The Climate Action, Environment and Highways Policy and Scrutiny Committee met on Thursday 29 February 2024 to discuss the council's Sustainable Transport Strategy and the future of the Pimlico District Heating Undertaking (PDHU). The committee made several recommendations regarding both topics, including a call for more ambitious air quality targets and a detailed review of PDHU's financial implications and potential heat sources.

Sustainable Transport Strategy

Councillor Paul Dimoldenberg, Cabinet Member for City Management and Air Quality, presented the council's first overarching Sustainable Transport Strategy. Dr Audrey de Nazelle, a senior lecturer at Imperial College London, provided an appraisal of the strategy, praising its planned engagement but cautioning about the risks of hearing from a vocal minority.

The committee raised several points for consideration:

• Air Quality Targets: Concerns were voiced about whether the council's targets were ambitious enough, particularly in light of Westminster's high incidence of respiratory illnesses. Members questioned if the World Health Organisation (WHO) targets for 2040 could be met sooner.
• Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging: The potential difficulties in rolling out EV charging points as the city becomes more saturated were discussed.
• Active Travel Targets: The fairness of targets, such as the Mayor of London's aim for 80% of journeys to be active by 2041, was questioned in relation to Westminster residents who may need to drive. Accommodations for those with mobility issues were also suggested.
• EV Charging Costs: The impact of the cost of public EV charging points compared to home charging was highlighted as a potential unfairness for residents without private drives.
• Tackling Idling: Progress on tackling vehicle idling, especially in coach stations, was queried.
• Co-design: The importance of co-designing the strategy with a wide range of residents and stakeholders to ensure uptake was emphasised.
• Evidence Base: Members suggested expanding the evidence base to provide a more detailed picture of the city's current situation and future aspirations, particularly regarding green spaces and cycling collision statistics.
• Tailoring the Strategy: The committee questioned whether the strategy risked being a catch-all and to what extent it could be tailored to different parts of the city, considering variations in car ownership.
• Cycling Numbers: Inhibitors to cycling and how the council could better encourage uptake, especially among women and children, were discussed.
• Segregated Cycle Lanes: The importance of segregated cycle lanes for safety, perception, and uptake was raised.
• Census Data: The reliability of census data used for car ownership, given its proximity to the pandemic, was questioned.
• Data Recording: The committee asked about other applications for recording activity and how the council could better record data.
• Flooding: The integration of the council's emergency preparedness for flooding into the sustainable transport strategy was discussed.
• Public Bicycles: The geographical spread of public bicycles in Westminster and why some areas had fewer were questioned.
• Perceptions of Transport: The statistic that 73% of women surveyed identified private cars as the safest mode of transport was cited, and the council's role in making the city feel safer was explored.

The committee made the following recommendations:

• To consider zoning elements of the strategy across Westminster to address unique geographical challenges, such as varying car ownership.
• To give greater consideration to people with mobility issues who may find it difficult to move away from car ownership.
• To widen the evidence base to highlight the importance of the strategy's pillars and the need for action.
• To continue co-designing the strategy with partner organisations.
• To be more ambitious on air quality targets, not limiting them to WHO guideline levels for 2040.

The committee also requested actions to clarify statistics in the evidence base and provide information on the rollout of 'Santander' bikes.

Pimlico District Heating Undertaking (PDHU) - Outline Business Case Approach

Councillor Liza Begum, Cabinet Member for Housing Services, and Councillor Ryan Jude, Cabinet Member for Climate, Ecology and Culture, introduced the report on the PDHU. They summarised resident engagement efforts and outlined the options being considered for the network's upgrade.

Key questions and discussions from the committee included:

• Timelines: The realism and selection of outlined timelines were questioned, as was the potential impact of new technologies.
• Individual Metering: The timing of individual metering in relation to network progress and its micro-scale implementation were discussed.
• Leaseholder Liability: The extent of financial liability for leaseholders and the timing of charges were explored.
• Risk of Failure: The likelihood of the current system failing without maintenance and its impact on the 3,000 properties served were assessed.
• Resident Costs: Projections for individual resident costs, potential charge caps, and the bearing of primary and tertiary works costs were requested.
• Reporting to Policy and Scrutiny: The possibility of the programme returning to the committee as the direction and costs become clearer was raised.
• Central Government Funding: The potential financial relief from central government funding for residents and leaseholders was discussed.
• Leaseholder Responsibility: The responsibilities and liabilities of leaseholders wishing to sell a property within the network were examined.
• Timing of the Project: The reasons for the current urgency in addressing the network's age were questioned.
• Decanting Protocols: The council's support for residents who might need to move out during major works, particularly older residents, was discussed.
• PDHU Decarbonisation: The appropriateness of the programme's title and whether it might exclude viable options were debated.
• Integration Assumptions: Assumptions made on integrating new methods onto the network and the efficiency of heat transfer were questioned.
• Cost Responsibility: The council's responsibility for the cost of a new heat source and the potential efficiency of closing the network for private heat sources were explored.
• Non-Resident Charging: Considerations for business properties and potential dispensations for charitable units were raised.
• Estate Energy Tariffs: Clarity was sought on why different energy tariffs in different estates were considered a disadvantage.
• Energy Cost Projections: Assumptions made in forecast projections for energy and capital costs were requested.
• Electric Combi Boilers: The potential of electric combi boilers as a quicker solution and the cost-effectiveness of longwave radiation were discussed.
• Affordability: A suggestion was made to automatically discount options exceeding £50,000 per household.
• Thermal Battery Option: The council's assurance regarding the energy source for barges transporting thermal battery energy and the replicability of transferring heat along a river were questioned.
• Zero-Carbon: Whether electricity could be considered a zero-carbon solution was debated.
• Blue-Sky Thinking: The degree of input from external experts on initial options was sought.
• Resident Confidence: How individual metering might improve resident confidence and potentially reduce usage was discussed.
• Cooling Source: The potential for a new source to provide cooling as well as heating was explored.

The committee made the following recommendations:

• To consider changing the programme's title to allow for fair consideration of all options.
• To consider the vulnerability of elderly or those with additional needs in any potential decanting from properties.
• To consider affordability per unit/household, with costs of £50,000 per unit automatically discounted.
• To consider options for cooling as well as heating.
• To appoint an independent financial expert, in addition to the technical expert, to support residents.
• To improve communication with ward councillors and keep them informed of developments.
• To review the process of individual metering in flats to minimise disruption and avoid multiple installations.

Actions were requested to provide an outline of proposals for charging commercial units and charities, justify the disadvantage of different energy tariffs, and provide assumptions made in the forecasted cost analysis.