Agenda item
Climate Change London Councils Net Zero Carbon Workstreams
Minutes:
4.1 The Chair commenced this item and outlined the Council’s work in relation its net zero carbon.
4.2 The Chair explained the commission had explored retrofitting for the council’s housing stock, assets and energy strategy.
4.3 This item was to hear about the work by London Councils workstreams that are led by local authorities in London. Information was provided about the following workstreams:
· Consumption emissions workstream – Lead Council London Borough of Harrow
· Retrofit work stream - Lead Councils London Borough of Enfield and London Borough of Waltham Forest.
4.4 The Chair welcomed to the meeting James McHugh, Head of Housing Strategy London Borough of Waltham Forest representing the Retrofit Workstream and Matthew Adams, Head of Natural Resources and Climate, London Borough of Harrow representing the Consumption Emission Workstream for London Councils.
4.5 The Head of Natural Resources and Climate, London Borough of Harrow commenced the presentation about the consumption emissions workstream. The following main points were made:
4.5.1 The Head of Natural Resources and Climate, London Borough of Harrow explained he is the lead officer for climate and sustainability at Harrow Council. The workstream is called ‘one world living’ because it focuses on materials. Particularly the use of materials and goods. The workstream focuses on London to consider what they London boroughs) can do for sustainability.
4.5.2 The officer explained London Councils workstreams cover 7 themes related to climate change activity across London. Each workstream is lead by one or more borough.
4.5.3 The four themes for this programme focus on food, electricals, textiles, and plastics. The overall aim of the programme is to achieve significant reductions in consumption emission in these areas.
4.5.4 At a macro level the data produced by IGES showed that global cities needed to reach 2.5 tonnes of Co2 per capital by 2030 to stay within the 1.5 degrees. Currently the average emissions across London per capital is 8.28 tonnes - Hackney is slightly lower than the London average. Broadly speaking they need to achieve a 2/3rd reduction.
4.5.5 The current measure of 8.28 tonnes includes housing and power - food is the third largest area and estimated to be about 1 tonne of the carbon per year.
4.5.6 The measures per borough vary and currently stand between 6 tonnes of carbon in Newham to 11.5 tonnes of carbon in the city. In London there is a close relationship between the wealth of the borough, economic situation, and carbon production. In essence the wealthier boroughs produce more carbon and consume more. Therefore, the targets set will need to vary according to the borough.
4.5.7 This workstream is in partnership with West London Waste Authority and Re London (previously know as London Waste Recycling Board a pan London waste reduction organisation).
4.5.8 There are 4 boroughs taking a lead on different themes. One of which is the sustainability team in Hackney Council. This team is leading the food theme.
4.5.9 The workstream has a programme steering group and action plan. Adoption of the plan will be agreed by the steering group.
4.5.10 It is anticipated that the food theme will be a joint plan with the Mayor of London because he has similar targets in the London Plan.
4.5.11 It was acknowledged that funding will be critical to the all the programmes, and they will be considering how they can work together to raise funds to carry out the interventions required to reduce emissions.
4.5.12 Overall consumption emission is a huge topic covering businesses and residents. Local authorities have a role to play as waste authorities. To make a difference its about scaling up lots of different consumption actions involving choices around what we eat, wear and purchase (billions of decisions). It was pointed out these consumption actions have been the cause of the high carbon lifestyles. Therefore, it will require a multitude of actions to reverse the trend.
4.5.13 The work has focused on points of intervention in the programme and in places where they can remove the barriers to help people make different choices.
4.5.14 There is a big education piece around this whole agenda. This could mean the provision of information for knowledge about a sustainable diet or how to clear the data off your phone so it can be reused by someone else etc. Understanding what to do with old clothes when they are no longer required. The aim is to make this an engaging programme that helps all people to get involved. They are trying to produce a) culture of sustainability. The officer highlighted that the London councils survey identified that 80% of Londoners actively want to do things in this area; and b) creating an enabling environment that supports making the choice to live sustainably easier.
