites and is there the potential to work with local energy co-operatives?

 

JS:      Climate Energy has done a business plan, which is fairly robust. The partnership would be with East Sussex and Eastbourne is another partner which is further ahead in the process than we are. The timescale for the contract could be within the next 6 weeks.

 

Q:        What is the potential to work with energy co-ops or Social Enterprises?

 

JS:      The partnership has been with a private consultancy that were drawing up a business plan, rather than necessarily delivering the project. One business model is that we borrowed the money and did it ourselves, which is what most local authorities have looked to do and is the model we have looked at. The £500,000 mentioned involves us buying it, installing it, maintaining it because this gave us the best opportunity to get the involvement of the community and offer apprenticeships etc.

 

Q:        Wouldn’t doing this in-house restrict external enterprise getting involved?

 

JS:      It may well have encouraged it by stimulating demand for installations needed and also we would also be in a better position to get exactly what we want.

 

Q:        Would this be beneficial or detrimental to the energy sector in the city?

 

JS:      We are only dealing with 1,600 Council properties; the question is how we enable the other players to get involved with the other 25,000 private rented properties. The social benefits could be so great that it may involve the Council providing financial backing to further projects in the city.

 

Nigel Manvell - Value For Money Program Director

 

Nigel Manvell (NM told the Panel that much of what had been talked about substantially covered the financial aspects of the advance questions posed by the panel).

 

 In terms of financing community-wide schemes, the council may introduce policies to support wider community initiatives but only if it has the appropriate statutory powers to do so. This could change with the Localism Bill which may result in the removal of the ultra vires rule and give local authorities a general power of competence which may open up new opportunities. Alternatively, the Council may be able to explore the use of wellbeing powers, which some Scottish Councils have exploited (although the powers are different to England), to pursue community-based renewable objectives. Essentially, the other alternative available to local authorities for providing community facilities is to set up an ESCO (e.g. Woking’s ‘Thameswey’ ESCO). However, these are large joint ventures that need very robust business cases.

 

Initiating projects involving the Council’s own estate is more straightforward and simply requires either financial commitment from the council or, in the case of invest-to-save initiatives, that a sound business case with reasonable pay-back periods is signed off. If invest-to-save schemes did not  repay within a reasonable time period (e.g. 5-7 years), the council would be unlikely to support investment. One area where the council has provided financial commitment is in the decision to buy green energy which initially had a cost to the Council and the taxpayer. However this has now been significantly offset by carbon reduction initiatives and usage changes.

 

In general, the Council is primarily looking at business cases that make good financial sense, making use of such facilities as FITs payments and the RHI scheme. As Glynnan mentioned we are looking at an investment of over £1m for PV panels on over 40 sites, under a procured arrangement with a rate of return acceptable to the Council.

 

Energy prices were expected to go up, by perhaps as much as 10% over the course of the next year. The council’s 2011-12 budget accounted for this increase and it is expected that our reduced usage of electricity will more than offset this cost.

 

            Our medium term financial strategy does include provision for around 2% inflation, which could be used to meet the needs of increased energy inflation costs as well as inflationary pressures. There is also general service pressure provision of around £7.5m per annum which could feasibly be applied to a whole range of service/cost pressures, including energy.

 

Remaining SALIX funding of approximately £140,000 exists, but plans have now been drawn up to fully commit this by the 31^st March, otherwise the money would be repayable under the rules of the scheme. This funding is largely focused on carbon reduction, rather than renewables at this stage.

 

Q:        As Value for Money Programme Director do you see renewables as an income generator for the Council or as a means of financing other renewables projects?

 

NM:     This is purely a policy decision. The council could choose to recycle the money or we could direct the money into other projects or to support the budget in general. Generally speaking, Government policy is concerned with carbon reduction targets; we are reflecting this by investing in relevant initiatives. Large scale income generation is probably beyond the Council’s power without forming an ESCO or being involved in some sort of trading operation.

 

Q         With regard to fuel poverty money could be used to help those in fuel poverty.

 

Q:        You mentioned that we could invest £1m into PBR-45 sites or possibly set up an ESCO, I understand that there is a lot of policy involved, but we hear a lot in the news about other cities which have done this. Do you think the city here has done a good job in preparing for these opportunities? Do you think the political leadership exists to follow future opportunities such as the RHI?

 

NM:     There is generally a reasonable level of awareness across the council and its partners of the possibilities around the funding mechanisms and opportunities available for renewables.

 

GB:     Looking back at the energy management issues relating to the Council, things are very different now. We are trying to make Council members much more aware of the legislation and funding options available.

 

TC:      With regard to the continued ‘moving of the goalposts’ around funding such as the Feed-in Tariff, I would be concerned about the Council taking a leading role in endorsing renewables as the way to go for stakeholders who need to make their own capital calculations. Larger property owners, by and large, are doing so anyway. But this is a difficult decision to make for households.

 

Round Table Discussion

 

Q:        Everyone here has a stake in renewables, who is the champion for renewable energy?

 

TC:      I think we see ourselves as carbon reduction champions. Renewables has a place to play in that process. The champions of renewable energy are largely within the community not necessarily within the Council although there are individuals who are very passionate and knowledgeable about it.

 

Q:        Renewable energy obviously exists within the wider context of sustainability, climate change, the potential to benefit from Feed-in Tariff among others. As the focus of the panel has been specifically renewables rather than more generally carbon reduction or climate change, to what extend to we need a renewable energy champion?

 

MR:     This concerns the theme of leadership. The sustainability partnership could be seen as going some way towards providing leadership in this area. Another issue is the Council’s reputation. Are we leaders in this area and do we want to be? This is up for debate and discussion.

 

Q:        Perhaps an elected member should be leading the charge for renewables. It is perhaps unfair to place the burden on Council Officers to take the lead in this area. This is a political issue.

 

MR:     A body of political support exists nationally for this. Whatever the theme when the Council decides to champion an issue, the Council officers then are charged with delivering it.