Agenda item
Cabinet Question Time (19:50 - 21:00)
Minutes:
5.1 The Chair outlined a key element of the scrutiny function is to hold the Mayor and Cabinet to account in public for a Cabinet Question Time discussion.
5.2 The Chair welcomed to the meeting Councillor Mete Coban, Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport and Deirdre Worrell, Director for Neighbourhoods and Housing Finance from London Borough of Hackney. Also, in attendance for this item Michael Toyer, Economic Development Manager and virtually in attendance Sam Kirk, Head of Sustainability and Environment and Tyler Linton Acting Head of Street Scene LBH.
5.3 The purpose of this item is to hold the Executive to account. For this meeting the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport was asked to provide information to the Scrutiny Commission about the work the Council is doing in relation:
1. The Green New Deal
2. Understanding the economic impacts of the new green deal
3. Carrying out an impact analysis of LTNs on local businesses.
5.4 The Chair advised in relation to point 3 this was an addition following theSkills, Economy and Growth Scrutiny Commission (SEG) meeting in February 2023. The Commission was querying if the Council had assessed the impact of LTNs on local businesses. This question was redirected for an update from Cllr Coban.
5.5 The Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport from LBH commenced by responding to the questions from the Commission.
5.5.1 The Green New Deal is a £50 million investment commitment from the Executive administration to tackling the climate crisis. This interacts with the Climate Action Plan. The purpose of the Climate Action Plan is to provide a strategic framework for the council and set out the Council’s ambitions and plan to reach net zero by 2030 for council emissions and 2040 for boroughwide emissions.
5.5.2 The New Green Deal and Climate Action Plan are evolving pieces of work and follow a series of engagement and consultation. The public consultation on the draft Climate Action Plan had closed and the decision (to formally agree and adopt the plan) was expected to be taken by Cabinet in May 23.
5.5.3 Linked to the climate action plan will be a local implementation plan. This implementation plan will be thematic and set out the actions to be taken to achieve the net zero targets.
5.5.4 The Cabinet Member stressed this was not the end of the conversation because it is an evolving piece of work with new technology and research updating. It was important that they continue to monitor the research across all areas of work for economic development and more broadly.
5.5.5 Following adoption of the Climate Action Plan the Council wants to establish a net zero partnership. This will bring together businesses, the third sector and the council. The purpose of this partnership will be to help define how they support local businesses and the different sectors to reach net zero.
5.5.6 The Cabinet Member pointed out the Council is directly responsible for approximately 5-6% of the emissions in the borough and 23% indirectly. The remaining emissions of just over 70% impacted by the whole community linked to our travel, what we wear, what we eat etc. This was the driver for developing a Hackney Climate Action Plan and not a Hackney Council Climate Action Plan.
5.5.7 In relation to the £50 million investment the Cabinet Member informed the Council budget has committed to exceed this and will be investing a total of £61 million over the next 3 years.
5.5.8 Most of this capital spend will impact the Council’s direct emissions to reach net zero.
5.5.9 The impact of this investment for residents will be investment in the electric charging infrastructure and the Community Energy Fund supporting schools with the energy bills they need to pay.
5.5.10 In the Climate Action Plan there are aspirations and this talks about being honest with the public about what the council can achieve, the funding and what the funding is allocated to. But if more funding is unlocked, they have the plans to move forward quicker e.g., retrofitting. The Cabinet Member explained the challenges they face with retrofit in London is that the average property will cost approximately £100k to fully retrofit. The bill for London is £112 billion pounds but the current funding available is £2 billion across London. Pointing out this demonstrated the scale of the challenge councils were facing. Allocations for the investment have bene made in the capital programme.
5.5.11 In relation to the timeline for the spend and areas of investment. The timeline is 3 years, but delivery could take up to 5 years. The Cabinet Member explained with an example of the LED light refitting. The Cabinet Member the funding was spent but delivery took longer.