4.5.15 The borough profile for Hackney’s on consumption emissions showed that Hackney’s per capital emissions were below the London average. The breakdown of emissions showed that 28% related to housing and power and the largest area (35%) related to transport. After the above 3 areas the next big area for carbon emissions was food and non-alcoholic drinks. This reinforces the point that patterns of behaviour around food will play an important role and a big part of the program. The key message is Hackney is currently below the London average.
4.5.16 The focus for London is likely to be around food and other areas where people can minimise their consumption of new items to maximise the lifespan of the items, they already own.
4.5.17 A survey carried out across London revealed a range of things that councils are already doing related to electronics and food. The Survey showed the following for the 4 areas:
Electronics
Collection services (to dispose and reuse), repair initiatives (repairing goods that can still be used once fixed), library of things (a different way of owning or using goods), resale platforms, education, donation of pre-owned laptops.
Food
Collection services, use of surplus / donated, food growing, school meal procurement (use local authority buying power to set a good example of local supplies and seasonal produce), cookbook to encourage different choices around diet.
Plastics
Refill stations, having water fountains, reusable nappies, workshops, campaigns and promotions and eliminating single use plastics.
Textiles
Collection, reuse and repair, rental schemes, school campaigns, campaign promotions and research.
4.5.18 In relation to food a 20% reduction of the total food footprint for London would reduce consumption by 70%. This demonstrates how important diet choices are to the carbon footprint.
4.5.19 In the plastic workstream the emphasis is being placed on removing single use plastics. Then encouraging the remaining plastics to be constantly recycled. Communicating the message that plastics are a valuable resource to be look after and not viewed as a disposable resource.
4.5.20 For textiles it is a similar message to plastics. To keep in use for as long as possible rather than just throwing away clothes that are capable of being reused or repaired. Also looking at different ways of owning clothes such as rental schemes. A survey of parents in schools found that 50% would not buy second hand clothes for their children. They have found that nationally 1.4 million items of school uniform are thrown away every year that are capable of reuse. The aim is to change the culture and view about buying new clothes.
4.5.21 Under the workstream the visions were outlined to be:
4.5.22 Electronics
Vision: Londoners are slowing and closing the loop of device lifecycles by:
· Caring for our electricals for longer and slowing their replacement, thereby reducing the emissions and other environmental harms associated with manufacturing new devices. The foremost way to achieve this is by understanding the impact of our devices, and ensuring repair, not replacement, is the first port of call. Approximately 50 million phones are sitting in draws around the UK that do not get used.
· Giving unwanted devices a second life wherever possible through refurbishment and donation or sale, helping to bridge the digital divide in the process.
· Sharing devices between people that would otherwise be rarely used.
· Recycling all devices at the end of their useable life, at the highest possible value of their components, to be made into new devices.
4.5.23 Food
Vision: Transforming London’s food system to one based on circular economy principles, providing healthy and nutritious food for all Londoners:
· Land use: Increase the sourcing and potential of food grown using agro-ecological practices, and locally where possible within Greater London.
· Diets: Increase the prevalence of healthy and sustainable food items and menus.
· Food Waste: Eliminate avoidable food waste wherever possible and recycle unavoidable food waste back into productive uses within Greater London.
4.5.24 Textiles
Vision: Londoners are making informed decisions on the textiles items they purchase, including:
· The types of materials purchased and the length of the supply chains.
· Only consuming sustainably and knowing how to fully care for the items from washing to repair will support this reduction.
· Once an item is no longer wanted or is at the end of its life, residents know what their options are and no textiles end up in the bin.
4.5.25 Plastics
Vision: Londoners are living differently and:
· Refill is the norm and is accessible at all price points for all consumers. Londoners use ‘tiffin boxes’ at lunch and when on the go, supported by a London-wide scheme
· The narrative around plastic has changed – it is seen as a limited and precious resource – to be a product that cannot be produced any more. Throwing it away is unthinkable.
