Agenda item

Martijn Cooijmans, Director of Climate and Transport, presented to the Committee on the Archway Leisure Centre retrofit project.

An overview was provided regarding two significant projects aimed at reducing carbon emissions from council-owned buildings: the Archway Leisure Centre and the Waste Recycling Centre. The focus was on the decarbonisation efforts undertaken at these buildings.

A summary of the carbon emissions from various key council buildings, which included 200 properties such as the Town Hall, council offices, libraries, care centres, leisure centres, and schools. It was noted that leisure centres produced the highest carbon emissions, primarily due to the energy required to heat swimming pools, while the Waste Recycling Centre also had substantial emissions.

Specific details about the Waste Recycling Centre highlighted the installation of nearly 1,200 solar panels and the replacement of traditional gas heating systems with air source heat pumps for both water and space heating. This shift eliminated gas usage entirely within the building. The total cost of these improvements exceeded three million pounds, with approximately one-third of the funding sourced from the Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme. The project at the Waste Recycling Centre was completed in May, and the annual carbon savings were estimated to be between 200 and 300 tons of CO2, resulting in a cost of about 371 pounds per ton of carbon saved.

For the Archway Leisure Centre, it was noted that construction was about to begin. Plans included installing 83 solar panels, replacing gas boilers with air source heat pumps, and implementing a new building management system to enhance operational efficiency. The estimated cost for this project was around three million pounds, with two-thirds of the funding covered by grants. The cost per ton of CO2 saved for this project was projected at approximately 476 pounds.

Challenges in obtaining sufficient grant funding for decarbonisation efforts were discussed, particularly for insulation and double glazing, which were deemed crucial yet costly and less likely to receive financial support. The importance of these projects in demonstrating the costs, benefits, and measures necessary for reducing carbon emissions in their buildings was emphasised

There was a query regarding whether air source heat pumps could effectively heat swimming pool water, to which it was confirmed that they could be used for both heating space and water.

There was a discussion about the feasibility of using heat networks to provide energy for buildings. It was clarified that two different approaches were being explored: one focused on improving individual buildings with insulation and non-gas heating alternatives like air source or ground source heat pumps, and the other aimed at developing heat networks that could leverage waste heat from sources such as data centres or the underground train system.

A question was raised about the council's strategy regarding communal heating systems in residential areas and whether there were plans to expand this approach throughout the borough. It was suggested that housing colleagues would be better equipped to address this aspect.

Concerns were also raised regarding residents' hesitations about new technologies, particularly air source heat pumps, and the potential for them to feel cold if the systems did not function as expected. It was suggested that sharing learning experiences from implemented projects could help build community confidence.

Regarding the underground heat sources, it was explained that extracting heat from the underground system was not straightforward and would require establishing a dedicated heat network. This involves significant infrastructure development and collaboration with Transport for London.

Further questions were posed about the impact of recent government policy changes on funding for investment in energy-efficient projects. It was noted that grant funding levels have changed, making it more challenging to secure necessary financing for multiple projects.

There were inquiries about comparing the cost of carbon reduction across various projects within the council and the effectiveness of investing in building decarbonisation versus other sectors such as transportation. The complexity of measuring carbon footprints across different initiatives was acknowledged, with ongoing efforts to establish benchmarks.

A resident asked about potential disruptions for users of the centre during the retrofit works and whether there had been any modelling on operating costs, particularly given the rising costs of electricity compared to gas. In response, it was explained that minimizing disruption was a priority, and the project team was working closely with the site manager and contractor. Temporary boilers and generators would be used during the transition to maintain services. Regarding operating costs, while specific figures for the Archway Leisure Centre weren't available, the Waste Recycling Centre reported a 30% reduction in energy consumption after the retrofit, resulting in lower running costs.