5.5.12 In response to the question about how much of the £50 million investment will support the local economy and how. The Cabinet Member explained they have their procurement strategy and plan to use their purchasing power and the procurement system to ensure it benefits local residents, creates local jobs, apprenticeships and improving the skills in the borough.
5.5.13 Although the aim of the procurement and sustainable strategy is to support local businesses (SMEs) and to create local jobs. The Cabinet Member highlighted that they do not always have the required skills in the borough to deliver on that pledge. Explaining for the green homes programme the council identified that for installations of heating and solar panels they did not have borough-based companies with the skills and capacity to deliver the programme at the scale to reach the net zero target. Therefore, there is more work to be done to develop the capacity within the borough.
5.5.14 The Council is looking at how they can support SMEs to secure work through the investment fund. They have the Zero Emission Network (a partnership between Hackney, Tower Hamlets, and Islington). This is supporting local business with the last mile delivery e.g.; it has a cargo bike sharing programme. This is the first in the UK. In addition to utilising the Hackney Business Network.
5.5.15 The EV infrastructure will help businesses to green their fleet. The Council will also engage with the national scrappage scheme and make a case for funding from that scheme.
5.5.16 The Council is raising awareness of external grants for local business to increase the energy efficiency for their properties. But the Council recognises there is room for improvement in supporting businesses.
5.5.17 It was pointed out the sustainability work cuts across different Cabinet Members portfolios and service areas. The aim is for them to all work together through the environment and sustainability award.
5.5.18 In relation to the question about the assessment of the impact made to the local economy. The Cabinet Member explained they are in the very early stages of assessment and this needs to be linked to the delivery of projects.
5.5.19 The Cabinet Member pointed out they need to get to a place of understanding the assessment and metrics through the delivery of localised schemes and how it links back to the overall strategy.
5.5.20 There will be different investments that will have different economic dynamics and the Council is reviewing how this will impact the £50 million investment.
5.5.21 The Council is also looking at how they can develop an evidence base of Hackney green businesses. Reviewing the research into businesses in the green economy. The current data indicates that there are less than 500 businesses active in the green economy. Their aim is to verify this to enhance their understanding.
5.5.22 There is limited funding and grants for business support. £440k has been allocated over 2 years from the Shared Prosperity Fund (SPF) to help with support.
5.5.23 In relation to understanding the economic benefits of this investment on the economy. The Cabinet Member explained they are still in the early stages of development with the Climate Action Plan. There is a lot of national analysis that they are plugged into which will help them to develop this work. The key will be to define the baseline for the measure. Defining a baseline for Hackney will give them the ability to look back after 3 years to see if they have moved forward from just under 500 green businesses to 800 green businesses.
5.5.24 Until they establish a baseline for Hackney to give them an indication of what they should be doing. They can look back in 3 years’ time to see if they have moved forward from just under 500 green businesses to 800. The baseline will give them something to measure against.
5.5.25 In response to the question about how much of the support was being deployed to support local businesses. Currently 24% of the Council’s procurement is towards local businesses. It is anticipated that the number of environmental or green businesses is lower but this is still being established.
5.5.26 The Cabinet Member stressed that the council wants to deliver the environmental policies through local people and local businesses. The challenge areas are knowledge and delivery.
5.5.27 In response to the question about the investment helping to reduce energy bills and carbon emission for local businesses. The Cabinet Member advised there are several pieces of work. One piece of work is the development of a local area energy plan. This engages anchor-based organisations, businesses and residents in its production. The Council wants to develop a program of work to improve community heat networks. This should help to support businesses and to create networks with the potential to assist all household businesses to decarbonize. There is also the reduction of transport emissions.
5.6 The Director of Finance for Neighbourhoods and Housing in LBH added that delivery of this agenda is very complex. When considering the commitments made for capital funding the commission should note once the action plan is delivered the enabling activities on the revenue side will materialise. Although there is more work to be done having 24% of the council’s procurement spend going into the local area is good.