· Our rivers and streets are free of plastic litter and all plastics in use are reusable, recycled, or compostable.
4.5.26 The officer outlined the next steps. Research showed that a councils most powerful tool is to lead by example in these area across London. The recommended work is for low carbon procurement policies. Using their procurement levers to drive behaviour change particularly around school catering services, uniform, IT policies and single use plastic policies through procurement or in and around buildings.
4.5.27 Secondly there is the circular economy. They are keen to identify pilots that can be tested and scaled up. For example, NWLA did a recycling directory with restart for electricals. They are planning to roll this out in West London. They are hoping to have South London join this network so they can have a London wide repair network directory to repair electrical devices.
4.6 Questions, Answers, and Discussion
(i) Members commented that the paper recommendations focus on influencing individual actions and not corporate / council action.
(ii) Members were concerned that there were some big areas that also required companies to act too and would require primary legislation too not just campaigning. In relation to electronics and built-in obsolescence. Members pointed out many items made now are not made to be fixed or opened up.
(iii) In relation to food Members queried how much of the food waste was linked to takeaways and their packaging. Members pointed out there was no recommendation for lobbying about package legislation. Members expressed this would be a good way to reduce plastic use. Members highlighted these are a sample of other areas and asked what was being done to build a strong collective voice to lobby government about these other issues.
In response the Head of Natural Resources and Climate, from LB Harrow informed lobby is not being ignored and is important. There is a lobby group for each of the work streams. The presentation focused on the work that could be done locally by councils.
Having 32 London boroughs come together to do electronic repairs across London would be good. However, it was recognised that councils as waste authorities are at the end of the waste system trying to influence systemic changes further upstream -primarily in the manufacturing. Lobbying will be a slow burn and currently their focus is on what they can do now to improve the current system and get better outcomes. In tandem they will continue to lobby central government and businesses.
(iv) In a follow up point Members commented people get frustrated by the emphasis continually being on the individual. Members asked if they would give emphasis to bigger long-term systemic changes too. This might help people to see that councils are not afraid to take on the big corporations. Members suggested this might encourage people to take action too.
In response the Head of Natural Resources and Climate from LB Harrow agreed with the points made by Members.
(v) Members suggested providing all Londoners with locally grown produce. Members referred to London’s diversity with residents from the African, Asian and South American diaspora and asked how produce from these community groups heritages fit into this program of work? Members pointed out much of the produce from their heritage and culture cannot not naturally be grown in the UK. In terms of the infrastructure in place how can this be developed to accommodate their needs too?
In response the Head of Natural Resources and Climate, from LB Harrow explained approximately 1% of food consumption is grown locally within the immediate environment of London. However, there is the potential to increase this, but it was acknowledged that the UK will always be an importer of food. It was highlighted there is still more to be done without taking into consideration cultural boundaries. For example the focus being on more seasonal sourcing being acceptable from a cultural point of view. This is likely to be a very long journey with looking at substituting one vegetable for another. The officer pointed out for people eating a tropical diet in London throughout the year the transition would be quite difficult. But if things like carbon taxes are implemented this would impact on the imported food in the long term.
It is anticipated that despite the different backgrounds everyone can buy a little bit more locally and eat a little more seasonally.
(vi) Members referred to the campaigning and commented all boroughs need to do more campaigning and education. Members pointed out there could be more campaigning nationally on plastics. Highlighting everything comes in plastic packaging from the food we eat, laundry items etc. Members acknowledged there are schemes where you can take reusable bottle to get refills. But these schemes are limited. Members suggested these could be publicised more locally. Members suggested London’s Councils should come together and start campaigning against the multinational supermarkets to stop the use of single plastics.
(vii) Members also asked for people at the bottom of the economic stream to be considered. Pointing out it can be easier to be green for people who are more economically wealthy. Some of the greener produce can be more expensive. Highlighting that poorer people own older cars that give off more emissions.
