Minutes:
(A)
Mr Hunt asked the following question of
the Acting Leader or her nominee:
“1. The new Government is making an initial £3.4 billion investment over the next three years to improve home energy efficiency and switch to low carbon technologies; this includes a step change in the size and scope of the Warm Homes Local Grant which the County Council administers. What plans have been prepared to ensure plenty of applications are made in relevant postcode areas to reduce fuel poverty in the county?
2. The total grant for Warm Homes Local Grant will be £88,000 in 2025/6, and £206m subsequently; what proportion of that does the county expect to receive and how many homes in the county is that likely to cover?
3. I understand that with only 51.2% of existing domestic properties having an EPC rating of C or greater, Leicestershire has fallen into the second quartile relative to other English authorities, can the Leader account for this comparative change?
4. What proportion of domestic properties have an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) and how do we target those areas without an EPC which are in postcodes identified as at risk?”
Mrs Richardson replied as follows:
“1. The County Council, with Green Living Leicestershire (Leicestershire Districts except for Oadby and Wigston, who are implementing this independently), has requested funding from the Government as part of the Warm Homes: Local Grant. The applications were submitted through the Midlands Net Zero Hub as part of a wider Midlands consortium. The County Council Warm Homes service will lead delivery on behalf of the Leicestershire consortium.
The Council has a history of delivering various energy efficiency government grants including Sustainable Warmth Competition and Home Upgrade Grant. In line with this, an online Tableau tool designed to map data across the county was developed, which includes areas identified by the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), EPC and fuel poverty data. Continuing to employ this targeted methodology aims to ensure that residents in these areas have a fair opportunity to submit their applications. The marketing strategy includes mailshots, social media advertisements, attending local events, and collaboration with internal and external partners. The Green Living Leicestershire group inputs local housing knowledge to help identify priority neighbourhoods based on housing archetype and relevant housing tenure.
Over the last year, the Warm Homes team has also been working on a separate government-funded demonstrator project known locally as the Home Energy Retrofit Offer (HERO) to reach at-risk residents, especially those living in hard-to-treat homes, to provide face-to-face advice on how to access energy efficiency schemes. Some eligible residents have received EPCs to enable them to access schemes such as the Energy Company Obligation (ECO). Those not eligible for the scheme can access telephone advice from the service.
2. The Warm Homes: Local Grant will allocate funding to Local Authorities in line with past delivery. For Leicestershire, this will be linked to the successful delivery of the Sustainable Warmth Competition (named locally as the Green Living Leicestershire Home Energy Grant). At this time, the funding allocations nationally have not yet been confirmed by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. As a result, the County Council is not yet able to determine the estimated number of homes that will benefit from this initiative.
3. & 4. From data gathered in October 24, 56.2% of properties within Leicestershire had a valid EPC. There are many properties within Leicestershire with EPCs over 10 years that will not show in this data. This data fluctuates as EPCs expire. Please note that areas of new house building can impact localised EPC scores as new properties are built to higher energy rating standards. Utilising the tools previously mentioned the Warm Homes team is able to target homes without valid EPCs based on neighbouring property data where similar housing archetypes indicate likelihood of lower energy efficiency.
The types of properties within an area significantly impact the EPC ratings. For example, older properties with solid brick walls tend to have low EPC ratings and would need proportionately more investment to increase the rating to modern standards. This is demonstrated within Leicestershire where the percentage of solid wall domestic properties links to the percentage of properties rated EPC band E-G in each district, with Melton having the highest and Blaby the lowest. Leicestershire as a whole is considered to have a significant number of solid wall properties. These properties typically require significant measures such as external wall insulation, which can be challenging to make viable within grant funding schemes available, for example meeting cost cap restrictions and balancing against lower cost measures that are increasingly hard to identify.
Work within the County Council led energy efficiency grant schemes aims to increase EPC ratings as a measurable outcome however the overall numbers are low within the scale of Leicestershire and unlikely to impact the overall Leicestershire EPC ratings significantly within one year. The main benefit of these schemes is the significant positive impact on the residents, including financial, comfort of the home and health, and the lowering of carbon emissions.
A number of factors will influence the countywide average EPC rating scale proportions including the 10 year period at which EPC data is valid, where newer housing built at the introduction of the EPC mechanism (2007/8) is now expiring. Other relevant factors include the rate of new house build and the characteristics of homes that are increasingly targeted by energy efficiency grant schemes generating a first time EPC, typically those likely to be a lower rating.
This figure fluctuating alongside other factors generating new first time EPCs targeted at older inefficient homes might lead to an overall reduction in average EPC rating and may give the effect of implying lowering energy efficiency standards but in reality, it is a result of a diminishing pool of properties that have never had an EPC being counted, masking improvements being achieved. This can be compounded by the significant time lag between properties starting and completing the retrofit process. Typically, the number of homes surveyed and identified to be lower ratings outstrips the quantity completing the retrofit journey and realising improvements through a follow-up EPC meaning there is potentially a surplus addition of lower rated homes impacting the statistics quoted in question 3.