5.6.1 The Director pointed out that capital investment tends to go to larger organisations but when considering the procurement activity, they will need to understand if this is like homecare providers, which is a procurement that tends to go to local businesses.
5.6.2 In summary the investment currently is only capital, but there are enabling activities in the Climate Action Plan.
5.6.3 The Chair clarified that the discussion would be focused on the investment of £61 million pounds over 3 years and pointed out delivery could take longer. This is very different from a council’s enabling powers, levers and revenue spend on things like how people do their jobs, commissioning of services etc.
5.7 Questions, Answer and Discussion
(i) Members recognised there is a national problem in terms of the financial capacity to deliver on green plans. Members referred to the comments about enabling and developing capacity and asked the Cabinet Member to outline (caveat being current limitations permitting) what this could look like for Hackney?
(ii) In reference to the 500 green businesses Members asked for an example of the businesses that identify as green. Members wanted to know the sector, type of business and services they provide.
In response the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport from LBH cited as an example the Community Energy Fund. This fund was developed following the Stokey Energy project that delivered energy improvements for Stoke Newington School. It received funding from the GLA. This was a local community energy group that helped to green a school estate. This was the driver for the aspiration to replicate the model and upscale.
The Council offered £300k of grants to do a feasibility study on estates and to deliver the project. The immediate challenge identified was that Stokey Energy was the only active community energy group in the borough. One of the objectives for the community energy fund was to create green local jobs owned by the community and lower energy bills. It was not just about installing solar panels onto the estates. Therefore, if the council wanted to complete the project the sole local business was Stokey Energy, and this would be if they had the capacity to deliver all the projects. Alternatively, the council would need to look at businesses outside of the borough of Hackney.
After noticing this Hackney Light and Power held several workshops to create other community energy groups. The Council has connected with TRAs and other local networks to help establish local community energy groups using the Stokey Energy model. The aim is to create several groups like Stokey Energy across the borough of Hackney.
The challenge for delivery of the Green Homes programme is making sure local businesses can access it. There is a national problem in relation to the lack of talent generally for solar installation and heating. The Council is looking into this and there is work being carried out by London Councils to develop and understanding of how to create a skills course in London. Currently the rhetoric is to create green jobs, but the Cabinet Member pointed out that until green jobs are defined green jobs it will not be real for people of Hackney.
Members commented the capital funding is for the infrastructure this still needed revenue funding to spend on people in order to identify the work required. Members pointed out that the £61 million investment would need some form of revenue to unleash further benefits.
In response the Cabinet Member confirmed that observations were correct.
The Economic Development Manager from LBH added the work to identify businesses is ongoing and they are expecting the report soon. The initial findings revealed a business count of 500. The Oxford Economic (a national research company) has cleansed the data and identified 317 businesses. For example, a company appeared on the database 8 times because it had started and failed on a repeated cycle. In terms of the sectors, they are still reviewing the data.
Following a further assessment, it is anticipated the number may decline further. In Shoreditch there are a lot of HQ registrations. There are several Epower businesses registered in the Shoreditch area. But they may not engage in Hackney activity, therefore would not be applicable to the Council’s agenda and investment. However, there is an ESG angle which is another interesting group. Hackney has several climate change consultancies and a health circular economy segment (defined as reduce, reuse, recycle). One surprise to date is that Hackney has very few green finance organisations.
A challenging area is architecture. It is impossible to identify from the data if an architect is following standard practice and government regulations or is an innovator and pioneer going beyond regulatory requirements. The latter would define them as genuinely green. The data is coming through, but it is not a big feature of the Hackney economy.
Linking back to the discussion points about capacity locally. The officer informed the commission they have asked the consultants to identify if there are companies that might engage with the retrofit agenda. The consultants have identified a possible 8 organisations on the list. But this is subject to a full check.
(iii) During this discussion Members queried if the Council had identified any businesses or sole traders in the construction sector who could carry out the green homes works.