(viii) Members also pointed out that cost of repair for some appliance was more than buying a new appliance. Therefore, the cost of buying a new applicant verse the cost of a repair (in addition to not knowing how long the repair would last) was a consideration in people’s minds. Members commented electronics need to be repairable at an affordable rate too.
(ix) Members also commented that the mobile phone companies make it hard to change the battery when it dies. Therefore, rendering the phone obsolete. Members suggested there needed to be better messaging to young people about mobile phones. Members also suggested campaigning by councils could be supported by their purchasing power too.
In response the Head of Natural Resources and Climate, from LB Harrow agreed they are all good suggestions. The officer also agreed equity was important. The officer explained there is a big disparity in relation to consumption emissions across London. This depended on the wealth of the borough. Their intention is not to make this more of a burden to people who face economic challenge but rather for the burden to fall to people who are living high consumption lifestyles and help them to make different choices.
(x) Members referred to slide 5 and asked if the program aimed to achieve its objectives from the bottom up? Members asked how people in the community will be involved so they are part of the decision making rather than just being told what to do.
In response the Head of Natural Resources and Climate, from LB Harrow explained the reference to bottom up is to recognise that a lot of people do want to do the right thing. The officer pointed out it is often the practical barriers that stop people from taking action. For example, in some boroughs not having food waste collection, not knowing where to take their old clothes rather than putting them in the residual waste. In some instances, the recycling facilities may not be available or residents may not know how to clear the data off their old phone. This can lead to phone being put in a draw when it could be reused.
By bottom they start with the pretext that most people want to make a difference. It was pointed out that the London Councils survey revealed that people are aware of the climate issues and want to live differently and make different personal choices. Their role is not to lecture people but to consider how to make it easier for people to make those right choices by providing the infrastructure or the information.
(xi) Members commented ordinary residents are knowledgeable about net zero and recycling. Members were of the view people already know and just need to organise themselves so that they can make the changes. Members suggested that residents only need to be guided and given information.
(xii) Members referred to the point in slide 5 about what local authorities can do to help remove barriers. The Member commented Hackney was doing a lot of good work, although it was acknowledged more could be done. The Member was of the view the recommendations made did not apply to Hackney.
(xiii) Members asked how they will engage this was a big program of work that would require a whole team of people. Members queried if there was funding to cover this or how this would be achieved? Members asked if they were creating a team or if a team was available?
In response the Head of Natural Resources and Climate, from LB Harrow explained there is no central funding for the work streams. They are currently using their existing resources.
In response to the points about communication they have not set up a central communication team. There was no resource for this in Harrow or any of the other London boroughs. The aim is to produce some resources and guidance to point out the existing initiatives that could be scaled up and disseminate this to all the boroughs. The boroughs can then use this information to consider how to implement locally. The exception to this is likely to be the food theme. There is a move to do a pan London campaign sponsored by ReLondon. ~The campaign is considering how to get the message out to all Londoners about diet, waste and food growing.
The officer encouraged Members in Hackney to share stories of good work in Hackney. The officer highlighted that sharing successes would inspire people.
4.7 Part 2 – presentation from Head of Housing Strategy London Borough of Waltham Forest about the London Councils Retrofit Workstream. The other co-lead borough was Enfield Council. The following main points made were:
4.7.1 This programme is part of London Councils work looking at climate change.
4.7.2 The programme is being resourced through the Council’s voluntary activities. The scale of some of the programmes and their objectives is recognised and the resourcing of activities continues to be a challenge.
4.7.3 The start was to define what retrofit means. This is not a phrase residents would commonly refer to. Retrofit means to look at existing homes / properties and homes and consider the measures that can be taken to make them more energy efficient.
4.7.4 The two main benefits in relation to the climate change programme are: a) the more home retrofitted will result in lower carbon emissions. b) this will benefit the occupant of the home.
