Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR – RESOURCES

For Council to approve a capital budget for the Government’s new energy efficiency Warm Homes Scheme. 

RESOLVED: That Council approved a capital budget of £1.275M (£0.319M in 25/26, £0.478M in 26/27 and £0.478M in 27/28) for the Government’s new energy efficiency Warm Homes Scheme. This would be fully funded from Government grants as paragraph 8.5 of the report referred.

Audio recording – 53 minutes 53 seconds

Councillor Daniel Allen, as Leader of the Council, presented Referral 6A from Cabinet and the report entitled ‘First Quarter Capital Budget Monitoring Review 2025/26’ and advised that:

·                The report was presented to Cabinet to provide an update on the impact upon the approved Capital Budget for 2025/26.

·                There was an estimated decrease in spend of £0.412M for 2025/26, and an estimated increase in spend of £1.446M in future years.

·                The most significant budget change was the removal of £0.563M for the Solar for Business scheme.

·                £0.250M would be reprofiled into 2026/27 for resurfacing Broadway Gardens and £0.122M into Phase 2 of the Public Sector Decarbonisation Fund.

·                Paragraph 8.5 referred to a fully Government grant funded Warm Homes scheme that would provide energy efficiency improvements to 26 low-income households across North Herts.

·                The Council were asked to approve £1.275M of funding for this across 3 years.

In response to a question from Councillor Matt Barnes, the Director – Resources advised that there would be no revenue impact from the removal of the Solar for Business scheme from the Capital Budget.

Councillor Daniel Allen proposed and Councillor Val Bryant seconded the recommendations within the report.

N.B. Councillor Nigel Mason left the Chamber at 20.27 and returned at 20.29.

As part of the debate, Councillor Ruth Brown made the following points:

·                Whilst the Warm Homes grant scheme and the additional funding for Phase 2 of the Public Sector Decarbonisation Fund were welcomed, the removal of the funding for the Solar for Business scheme was not as the introduction of the scheme had been investigated since 2019.

·                The Council had declared a climate emergency, there were pressures on the Green Belt due to housing construction, and there was a lack of solar panels in industrial areas.

Councillor Ruth Brown proposed an additional recommendation to the motion that ‘the Executive Member for Environment and Officers should conduct a lessons learnt exercise on the issues with the Solar for Business scheme to date and produce a concrete, fully costed plan to overcome these by the end of 2025 for inclusion in the 2026/27 Budget’. This amendment was seconded by Councillor David Chalmers.

The following Members took part in the debate on the amendment:

·                Councillor Daniel Allen

·                Councillor Steve Jarvis

·                Councillor Mick Debenham

·                Councillor David Chalmers

·                Councillor Ralph Muncer

·                Councillor Elizabeth Dennis

·                Councillor Sam Collins

·                Councillor Martin Prescott

·                Councillor Jon Clayden

The following points were made as part of the debate on the amendment:

·                The Administration had tried to engage businesses on the Solar for Business scheme, but it had not been successful.

·                Being unable to make the scheme work while other local authorities had been operating it for several years reflected poorly on the Council.

·                Extensive information was provided to businesses on the scheme and three businesses showed interest, however, none of them wanted to proceed.

·                The scheme could have been implemented by one of the previous administrations at the Council.

·                A Climate Emergency had been declared by the Council and the Solar for Business scheme would ensure that they were responding to that.

·                The Opposition Budget Workshop would be a more appropriate place for budget discussions to take place and lessons learned from the scheme could also be discussed at the next Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting. 

·                The Council should investigate the reasons that businesses had not taken up the scheme and work with communities and other Councils to ensure that any future green initiatives would be of more interest to businesses.

·                It was disappointing that the Administration had decided to remove the scheme from the Capital Budget due to financial, rather than environmental reasoning.

·                Delivering the scheme would be of great benefit to businesses in the district.

·                Communication of the scheme should be investigated as not all business owners received information on the scheme when it was publicised.

·                They should be encouraging more solar panel construction on buildings rather than open space which the scheme would help to do.

Councillor Ruth Brown replied to the debate on the amendment and made the following points:

·                The Solar for Business scheme would require time and resources to set up, however, it could have both financial and environmental benefits once operational. 

·                Solar farms in open space were unpopular with residents, therefore, solar panel installation on industrial buildings would be preferable.

·                Solar Together had already been a successful scheme, therefore, Solar for Business could be too.

In response to a question from Councillor Sadie Billing, Councillor Ruth Brown advised that there were other Councils that produced income from Solar for Business schemes but she could not provide examples of these.

Following a vote, the amendment was LOST.

As part of the debate on the original motion, Councillor Daniel Allen highlighted that cross-party discussions could have helped with the Solar for Business scheme and he was willing to work with opposition Members.

Having been proposed and seconded and, following a vote, it was:

RESOLVED: That Council approved a capital budget of £1.275M (£0.319M in 25/26, £0.478M in 26/27 and £0.478M in 27/28) for the Government’s new energy efficiency Warm Homes Scheme. This would be fully funded from Government grants as paragraph 8.5 of the report referred.

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION:

(1)       Council approved the capital budget each year, so any significant additions should be approved by Council.

(2)       Adding the budget to the capital programme allowed the Council to deliver a government funded scheme aiming to provide energy efficiency improvements to low income households with the aim of tackling fuel poverty and reducing emissions.