In response the Economic Development Manager from LBH informed it was about the supply chain. A large retrofit programme would require a tier one contractor and they operated nationally. These organisations often have their own supply chain in place already. Through the council’s procurement rules they could try to disrupt this, but it can be difficult. The officer pointed out that sole traders they do not think about only Hackney for their business they think about their connections. It is a person-to-person connection. So, they might live in Hackney but also work outside the borough. This will be a very complex landscape to negotiate.
(iv) Members referred tolow traffic neighbourhood schemes (LTNs), local businesses and economic growth. Members highlighted they had observed several empty shops or shops with less stock and less customers. Members acknowledge this could also be attributed to the shifts in consumer consumption (more online purchasing). Members asked if the council was collating data in the impact of LTNs on business growth or how LTNs are supporting local businesses?
(v) Members also asked LTNs were presenting challenges for economic growth in specific areas due to roads becoming busier with traffic. Members noted that residents have commented that they can no longer do long stay shopping to go to shops like Matalan due to heavier traffic. Members did acknowledge the concept of LTNs was good for the environment, but they queried if they were supporting businesses.
In response the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport explained that part of the aspiration for LTN schemes is improving air quality and to protect the lungs of children. It was also about reviving neighbourhoods and creating neighbourhoods that people want to live in and enjoy on their travel home. Good public realm, good local shops and cafes to enjoy.
It was pointed out that it is challenging to attribute the impact of a transport scheme to a direct economic output. Both Streetscene and Area Regeneration service areas have been encouraged to work more closely together. This will enable them to understand the transport interventions and work out the implications.
It was noted that there is ongoing work across London to look at the impact of LTNs on businesses. But it’s difficult to quantify impact.
The Cabinet Member cited the example of the Stoke Newington LTN scheme which was aimed at revitalising Church Street. The interventions included widening the pavements, upgrading the crossing and community parklets to enable people to sit outside to enjoy their food and drink.
The Cabinet Members pointed out that Church Street used to be a place to shop and have a nice lunch with your friends. In the last 10-15 years more desirable locations have come to the fore like Shoreditch and Hackney Wick. Since implementation footfall on Church Street has increased by 18%, cycling is up by 36 or 39%. Therefore, as a result they are able to demonstrate that there are more people on foot in Church Street now than previously.
The challenge is there is less than 3% occupancy available in Church Street. This is the lowest it has ever been and is in contrast to the London trend of 16%. This demonstrates the success of the Church Street LTN. However, it is challenging to attribute this directly to the LTN because there is no direct link being the two. Although from observation as a local councillor the impact of the scheme is has become busier on the weekend. Notwithstanding the challenge remains of how to directly attribute the impact of LTNs on regeneration.
The Cabinet Member pointed out the closer working of Area Regeneration and Streetscene was in acknowledgment of the Commission’s voice when they provided that challenge.
The Cabinet Member explained for future schemes like the Chatsworth scheme with a very successful market intervention in place he is asking officers to work together across the interventions. The Cabinet Member was fully aware that from a resident’s perspective they do not see the interventions as separate departments. So, whether it is an electric vehicle charging point installation, street trees, retrofit an estate, parking removal or markets. The resident views this as the Council. Therefore, the Cabinet Member is asking officers to ensure they fully co-ordinate before going into a location.
The Acting Head of Streetscene added in relation to data points and LTNs. Following challenge from the Commission last year they have included an economic assessment of the experimental scheme in Stoke Newington.
In relation to an economic appraisal of a transport schemes the fundamental principle is proportionality and there are a few different assessments that can be done for transport schemes. But typically, a scheme of this size would not get a full DFT level economic appraisal that would be done for a scheme like Crossrail 2.