4.7.5 For retrofit they are promoting a fabric first approach. This is to ensure proper insulation of properties. Therefore, leading to lower household energy bills. In the current climate (the rising cost of gas and electricity) this will be extremely important.
4.7.6 Each home in Britain will have an EPC rating performance certificate. The rating run from A-G.
4.7.7 The objective of the programme is to Retrofit (with fabric improvements, heat decarbonisation and renewable energy) all domestic buildings to an average level of EPC B (or equivalent) by 2030.
4.7.8 This will require some significant interventions for housing stock in London.
4.7.9 The programme commenced with data analysis, followed by an action plan and then an implementation plan. This is part of London Councils cross London work on climate change.
4.7.10 A statement of objectives was passed down to the Director of Housing Group. This has worked through a number of different regional groups and organisations (GLA etc) to fund the initial development of the program.
4.7.11 Data analysis has shown to reach the average rating of EPC B for all home across London will require approximately £49 billion pounds of investment, this is estimated to be £13,000 per property.
4.7.12 This investment would reduce carbon emission in homes by approximately 5.8 million tonnes per year.
4.7.13 As this is a sizeable programme, therefore they have carried out 2 sets of modelling. The EPC target and Net Zero target. All councils have signed up to the EPC B target.
4.7.14 Several boroughs have made statements about becoming net zero. The step up to net zero would require double the level of funding overall and per property too. Achieving net zero is believed to achieve double the level of carbon reduction. This also highlights the scale of the challenge in relation to the cost.
4.7.15 Although retrofitting homes presents a significant challenge there is also opportunities in relation to local skills, employment and jobs growth.
4.7.16 It is anticipated there will be 110,000 full time equivalent trade jobs created in the retrofit industry. The breakdown of occupations was explained to be:
· General builders
· Insultation specialist
· Plasters and renders
· Window fitters
· Carpenters
· Electricians
· Heating engineers
· Renewable heating specialist
· Retrofit co-ordinators.
4.7.17 There will be a few areas of growth and development of specialist roles but generally there will be growth in existing general trades.
4.7.18 Recognising there is a lot of investment but also economic opportunity. The suggestion is councils can try to encourage more local companies, colleges etc to estimate the potential market. This also presents an opportunity to aim for more representative jobs and demographics into industries.
4.7.19 There are 8 principles that have collectively been agreed in discussion with all the councils across London.
1 Boroughs needs to retrofit their own stock and facilitate retrofit to the whole housing stock
2 Boroughs will be vital to creating and shaping a stable and sustainable retrofit market
3 Planning decisions and guidance should support low carbon retrofit
4 We need to move away from gas heating rapidly (and hydrogen is unlikely to be the answer)
5 Achieving net zero will require energy efficiency and carbon data/metrics in addition to EPC ratings
6 Retrofit should seek to avoid significant increase in energy costs
7 Asset management / maintenance decisions should be consistent with the retrofit action plan
8 Boroughs will work collectively to develop skills, procurement models and engage with residents.
4.7.20 In relation to the first principle councils need to have an active role in managing their own properties but also a role in encouraging retrofit across a wider housing stock. Encouraging homeowners and landlords to carry our retrofit.
4.7.21 For principle 3 local planning authorities they need to provide the guidance and make decisions that support retrofit. Therefore, councils should consider what is being allowed under permitted development.
4.7.22 For principle 7 in relation to asset management and maintenance decisions. Councils should have a consistent retrofit action plan. For example if a council has a big asset management programme they should be looking at opportunities within that programme to intervene with other insultation measures. to intervene with other insultation measures. E.g., having a boiler replacement programme with future objectives built in.
4.7.23 For principle 8 about boroughs working collectively to develop skills, procurement models and to engage with residents. The officer pointed out by jointly procuring a service or materials could achieve possible cost savings.
4.7.24 The officer explained the data analysis provided the predictions for investment and spend and this was followed by the development of an action plan. The breakdown of the action plan is by themes. To achieve the objective of the EPC B for domestic properties the four main themes are:
· What - Retrofit measures and plans – the particular interventions that need to be made to a property to retrofit and improve its energy efficiency.