Warm Homes, as a service within the County Council which delivers grant projects improving energy efficiency alongside wider national schemes, has been targeted at and requires confirmation of qualifying EPC ratings (targeted at lower bands D-G). Typically, it is a requirement to provide a valid pre and post works EPC demonstrating eligibility for grant funding provided to local authorities to deliver. It has not necessarily been a requirement to complete a post EPC to reflect the improvement in rating under national schemes such as ECO which deliver on a larger scale. Additionally, some properties may drop out in the grant process meaning no post EPC is completed for a portion of properties with lower-than-average ratings. As such a significant number of these EPCs will have been generated and may be contributing to lowering the overall proportion of homes falling into the A – C band category.
It should be noted that nationally, schemes designed to improve energy efficiency of the lowest rated homes (such as ECO and Home Upgrade Grant phase 2), have experienced increasing challenges and barriers for various reasons including complexity, measure mix and cost caps and this can be seen in the delivery statistics at local and national level.
The County Council’s continued efforts will focus on leveraging existing tools and partnerships to effectively reach and support residents in need. Existing data will be used to identify properties without EPCs in high-risk areas to be included within the marketing plan and ensure a comprehensive approach where residents are offered a fair opportunity. This will ultimately contribute to a reduction in fuel poverty and to greater energy efficiency across the county.”
(B) Mr Walker asked the following question of
the Acting Leader or her nominee:
“Could the County Council, as the Highway Authority, put in measures to restrict the use of e-scooters and illegal e-bikes on the public highway, to minimise potential danger to pedestrians?”
Mr. O’Shea responded as follows:
“As the Local Highway Authority, the Council has no powers to deal with the issue of illegal vehicles using the highway.
The Police is the only authority who can enforce the use of illegal vehicles on the public highway. Whilst currently only operating in Leicester City Centre, Op Pedalfast is Leicestershire Police’s city centre response to the use of illegal/modified e-scooters and e-bikes that do not conform to Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycle (EAPC) regulations.
EAPC regulations state e-bikes must:
If an e-bike does not conform to these regulations, it is an electrically powered moped/motorcycle and therefore must be ridden in line with the same laws that are applicable to riding a petrol powered moped/motorcycle (i.e. have a numberplate, rider must wear a helmet and have the appropriate licence etc).
Rules for e-scooters state they are only allowed to be ridden on private land with the landowner’s permission. The only exception to this is if hired through one of the Department for Transport trials such as the scheme in Nottingham.
To aid the police, district councils can introduce Public Space Protection Orders to tackle the issue, as ultimately this is an anti-social behaviour issue.”
(C)
Mr Hunt asked the following question of
the Acting Leader or her nominee
“1. The deficit for the High Needs (SEND) education stood at £41 million last April under a statutory override introduced by the previous government, one of many deficits they left behind. Given that there are no plans to extend the override beyond March 2026, why are there no measures to repay the deficit within the within the four year programme?
2. Even if the deficit was paid from already deficient reserves, as suggested, where are the measures within the plan to meet the full cost of High Needs to 2028/9 which are currently projected to be a similar sum?
3. The plan indicates that the SEND Investment Fund, taken from the Schools Block, will continue to 2029. What plans are there to cease this very unpopular transfer from Schools Block to High Needs or, having gained it, will it become permanent?”
Mrs Taylor replied as follows:
“1. The
statutory override is in place until March 2026 and discussions and lobbying
are underway. Government is being pressed for an early announcement on its
future, as the uncertainty being created across the sector is creating. An
announcement on future SEND policy is expected. The Transforming Special
Educational Needs and Inclusion in Leicestershire (TSIL) programme is
transforming SEND services and is on track to deliver cost reductions of £36.5m
up to 2028/29 and is currently considering what other actions may reduce the
forecast deficit.
2. There
are no government proposals to meet the deficit from current reserves and the
statutory override means this is currently not required. Local authorities are
required to balance a number of financial risks and as
such hold some levels of contingency with which to do so. Judgments have to be taken on the balance of risk and contingency, the
more provision made equals less spending on services and a need for higher
levels of savings.
3. Within
the school funding system SEND funding for local authorities is provided within
the High Needs Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) and for schools within the
National Funding Formula. The movement of funding from the Schools Block to the
High Needs Block and establishment of the SEND Investment Fund serves to reset
the SEND finance system and aligns to changes delivered through TSIL and the
direction of national SEND policy. The SEND Investment Fund will be targeted at
activities to support pupils with Social, Emotional and Mental Health Needs
within mainstream schools. The transfer is an annual decision taken by the
Schools Forum following consultation with schools with local authorities being
able to request a decision from the Secretary of State should the Schools’
Forum not approve the proposal, as was the case for the 2025/26 transfer.”
(D)
Mr Hunt asked the following question of the Leader
“1. What
has been the total cost (including, fees, consultancy etc) of the Phase 1 of
the Airfield Business Park?
2.
Could
you confirm the total area of Phase 1 and the area
currently let?
3.
What
proportion of that is retail use?
4.
Given
the current occupancy, when is it expected to break even?
5.
What are
the current cost estimates to complete construction of further Phases?”
Reply by MR BRECKON:
“1. £6,668,770.
2. 81,218
sq. ft (7,545m2). The area is 100%
leased as at 14 February 2025.
3. None
of the tenants on site operate as retail.
4. The
latest independent valuation for the scheme is £8,500,000, at
October 2023. This shows that the scheme has already exceeded break-even on a
valuation basis, plus net rental income earned in this time.
5. The
current construction contract sum for Phase 2 is £12,954,609.46, plus
contingencies.”