The officer added within the framework of proportionality and working with the Area Regeneration team they obtained access to the GLAs high street data in the form of anonymized Mastercard spend data. They were able to use this as one proxy of information on spend. This is one piece of the puzzle, and they want to be very careful about drawing conclusions from that. However, looking at pre-pandemic levels and post LTNs the Mastercard spend in Church Street increased over 200%. The officer pointed out some of this could be attributed to change in spending from cash to card or from inflation. Notwithstanding it is fair to say alongside other information they have about footfall and anecdotal evidence it does paint to a picture of economic success.
There is also a long and well-established academic history of studies looking at pedestrian spending. From systematic reviews of studies over the years there is a strong body of evidence that shows improvements to high street areas for pedestrians increases spending. The Council has used the Mastercard spend as the main metric to assess the impact of the Stoke Newington LTN. Ultimately this assessment has shown a positive impact on retail.
The Economic Development Manager from LBH added Institute of Global Prosperity (IGP) index is not just about business turnover (although important) but the broader measures of the economy. But the health metrics are important too because when people feel better about themselves that is an economic value too.
The University of Westminster is doing a health focused study on the economy with a controlled area. This is the same area as an LTN (demographically and geographically) but in a location where an LTN has not been implemented. This is a live study and scheduled to report in a couple of years. The officer was of the view a Hackney specific study was not needed because there are a lot of other London level studies to drawn on.
The officer informed the Commission from his visit to Amazon electric hub he was informed that the implementation of the LTNs was a driver for their shift to using electric bikes for deliveries. After running the metrics, it was a simple economic decision that bikes are quicker than vans. The policy officer in Amazon also informed that FedEx were considering something similar. Highlighting that this policy intervention was driving wider change.
The Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport added despite the positivity the Council was not in the position to claim their LTNs were a success.
The Cabinet Member acknowledge the experiences of business would be different and would depend on the nature of their business. There could be impacts that the Council had not identified. For Stoke Newington the Council is working closely with Stoke Newington Business Association to understand the different impacts on different businesses.
The Cabinet Member pointed out the Council has a duty to make sure they listen, reflect, and make improvements to the scheme to make it the best possible version. Finding the right balance would be key.
(vi) Members followed up on the discussion about the experience of businesses and referred to the cross-borough Zero Emissions Network and asked for more information about the work going forward particularly with Islington, Tower Hamlets neighbouring boroughs. Members acknowledged this would be complex because they all have different priorities and agendas. Therefore, they also need to ensure that businesses boundary roads are heard and engaged with too.
In response the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport from LBH advised the Council is committed to monitoring air quality data, traffic counts etc. Particularly on the boundary roads.
The data is showing that main road traffic is down by 6% in comparison to pre pandemic. This is positive but they are broad statistics for across the borough. The Council acknowledges there will be impacts that are negative like Northwold Road in Hackney Downs which has had a slight increase in the volume of cars. As a Council it is key for them to understand, reflect and make changes. The Cabinet Member advised the Council had made changes across all their LTNs.
In relation to the Zero Emissions Network partnership, in Islington and Tower Hamlets. The Cabinet Member highlighted that Tower Hamlets had taken a different direction in terms of their healthy streets program. Hackney Council is very committed to the Zero Emissions Network to help and support businesses with the last mile. Hackney has the first cargo bike sharing scheme that went live in London Fields, Stoke Newington and Hoxton / Shoreditch area. They are now in the process of expanding the Zero Emissions Network in terms of the fleet of cargo bikes in the borough.
The Council is also working with Amazon following their announcement to start trailing delivery by cargo bikes. The links to the partnership working being economic development, area regeneration, street scene and transport to reduce transport emissions. They are facilitating and providing insights about where they can store some of these cargo bikes.
There are more delivery drivers than anticipate and as a council they need to adapt and understand the balance with the spaces created between residential areas and their jobs. The Council has identified a need to create micro mobility hub centres that couriers can use. These will have shelters and good conditions. This is in the very early stages.
(vii) Members asked for clarification that the Council was not using their capital expenditure to do things that Amazon could buy themselves.