· How - Delivery models, skills and supply chains – the market and how to work with the market to deliver this work.
· Investment - Costs, funding and finance – a significant level of investment will be required. Councils recognise this will not be grant funded by central government so they need to consider other potential sources of funding and finance to meet the costs.
· To engage - Engagement, take up and lobbying. There is a role for councils in terms of lobbying central government. It is recognised that Government will not 100% grant fund this but they anticipate there will be improvements to the volume of money and the distribution of the money. E.g., schemes like the green homes grant. There will also be the need to lobby different parts of the Housing Sector. To work with local housing association, hold them to account and understand their work in this area too. There are various different stakeholders, communities and groups that will need to be engaged with this work program.
4.7.25 The key point is this programme will be an important section of infrastructure in terms of the scale of investment and its potential benefits. It was highlighted this requirement needs more recognition for its significance and the interventions.
4.7.26 The action plan provides a pathway, the requirements and implementation plan outlining the different activities and how they need to be sequenced.
4.7.27 The officer explained the implementation plan has different themes mapping to the action plan. The implementation plan also provides more detail about the specifics and the detail.
a) Data
b) Market making
c) Funding and finance
d) Technical solutions
e) Cross cutting.
4.7.28 An example of how the action plan links to the implementation plan was outlined on slide 10 (titled Under the hood).
4.7.29 For this programme the implementation plan is in the final stage of sign-off. The next phase will be to prioritise and look at quick wins e.g.. liaising with social landlords and considering the finance.
4.7.30 In terms of how boroughs could engage in the programme. The recommendation is to work with registered housing providers and housing associations to consider areas of potential collaboration.
4.7.31 Another role is to build market confidence. The aim is that councils retrofitting plans will help to simulate the market. But they recognised there are some challenges regarding the supply chain. The thought is if they can create more certainty about the market more people will step into this sphere and provide services.
4.7.32 For councils who have a direct labour organisation. They can consider how their DLOs might respond linking into existing maintenance programmes.
4.7.33 Another role for councils could be to act as an ambassador for retrofitting private homes. Engaging with residents and private landlords to try to get them to take up retrofit particularly if you have some form of private sector licensing scheme. If necessary, tying this into enforcement activity too.
4.7.34 The officer explained by retrofitting their own stock councils can be used as a model of best practice. In addition, through procurement there is the opportunity to use collective purchasing power to lower the cost of retrofitting and materials.
4.7.35 Finally, where Boroughs have further education institutions such as adult education colleges and higher education. They should look at their current offer and identify if there are any gaps to consider how they might ensure the next generation’s building and trade workforce are skilled to work in this area.
4.8 Questions, Answers and Discussion
(i) Members aim of moving away from gas consumption to more electric consumption. Members pointed out the hydro system has fully developed, and the proposed sustainable options were not necessarily reducing the cost of electricity for consumers. Members pointed out the options being considered like heat pumps would require significant investment (increasing pipe work and the size of radiators to heat homes to level that people find acceptable). Members argued with the current fuel crisis, price rises, fuel poverty and fear that electric will be more expensive to heat their homes. Members commented they would not like to see people on low income pushed further into fuel poverty. Members wanted to ensure councils retrofitting programmes did not push people into fuel poverty. Then leaving the councils to find solutions to support people to pay their bills.
In response the Head of Housing Strategy London Borough of Waltham Forest pointed out this goes back to the principle and first point of insultation and fabric first. The officer confirmed they too are very concerned about the switch away from gas and how they can ensure the alternative remains fair and equitable for all particularly for people in fuel poverty.
It was highlighted that an air source heat pump was an incredibly effective solution however, it has to be appropriate for the property. But this solution would come after investment in other aspects of retrofit. The officer informed that Waltham Forest was still developing their knowledge and understanding about heat pumps through the project they are working on. The officer highlighted to date the evidence, suggest the heat pump are effective after insulation of the property to a very high standard. This is in addition to Solar PV on the roof which is generating a lot of power on site. Although it is recognised not all their housing stock will be able to be set up this way.
