Issue - meetings

Matter for Decision

AECOM’s ‘Mapping and Masterplanning Study’ (Work Package 1) suggested that the Cambridge City-Centre Heat Network was likely to be feasible. The subsequent ‘Feasibility Study’ (Work Package 2) was scheduled to report in summer 2023, enabling the Cambridge City-Centre Heat Network to move to Detailed Project Development stage.

 

The decision required related to Council approval and match-funding needed to move to the next stage of Detailed Project Development.

 

The Detailed Project Development would provide a more thorough assessment of the physical and financial aspects of the project. It could include options analysis and advice on governance, financing and commercial models.

 

Once the Detailed Project Development stage had been completed, a further decision on whether and how to proceed with build-out and delivery of a network, and if, or what investment, would be required.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Climate Action and Environment

      i.         Provided ‘in-principle’ approval to use up to £180,000 of the Council’s Climate Change Fund for match-funding of the next phase of Detailed Project Development, subject to a satisfactory outcome from the feasibility study; a successful second government Heat Network Delivery Unit grant application; confirmation of a match-funding contribution from the University of Cambridge, clarification of additional expected resourcing requirements and sources and approval from the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources.

    ii.         Approved delegated authority to the Assistant Chief Executive (as heat network Project Sponsor) to make the final decision in consultation with the Executive Councillor, chair of Environment and Communities Scrutiny Committee and opposition spokes, once the Feasibility Study was completed in summer 2023.

   iii.         Noted the potential requirement for a further additional council and partner investment in technical assessment, at a later date, subject to exploration of alternative sources of funding (see section on risks and mitigations on pages 9-11 of the Officer’s report).

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Assistant Chief Executive.

 

The Assistant Chief Executive said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.         The project had not happened earlier as officers had been exploring options for some years. It took time to find the finance and appropriate technology to make the project practicable to meet targets in the City Council’s strategies.

    ii.         No-one else had done a heat network in a historic city centre (they had in other settings such as rural areas) so the City Council would be a trail blazer.

   iii.         There would be some disruption to the city centre if the network was installed. The intention to minimise this and further details on ‘how’ were set out in the Officer’s report. The intention was to work with partner organisations to mitigate disruption and risks; plus keep residents informed.

  iv.         Central Government funding would be sought to minimise the cost to the Council.

    v.         There were a lot of finance options for the project at present, and the pros and cons of each would be explored further during the next stage. There was a risk/reward review to decide which to use.

  vi.         The impact of the project on open spaces (and any archaeology therein) would be reviewed (later) in the bore hole part of the project.

 

The Sustainability Co representative said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.         The City Council was showing an enabling role by bringing the project forward.

    ii.         The next stage of the project would look at project finance and governance options.

   iii.         The heat network tried to balance aims (e.g. addressing fuel poverty) with what was practicable. The ambition would be to explore the potential to connect the network to social housing in due course in the hope this would lead to decarbonisation of housing stock in future.

  iv.         There would be disruption from boreholes. There was a chance to improve open spaces and increase biodiversity after the heat network was installed.

    v.         It was necessary to do a physical dig on site to check how many bore holes were needed, and if it was suitable to dig them in the first place.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.