In response the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport confirmed they are not using any of their expenditure. The Cabinet Members clarified they are not giving them land.
The Acting Head of Street Scene added it their own land, the Council supported them with the change of use for their own land.
(viii) Members referred to the earlier discussion about procurement and the gap in Hackney. Members queried if there are a few businesses that can provide the services the Council is looking for and if with support some of the businesses could move into the green business spacing.
(ix) Referring to the architect’s sector Citing the example earlier of architects. Members asked if with some support and training architects could become green architects could be green architects.
(x) Members asked about the work to identify the level of skills and services within the borough and the support needed to develop into the green space.
In response the Economic Development Manager from LBH referred to the New Green Deal capital spend and highlighted there is a process that needs to be followed to understand the spending plans, specifications and requirements. Then the teams can collaborate on the local supplier analysis to assess if the suppliers exist or not. Following this they can do an assessment and engagement on whether they’re capable of competing. This should be considered as needing a 3–5-year timeline. Alternatively, the council might identify a supplier that could deliver on the quality and scale desired or if with support develop an organisation to a level to be able to scale up and deliver. Although it was pointed out if the Council does identify businesses that could be supported to scale up, we would need to seek additional funding to do it.
Currently we have the existing applications for UK SPF, but this will be considered in the next round of funding. The future plans of Government for the UK SPF are unclear. In 3 years, they could be back to the RDF levels of funding (eroded by inflation) so they will start to have more money. However, the officer could not confirm the amount, processes and how they will collaborate.
The Climate Action Plan process had created more collaborative working and through implementation the green skills and green economy were underpinning features rather than stand alone.
(xi) Members asked what the £61 million will be spent on over the next 3 years?
In response the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport from LBH explained the spend covers several different areas as outlined in the Council’s budget. Some of the investment will cover greening the Council’s housing estates (£2 million). There is £500k to delivery green in borough schools. There is £9.6 million to replace the Council’s fleet with green supply alternatives, the roll out of the EV charging points etc. The Cabinet Member highlighted that a lot of this work is embedded.
The Director of Finance for Neighbourhoods and Housing in LBH added within the £61 million there is a spend of £16.8 million for decarbonisation of eight council buildings. The Council was successful in its bid to the decarbonisation fund with 12.2 million in grants to support the work for the Lido Leisure Centre, primary schools, and the Queensbridge Leisure Centre. For housing there is £28 million worth of investment in the asset management strategy for the housing stock.
The Council has identified (over the next 3 years) the areas where they can be greener e.g., efficient boilers (phasing out but balancing the technology and the energy costs to residents); fleet changes and energy plans to improve community networks. The Director clarified heat networks were not part of the £61 million investment because it is part of the overall regeneration scheme.
(xii) Members referred to the New Green Deal investment and asked about the multiplier effect of the investment and how it will be a driver to secure more funding / finance for larger packages?
(xiii) Members also asked about the vision for New Green Deal investment and how it will become a driver for greater investment across the community to secure the achievements.
In response the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport from LBH agreed this is an area they need to investigate. In discussion they have talked about how to look at energy technology for non-council estates / private stock and to consider different financing models to enable this. E.g., climate bonds (used by Camden and Islington). The council is currently considering 3 different financing models led by Hackney Light and Power. The Council is hoping that by the summer they will be able to have a route map. Using their investment to tap into existing grants and having a more sustainable fund-raising strategy, makes viable sense and does not put the Council at risk for the work they are undertaking. This is at the very early stages of investigation.
The Council is hoping that through the New Green Deal and Climate Action Plan that their work on community energy around decarbonisation will start to build the funding areas.
(xiv) Members were of the view the success of the £61 million investment must be a further £61 million over a time period. Members asked about the target for securing further financing (multiplier affect).
(xv) Members asked where and how the Council is assessing the money saved?