The officer highlighted they are still building their knowledge and understanding about how this technology works and how to keep the costs low on a household level. For example, they would not want to put in place for low-income households technology that will increase day to day living costs.
The officer explained this is a difficult conversation because people are used to gas and gas boilers, but the gas energy source cannot not continue indefinitely. Pointing out one of the reasons Gas prices are rising is because the insecurity of the global supply of gas and that gas is finite. The officer explained it is anticipated that the cost of electricity will level out to the cost of gas. This programme will require a degree of longer term thinking but in the short term they need to work astutely to ensure they are not giving households higher living costs. This is about ensuring people are not signing up to air source heat pumps without knowing what other measures they should have.
The office explained an air source heat pump could typically provide warmth to a property but what it is not doing is heating radiators up to 60 / 70 degree Celsius. It works on a more comfortable heat. In essence an air source heat pump cannot be put in they do not have the right standards and its after the property has been insulated.
(ii) Members referred to page 16 the principles on page 16and highlighted principle 2. Members asked how they can shape a stable and sustainable retrofit market and how private homes would be managed. Members were of view the challenge area would be privately owned homes. Pointing out it will be easier to engage housing associations, social landlords and to manage council homes. The difficulty would be private landlords that own1 or 2 properties and homeowners.
(iii) Members referred to page 23 the point that stated, “Act as ambassadors for retrofit in private homes by engaging with residents and private landlords to take-up retrofit” on page 23 and asked if they have any ideas of how this can be achieved without central government dictating and issuing enforcement action?
In response the Head of Housing Strategy London Borough of Waltham Forest explained in relation to the second question they are waiting for the central government dictate. There was a consultation before the pandemic about the minimum energy enforcement standards for private rented homes. This would mean within a few years a landlord would not be able to rent out a home if it was not within an EPC rating of C. This type of regulation could start the shift and drive the behavioural changes. This would be one way to influence private landlords.
For private landlords and homeowners there is a lot of confusion and interest in this area. People are keen to see what they can do to their properties to make them more energy efficient but there is no clarity about how to access the market. For example, if you search ‘retrofit’ this would produce a mass of information. By the suggestion to shape the market they consider this to be providing some intelligence out about planning and guidance to help people know what to look for and what to do. Encouraging people to check the accreditation of suppliers.
It is recognised people spend a lot of money on their properties but not on making it energy efficient. By providing communication from councils that outlines the potential scale of the opportunities and if councils work with local colleges to help stimulate the market. There is a lot of demand and very limited supply. The aim is to utilise leverage in relation to communication and influence.
(iv) Members commented this industry is infamous for scams and Members commented instructing people to look for trusted accreditation marks can make people more fearful. Members were not convinced people would do this until there was legislation in place forcing action. Members were of the view the provision of advice needed to be supported by legislation and preferably with funding too.
(v) Members commented that potentially local authorities have the opportunity to lead on how this is done. The Members pointed out council have trust within the community and asked if the council could lead in some form such as doing retrofit assessment of homes or co-ordinating this to give people some form of reassurance and independent advice.
(vi) Members asked if there was a role for council to recommend contractors because they are local people, having the council check them to verify their expertise. Is this possible?
(vii) Members also suggested lobby government.
(viii) Members acknowledged the skills challenge but were of the view it was a bit like the chicken and egg scenario. Pointing out there are several gas fitters and gas boilers, and these workers will be facing unemployment. Members stated the ideal position would be for these workers to transition and reskill. However, Members recognise that encouraging workers to work in this area before the market developed would be quite a challenge. Member queried if local authorities could be more proactive in this sphere?
