Agenda and minutes

None.

None.

If you have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest* in an item of business:

§  if it is not yet on the council’s register, you must declare both the existence and details of it at the start of the meeting or when it becomes apparent;

§  you may choose to declare a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest that is already in the register in the interests of openness and transparency. 

In both the above cases, you must leave the room without participating in discussion of the item.

If you have a personal interest in an item of business and you intend to speak or vote on the item you must declare both the existence and details of it at the start of the meeting or when it becomes apparent but you may participate in the discussion and vote on the item.

*(a)     Employment, etc - Any employment, office, trade, profession or vocation carried on for profit or gain.

(b) Sponsorship - Any payment or other financial benefit in respect of your expenses in carrying out duties as a member, or of your election; including from a trade union.

(c) Contracts - Any current contract for goods, services or works, between you or your partner (or a body in which one of you has a beneficial interest) and the council.

(d) Land - Any beneficial interest in land which is within the council’s area.

(e) Licences- Any licence to occupy land in the council’s area for a month or longer.

(f) Corporate tenancies - Any tenancy between the council and a body in which you or your partner have a beneficial interest.

 (g) Securities - Any beneficial interest in securities of a body which has a place of business or land in the council’s area, if the total nominal value of the securities exceeds £25,000 or one hundredth of the total issued share capital of that body or of any one class of its issued share capital. 

This applies to all members present at the meeting.

None.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the Environment and Regeneration Scrutiny Committee meetings on 5 March 2015 and 16 March 2015 be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES

Officers had provided a written response following Communal Heating points raised at the last meeting. This would be appended to the minutes for information.

Questions from members of the public were addressed during the relevant items.

None.

Gail Scholes, Head of Energy and Robert Purdon, Contracts Manager from Nottingham City Council gave witness evidence.

In the presentation and the discussion which followed, the following points were made:

·         Nottingham had a long history in municipal energy. It had a district heating scheme in 1970s and was now one of the more energy sufficient cities with high local generation. There was large scale photovoltaic solar installation with 2,300 homes equipped with solar panels over the last three years. The council paid for, installed and maintained the solar panels and retained the feed-in tariff with the residents getting electricity. The scheme included both social housing and private sector housing.

·         Nottingham City Council would be extending the solar panel scheme to 3,000 additional homes from 2015. Once this was complete, 5,300 out of approximately 150,000 homes in the city would have solar panels. Whereas the feed-in tariff for the first 2,300 homes had been secured when it was at the highest rate, the feed-in tariff for the next 3,000 homes would be at the lower rate.

·         Nottingham City Council had set up an in-house installation team of accredited installers. This reduced costs and created jobs.

·         Most of the homes with solar panels were three bedroom semi-detached houses. Lower income areas were targeted.

·         There was a mixed model approach in Nottingham. External wall insulation had been undertaken and residents were encouraged to undertake energy efficiency measures.

·         The first solar panel scheme in Nottingham outperformed by £120,000 per year and the additional money went into the council’s general fund. Following this scheme, it was decided that more panels should be put on each roof.

·         In Nottingham, 12% of the energy demand was met from Combined Heat and Power (CHP) and 3% was met from a waste plant. The district heating scheme included a council office building, offices, a hotel, an apartment block, a concert venue and a biosite. The scheme provided a more secure supply than the national grid would. There were four means of supplying buildings and many were willing to pay a premium for this.

·         The district heating scheme was controlled by the council and run as a limited company.

·         Most of the day-to-day running of Nottingham’s Energy Services Company was undertaken in-house.

·         There was a new energy park in Nottingham and planning consent had been given for a 160,000 tonne gasification plant. This could as much as double Nottingham’s energy generation capacity.

·         Other councils paid Nottingham to take their rubbish and Nottingham had a large commercial waste business. Waste disposal costs were minimal. Emissions were monitored.

·         In order to create a cheap energy tariff, the council first set up a switching site and researched the market. The aim was to reduce fuel poverty. Nottingham Council then set up a fully licensed energy company by buying a pre-accredited licensed company. This was quicker to set up than if the council set up the company itself. The council had approved the first year’s operating costs of £11 million. The company had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68.

Councillor Murray, Executive Member for Housing provided witness evidence.

In the presentation and the discussion which followed, the following points were made:

·         Making homes more energy efficient reduced energy costs for residents and this in turn reduced fuel poverty.

·         The council undertook cavity wall insulation, loft insulation, reduced the number of F and G rated properties and undertook solid wall insulation. Whereas cavity wall insulation was relatively quick and easy to undertake with minimal disruption to residents, solid wall insulation was harder and caused more disruption.

·         The communal heating charges for tenants were designed to make charges fairer. Some blocks were more energy efficient than others and when energy efficiency measures were undertaken in a block, it was fairer for the effect to be on tenants as a whole rather than tenants in that individual block.

·         In 2014 the average tenant’s heating bill cost £604 and the average leaseholder’s heating bill cost £520. This year the cost of gas had decreased so tenants would receive a rebate of approximately £100. This meant overall they would be paying approximately £500. Over the last 10 years, tenants had paid less than the actual cost.

·         The amount leaseholders paid was highest if they lived in a small block and lowest if they lived in a large block as their charges were based on the block they lived in as legislation meant their charges could not be pooled.

·         In response to a question about the recommendation in the draft fuel poverty scrutiny report which recommended that the council should consider setting energy efficiency standards for its housing and those it paid housing benefit to, Councillor Murray stated that in some cases, affordable housing was found which was not energy efficient and then work was undertaken with landlords to improve the rating. Landlords could be given the opportunity to engage with the council to improve energy efficiency in the first year.

·         Most people who were fuel poor lived in D or E rated properties. The council had few F and G properties and the cost of improving these would be substantial. Most F and G homes were in the private rented sector.

·         In response to a question from a member of the public, an officer advised that the rebate to tenants would be apportioned according to the amount the tenants paid and paid to the rent account.

·         In response to a question from a member of the public about the reason why tenant charges had to be pooled, an officer advised that it was fairer to pool the charges. If it was not possible to undertake energy efficiency measures in all blocks, work was undertaken where it could be and this resulted in a reduction in energy bills for all tenants rather than just those in the blocks where it had been undertaken.

·         It was suggested that some blocks were interested in depooling. Depooling could result in an increase in the cost of heating for tenants across the borough.

·         If all tenants turned their  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69.

RESOLVED:

1) That the report be amended to include the witness evidence from Matilda Allen, Research Fellow, UCL institute of Health Equity and Fiona Daly, Head of Sustainability, Barts Health NHS Trust and the minor changes suggested by members.

2) That any further comments be sent to Democratic Services.

RESOLVED:

1) That the work programme be noted.

2) That a session on communal heating be added to the work programme for 15 June meeting.