(xvi) Member commented that carbon savings should also equal financial savings and the £61 million should be creating energy savings for either the Council or residents. Members were of the view that it was unlikely that the Council would be in the position to find further capital investment funding in three years, taking into consideration the scale of the task and limited funding across London.
(xvii) Members also asked about the cross-sector collaboration and partnership with different sectors to provide significant funding. Members wanted to know the Council was thinking about this and how to build it into the strategy.
In response the Economic Development Manager from LBH asked for clarification on the definition being used by the Commission in relation to the multiplier effect? Explaining his interpretation is a specific assessment called LM3 which tracks the spend as it goes through a supply chain.
The Chair clarified the definition related to generating more money. Leveraging the grant to open up access to other investments.
The officer clarified that this related to investment match funding and leveraging investment for more spend. The officer pointed out that this type of clarification would be needed before proceeding.
The Director of Finance for Neighbourhoods and Housing in LBH added the funding strategy they are planning to proceed with will be delivered through capital investments and business as usual. For areas that do not have a business case this will be leveraged through private sector investment and their aspirations.
In the current capital investment of £61 million there is a growth spend of £16 million for the decarbonisation fund. The Director pointed out the Council’s contribution was £4 million. Highlighting the Council secured £12.2 million grant funding. So, the multiplier for the Council’s £4 million is 25% to 75%.
In the programme there are areas of spend that they will be seeking external funding opportunities for. For example, with the Chatsworth pilot for retrofit (estate and street properties) they are seeking funding from 2 other sources.
(xviii) Members asked if the Council was developing a business model that was not reliant on continuous grant funding?
The Director of Finance for Neighbourhoods and Housing in LBH explained for the roll out of EV charging points the Council’s investment in the capital plan is £900k and this was cash flow. This funding expenses will return through procurement and the supplier will deliver the roll out over time.
(xix) Members asked how the investment would become an income generator (not just viewed as input and output) to help sustain capital investment for long term valuable. Members wanted to understand the long-term impacts from the New Green Deal investment on the economy. In terms of savings, investment, and income generation.
In response the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport from LBH informed they would assess each project but acknowledged there was more they could do to outline the overall impact. The Cabinet Member advised they can take that away and explore further.
In relation to the capital investment and savings on carbon emissions the Cabinet Member explained diesel refuge vehicles cost on average £190 - £195k and an EV vehicle costs £450k. In addition, the running cost for an EV is quite expensive but could get cheaper long term. But if a diesel vehicle is retrofitted (making it an EV) this will cost £250 – 300k. The diesel vehicles have a 10year life span and the council uses vegetable oil to reduce consumption by 92%. This is helping to significantly reduce the carbon emissions in comparison to a full diesel vehicle.
However, in 2024 there could be 10 vehicles that need replacing. At this point the Council will need to quantify the savings in terms of carbon emissions, spend and the impact.
The Cabinet Member pointed out to be able to influence large companies and individuals the Council will need to take the New Green Deal, Climate Action Plan, metrics and how they measure to demonstrate the impact of their work. Being able to demonstrate progress against the goals will help to motivate people more. Although this is still an area of work for the Council to improve.
The Head of Environment and Sustainability added there are some metrics, but they are being updated to include the carbon cost of not doing certain activities. The officer confirmed this needs to be reviewed and considered for the Climate Action Plan going forward.
The officer added the following points to the earlier discussion about investments. The officer informed that Hackney Council sits on the advisory board for 3CI, the City’s investments. There are 5 programs that are about financing looking at net zero, neighbourhoods etc. Hackney has put in a bid for some funding through the Innovative UK Fast Followers program. There’s also the national Net Zero Pipeline Projects and the national Technical Assistance Program. This is looking at creating a development fund that invests in the necessary capacity and skills to bring projects forward for investment. Alongside this are regional investor events. The Group Director of Finance and Corporate Resources from LBH is the project sponsor.
The officer could not clarify how long the advisory board has been up and run but pointed out it is in the initial stages of sign-off for the 5 different projects.
