Agenda item

Climate Change

Minutes:

The Panel received a report on Climate Change, regarding how portfolios and services were contributing to reducing carbon emissions. The Cabinet Member for Planning, Licensing & Housing Services and the Cabinet Member for House Building, Place-Making and Development introduced how their portfolios were contributing to carbon emissions, as set out on the report, which was on page 3 of the addendum report pack. The Assistant Director, Planning, Building Standards & Sustainability, The Assistant Director for Regeneration & Economic Development and the Head of Carbon Management were all present for this agenda item. The following arose during the discussion of the report:

  1. The Panel queried where the authority had got to with the Local Plan and questioned what was being done to engage with a wide array of people. In response, the Cabinet Member for Planning advised that the consultation on the Local Plan was ongoing and that he had specifically requested that the views of groups who did not regularly engage with the Council were sought. Officers added that they were engaging with the Bridge Renewal Trust and the Youth Advisory Board to seek their input. Officers also set out that Haringey had received feedback from the government that its latest engagement strategy around planning policy was a best practice example.
  2. The Cabinet Member for Planning advised that the Cabinet was due to meet in a few weeks to review progress to date across a raft of measures related to climate change that were set out in the Local Plan. 
  3. In response to a question, the Cabinet Member for Planning advised that all 33 London Boroughs were working together to try and agree proposals around Energy retrofit works that would cover a ten year period, as having an assured funding stream and assured programme of works was the only way to make significant progress. The Energiesprong pilot was underway in relation to retrofitting homes in the agreed pilot locations. 50 homes in White Hart Lane had been selected as part of the pilot scheme, the works would be delivered in 2022.
  4. The Panel sought assurances around the Council meeting its carbon reduction targets. In response, officers advised that Haringey had agreed that the borough would be carbon net-zero by 2041 and that the Council’s buildings and vehicle fleet would be carbon net-zero by 2027. The Council had started the procurement process for a number of electric vehicles and officers were working with the Corporate Landlord to understand key issues going forwards. The Council had allocated £101m to retrofitting Council housing stock and officers advised that they were working through a strategy to deliver that programme, which included focusing on the worst performing buildings first. The target for these works being completed was 2035. In relation to wider engagement, the Panel were advised that at a Cabinet away-day earlier in that week, Cabinet had undertook to do more to reach out into the community and speak to harder to reach groups.
  5. One of the panel members suggested that the Council should be seeking to engage more with Extinction Rebellion around the climate change agenda.
  6. Cllr Hearn agreed to circulate her questions in writing for a subsequent response. Officers to provide a written response.  (Action: Cllr Hearn/Officers)
  7. The Chair noted with concern the fact that 50% of the borough’s carbon emissions emanated from housing and only 7% of that was from Council housing stock. Therefore, the vast majority for emissions were from the owner/occupier sector and the private rented sector. The Chair suggested that, given the nature of the properties, the majority of carbon emissions were likely to be from the private rented sector and asked what the Council was doing in this area to meet its requirements on net-zero, above and beyond reviewing energy performance certificates. In response, the Cabinet Member for Planning advised that government issued guidance was that private rented homes had to achieve an ‘E’ grade on their energy performance certificate otherwise they could not be rented out. The Cabinet Member commented that in terms of owner/occupiers this was something for central government to lead on. The Cabinet Member expressed concerns around a perceived scattergun approach to this by the government and the collapse of the government scheme after only around 16,000 homes were retrofitted.
  8. Officers advised the Panel that, through the licensing scheme, the Council would be enforcing minimal standards around energy efficiency and that the Council would also signpost and support landlords to access alternative funding schemes. The example of the Green Home Grant scheme was given, which was ran by GLA and was available to all homeowners/landlords. Officers advised that the ambition for this funding was to get all of the housing stock across the board up to a mid ‘B’ efficiency rating.
  9. The Panel sought assurances around retrofitting council housing stock and potential costs to leaseholders. The Panel asked whether funding for leaseholders had been put budgeted for and whether any thought had been given on how to manage this process and mitigate any costs to leaseholders. In response, the Cabinet Member for Planning advised that any costs would vary according to the type of property and the type of retrofitting scheme that was being used. The Panel requested that the Cabinet Member provide a written response to this question. (Action: Cllr Bevan).
  10. In reference to wrapping of properties as a method of improving energy efficiency, the Panel sought assurances around how this could be done in a conservation area and whether this would raise planning questions. In response, officers advised that the planning policy supported the retrofitting of properties and improving energy efficiency performance as well as supporting heritage and conservation areas. Officers advised that the purpose of the planning process was to try and achieve a good balance between the relevant considerations. The role of pilot scheme was highlighted as being crucial in this respect as it allowed a forum for testing and refining the process.

 

RESOLVED

 

Noted. 

 

Supporting documents: