Agenda item

Resolved: to refer the Committee’s views to Mayor and Cabinet, as follows-

·         The Committee commends the work of officers in delivering the Council’s sustainable energy ambitions. The Committee believes that the Council should find ways to further publicise its good work in reducing carbon emissions.

·         The Committee recommends that the Mayor write to his counterparts in the London Boroughs of Bromley, Bexley, Croydon, Greenwich, Lambeth and Southwark to encourage them to work collaboratively with Lewisham in order to access the benefits of the energy company obligation affordable warmth scheme.

Martin O’Brien (Asset Management Planning Manager) introduced the report. The following key points were noted:

·         The Home Energy Conservation Act required all local authorities in England to publish a report on their plans for energy efficiency.  The next report was due to be published by the end of March and responsibility for signing this off had been delegated to the Executive Director for Resources and Regeneration.

·         There was an ambitious plan two years ago to create a sustainability consultancy. This had run up against legal, HR and logistical hurdles, which could not be overcome. Officers were still outward looking and continually explored opportunities for working with other boroughs.

·         Government programmes in this area had become increasingly limited.

·         Work was taking place to develop heat networks in the borough.

·         There was money from government to enable heat network projects to get started. A report on the technical and commercial viability of a heat network in the north of the borough would be completed in the next few months.

·         There was also work taking place to deliver carbon offset projects. The London Plan enabled developments that were unable to deliver carbon savings on site to do so by funding other projects in the borough. Officers had developed an evidence base around this work.

·         The Energy Company Obligation (ECO) on affordable warmth was the main way of funding fuel poverty and energy efficiency work in homes. From April 10% of the funding would be delivered through local authority schemes.

·         Work on fuel poverty had been delivered since 2012 in spite of changing circumstances, including the loss of dedicated officers to carry out this work. From August 2017, current internal funding would end and unless an alternative source was secured the borough would not have any fuel poverty offer.

Martin O’Brien responded to questions from the Committee. The following key points were noted:

·         Fuel poverty figures were provided from the government’s fuel poverty strategy.

·         The measure for fuel poverty had recently been replaced. Previously for homes to be considered to be in fuel poverty, they were required to spend 10% of their income on heating their homes. The figure was now based on a metric of household income and the estimated cost of heating a home to an acceptable standard, which indicated that one in ten Lewisham households were in fuel poverty. The figures were available from the department of Business Energy and Industrial Strategy. (https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/fuel-poverty-sub-regional-statistics)

·         London had been poor at attracting ECO funding because of the cost of carrying out this work in the city. The responsibility for meeting the requirements of the obligation lay with energy companies and they found it easier to work outside of London.

·         Officers had been working to make it more attractive to work in London. One way of doing this was to support the delivery of schemes across, with and for, other London boroughs.

·         Officers working on sustainable energy were still drawing in some income. They had recently delivered a piece of funded work on fuel poverty referral networks and a smart meter awareness project in Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich.

·         A community share scheme had been set up in Greenwich and Lewisham to place solar panels on schools and generate dividends for community investors through a feed-in tariff. Feed in tariff funding had been cut – which limited the likelihood of this kind of project in the future.

·         Vulnerable households for fuel poverty work were identified via referrals from front line staff.

·         Communications about fuel poverty work were sent out on a rolling basis.

·         Carbon emissions had fallen considerably in the borough since 2012. Whilst the Council wanted to tell a positive story about the work it had carried out on carbon reduction, it could not wholly claim credit for the reduction. The economy and changes to the energy grid had substantially reduced carbon emissions. But, it was recognised that the Council could have a significant impact on delivering carbon reductions from housing stock.

·         ECO funded loft and cavity wall insulation and the installation of first time central heating.

In the Committee’s discussions the following point was also noted:

·         Martin O’Brien and his team should be highly commended for their commitment to innovation and their ongoing efforts to explore new ways to deliver services.

·         The Committee requested a graphical representation of the energy savings that had been achieved over the past ten years.

Resolved: to refer the Committee’s views to Mayor and Cabinet, as follows-

·         The Committee commends the work of officers in delivering the Council’s sustainable energy ambitions. The Committee believes that the Council should find ways to further publicise its good work in reducing carbon emissions.

·         The Committee recommends that the Mayor write to his counterparts in the London Boroughs of Bromley, Bexley, Croydon, Greenwich, Lambeth and Southwark to encourage them to work collaboratively with Lewisham in order to access the benefits of the energy company obligation affordable warmth scheme.