(xx) Members referred to earlier discussion about retrofitting and enabling capacity. Members acknowledged a lot of contractors are based outside of Hackney. Members pointed out Hackney has a large volume of sole traders and asked if the Council had explored supporting them to become cooperatives. Members advised Manchester was doing similar work. Bringing small contractors together in a type of cooperative arrangement to address retrofit. Members asked if as part of the Green New Deal this could be explored for a pilot project.
The Director of Finance for Neighbourhoods and Housing in LBH explained the typography of dwellings in Hackney will be significantly different to a location like Manchester. Retrofitting stand alone homes is lightly easier than a block. Hackney faces challenges in relation to the typography of properties. The enabling capacity will need to be explored further.
With the retrofit investment the question is who gains from the investment. Normally for capital investment the council would see a return but for retrofitting the return will go to the resident. This does present some challenges.
The Economic Development Manager from LBH added on cooperatives they are doing some scoping work. The officer pointed out the Economic Development team cannot carry the whole agenda. They are currently focusing on adult social care to understand the opportunities. They will look at the Manchester example.
The officer advised he is in dialogue with the officer that supported the setup of a retrofit cooperative in Haringey. This is being considered but in the context of the establishing a cooperative work stream. They are also considering other sectors too. The officer suggested a separate discussion on establishing co-operatives.
In response the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport from LBH added the Council is currently doing a feasibility study on 13 estates in the borough for retrofit. The council needs to be ready so that when they find the financing solutions, they have plans in place ready to move rapidly. They are working on different scenarios. The Cabinet Member also pointed out there are challenges in relation to leaseholders and the costs they will incur. Presenting a very complex picture as outlined in the discussions.
In relation to the capacity to deliver, there is still a lot of work to be done. There are plans for pilots to deliver on scale to the volume needed. This will be the next phase of work.
(xxi) Members commented the question was related to finding out more about how to support sole traders or small businesses to collaborate in some way.
(xxii) Members queried if Hackney Light and Power could have some form of sole trader licencing scheme for local businesses where they can sign up to the Hackney Light and Power standard to offer their services to retrofit owner occupiers and the private rented sector. Members suggested this could be a way of tapping into people who want to do this work. In addition to having a partnership with local FE colleges to start training people up to do retrofit to a Hackney standard.
(xxiii) Members expressed a strong view of municipal high standards. Members acknowledged that this was not straight forward and would require investment. Members pointed out that the council does have a delivery vehicle in Hackney Light and Power. Members considered there might be an appetite among Hackney’s small businesses to deliver this. Members acknowledged the importance of big estates but that they might also have a strong appetite among owner occupiers too. Pointing out there might be a demand among sole traders if they have the skills to do it.
In response the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport from LBH referred to the circular economy and advised the Council is looking into establishing a strategy for the borough and will review the resources to deploy it. The Cabinet Member suggested this could be updated at the Commission’s meeting in July 2023.
The Cabinet Member confirmed they were happy to take the suggestions away and explore it.
(xxiv) Members highlighted that Hackney has reported having more businesses in the circular economy and that they were keen to have an agreed definition.
(xxv) Members referred to the revenue from the LTN fines and asked how this impacts the budget.
In response the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport from LBH explained that any income from PCNs, which includes LTNs and school streets goes into a parking account. The income is restricted to spending on transport measures and in some environmental cases. The Council cannot use parking income to be creative or for different area of the council. The revenue has to be reinvested back into roads, resurfacing or making improvements to the transport infrastructure e.g., cycle lanes, pavement slabs etc.
The Cabinet Member pointed out the council cannot depend on the revenue from LTNs. The aim for the future is to see very little income from parking charges due to compliance. The Cabinet Member pointed out the LTN schemes implemented in 2020 had improved compliance and therefore generated lower levels of income.
The Chair thanked all the guests for their contributions.
Supporting documents:
PDF 110 KB