Skip to content

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Committee Room 4, Town Hall, Upper Street, N1 2UD. View directions

Contact: Zoe Crane  020 7527 3044

Items
No. Item

44.

Apologies for Absence

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Russell.

45.

Declarations of Substitute Members

Minutes:

None.

46.

Declarations of Interest

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.

 

Minutes:

None.

47.

Minutes of Previous Meeting pdf icon PDF 153 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

 

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the Environment and Regeneration Scrutiny Committee meetings on 3 February 2015 and 12 February 2015 be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

48.

Public Questions

Minutes:

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

49.

Chair's Report

Minutes:

None.

50.

Community Energy Scrutiny Review - Witness Evidence

Minutes:

Agamemnon Otero, Repowering London and Oliver Hombersley, Senior Sustainability and Climate Change Officer, Hackney Council, gave evidence.

 

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

·         Repowering was a not-for-profit co-operative which specialised in co-producing community owned renewable energy, mentoring and fuel poverty.

·         Repowering was registered with the Financial Conduct Authority. It was a community benefit society which delivered social outcomes.

·         Repowering work included:

-       reducing CO2 emissions by generating decentralised low-carbon energy

-       tackling fuel poverty and educating residents about energy efficiency

-       promoting local leadership through community engagement and ownership

-       providing opportunities for local and responsible financial investment

-       creating training, internships and employment opportunities for local people

-       encouraging behaviour change

·         Repowering’s vision was to create resilient, empowered communities that controlled and owned the generation and usage of renewable energy and to promote and facilitate the wide scale development and local ownership of renewable energy projects across London.

·         The services provided by Repowering included technical, financial, legal and administrative expertise needed to deliver projects. It also offered a range of guidance, advisory and project management services. It provided access to a network of potential investors to assist the financial backing for a community-owned renewable energy project and it specialised in community engagement.

·         Repowering had installed 500 kilowatts peak (kWp) of community owned renewable energy, saving almost 200 tonnes of CO2 per annum.

·         Repowering had delivered a series of energy advice sessions, community events, home energy audits and energy surveys. Many people did not know how to claim fuel poverty credits. Door knocking was used to engage residents. Specific programmes were held for the unemployed, young people and to upskill professionals.

·         Under the Repowering scheme, the community invested in the renewable energy co-operative and the co-operative installed new renewable energy on local buildings. The technology generated an income which was used to pay into a community energy efficiency fund, an annual dividend for shareholders and covered the administration costs. Each investor had one vote.

·         £165 million left Islington each year in energy bill payments and £13 billion left London each year.

·         The council could be a shareholder of a community energy co-operative. Investors included tenant management organisations (TMOs), councils and local residents. Repowering’s first social enterprise scheme was in Brixton and investment just came from local residents. Stakeholders included schools, installation companies, residents and the council. Inputs included project management, financial modelling, community engagement, legal and IT expertise, public relations and marketing. Outcomes were related to wellbeing.

·         Hackney was the second most deprived area in the UK and Lambeth was the fifth most deprived area in London.

·         The programmes undertaken in Brixton allowed people to invest in their community. Residents were consulted and then a programme was delivered in line with the consultation results.

·         A solar energy project had taken place on Banister Estate, Hackney. This estate had 15 blocks, all with flat roofs. There were 340 residents.

·         Solar panels worked best when facing south and could not be used  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

51.

Overview of the Borough Cycling Proposals pdf icon PDF 167 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Will Umney, Career Grade Planner, presented the report which provided an overview of Grid and Quietways cycling improvements proposals and a summary of the Council’s wider cycling programme in Islington.

 

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

·         The key policy direction for the programme came from Islington’s Transport Strategy and from the Mayors Vision for Cycling.

  • Islington’s Strategy recognised that Cycling was popular and affordable. It reduced air pollution and made better use of a constrained road network. Encouraging more cycling helped to free-up space on public transport. In addition to the transport and environmental benefits, there were significant health benefits to be gained from a more active population.

·         Islington had a target that 8% of all journeys would be made by bicycle by 2026. The London-wide target was 5% by 2026.

·         Whilst the number of road casualties had reduced, cyclists were disproportionately represented. Cyclists made up 22% of casualties but only 3.4% of trips. For this reason road safety was a key feature of the improvements being delivered.

·         The Mayor of London’s Vision for Cycling had four outcomes. These were 1) to provide a tube network for the bicycle, 2) safer streets for the bicycle, 3) more people travelling by bicycle and 4) better places for everyone. £913m would be spent over 10 years to deliver the programme.

·         The London-wide strategic programme for cycling included a better junctions programme to address the major junctions with the most problems and a programme of additional improvements for junctions on the TLRN, particularly where cycle routes met these busy road (e.g. City Road, Farringdon Road).

·         The programme for cycle routes included Cycle Superhighways, the Central London Cycling Grid which had a budget of £54m to 2015/16 and the Quietways programme which had a budget of £120m over 10 years.

  • There was also a London Wayfinding Strategy that would increase visibility of the network and to help people find their way around. TfL was leading on the project. There would be an overall map plus street signs which were intended to complement the networks and allow people to navigate as they cycled. Cyclists had not been able to do this  on the London Cycle Network.

·         There was a separate Borough Cycle Programme with £2.1m to 2016/17. This programme included cycle training, Safer Urban Driving and the provision of cycle parking.

·         Better Junctions was a London-wide programme which covered all major junctions on the Transport for London road network. The intention of this programme was for junctions to be made safer and more attractive for cyclists and other vulnerable road users. 5 of the 33 Better Junction projects were in Islington - Archway, Old Street, King’s Cross, Highbury Corner, and the Nags Head. 

·         The proposal at Old Street was to remove the north-west arm of the gyratory, remove the roundabout and provide two-way operation. This would create a new public space with Dutch-style segregated cycle facilities. The consultation closed in January 2015 and construction could start later  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.

52.

Work Programme pdf icon PDF 60 KB

Minutes:

 

RESOLVED:

That the work programme be noted.