In response the Head of Housing Strategy London Borough of Waltham Forest advised they have tried not to be too prescriptive about what specific role a borough might have or should take with the private sector. Therefore, in relation to their recommendation to facilitate the market this could be as indicated recommending a particular supplier or providing a small fee for service e.g., retrofit assessment. Some boroughs may wish to go further and look at paid for services that they commission themselves. In essence there are a range of interventions that could be made by boroughs in relation to the private sector.
The officer explained in Waltham Forest borough they have been heavily involved in the Green Homes Grant LAD scheme (local authority delivery scheme). This borough has been working with private households on this and arranging for those works to take place.
In relation to the retrofit market there is the view that the owner-occupied market is of one type and people refer to them as the ‘able to pay’ sector. From their discussions in the borough there is large volume of asset rich but cash poor households. Through the Green Homes LADs scheme they have been able drawn down some of the funding from central government and put this into getting some external wall installations for low income owner occupier households throughout the borough. Although the scheme has not been straight forward and could do with more funding to support it. This was one example of the role a local authority could take.
Potentially there is a range of different options for local councils to try to shape the market and offer different services. Albeit consideration would need to be given to the stock type and level of risk appetite in terms of the service that could be provided.
(ix) Members asked if councils were to provide funding and do insulation work to the exterior or inside of properties. Would this help with less carbon emission and help resident homes to be warmer with lower fuel bills?
(x) Member also asked why the rating EPC B was selected as the target for retrofit? Taking into consideration that B is high, but A is higher. Members queried why they did not aim for the highest level.
In response the Head of Housing Strategy London Borough of Waltham Forest agreed and confirmed the more insulation work completed the lower the heat loss to the property. Therefore, lower heat costs for the household.
In relation to selecting the EPC B rating. This decision was taken across London by the London Housing Directors Group. Without direct knowledge of the discussion the assumption was they probably wanted to set an aspirational target because Central Government set a target of EPC C as best practice. There is a view in London that this may be insufficient. In addition, to move a property from EPC C to A would require significantly larger investment. The typical difference in cost was demonstrated in the presentation with moving a property from EPC B (costing13k) compared to net zero / EPC A (costing £26k). Moving to an EPC A is looking at the larger measures such as solar panels, air source heat pumps and decarbonising the heating source and these things are very costly. The hope is in the future some of the measures and materials will reduce in cost/price as the market develops. In the meantime, EPC B was a more achievable target to consider and probably easier to engage the public with. Adding the caveat that they are not dismissing more ambitious targets or the longer-term goal of net zero
(xi) Members commented in their view the estimate of £13k to bring a property up to EPC B was underestimated. But acknowledged Hackney Council officers were working on a pilot. Members pointed out the costs being considered in Hackney were double the estimate from the programme.
(xii) Members queried the commitment from housing associations highlighting there was little information about what RSLs would be doing in relation to their retrofit plans for properties. Members commented they do not have democratic accountability like councils (councils have councillors elected by the community).
In response the Head of Housing Strategy London Borough of Waltham Forest informed as part of the steering group they have representatives from the G15. This is the largest grouping of housing association in London, and they have a representative from the National Housing Federation too.
It was acknowledged that Housing associations do not have the same structure and accountability but have confirmed they are ethnically committed to the agenda. They have been slightly more reserved about publicly setting a specific target. In discussion they have commented about getting a better understanding of their own stock to assess how they can manage the different cost pressures. The biggest area of challenge for both councils and housing associations is managing the building safety costs, the scale and work required.
The programme does have the housing association on board. They will carry on the dialogue and review their data after their analysis. They are aiming to come up with an agreed measure they will be working towards.
The Chair thanks all guests for their participation in this review.
Supporting documents:
-
item 4 cover sheet, item 4.
PDF 108 KB -
Item 4a - RLP Pres Living in Hackney Scrutiny 20220307 FINAL FOR DISTRIBUTION, item 4.
PDF 819 KB
-
Item 4b - Retrofit London Housing Action Plan, item 4.
PDF 4 MB