Public Fact Sheet

What Is the PDHU Project?

​

PDHU (Pimlico District Heat Undertaking) is the local heat network that supplies heating and hot water to residents in Abbots Manor, Churchill Gardens, Lillington and Longmoore and Russell House, as well as 50 commercial premises, 3 schools and a post office. The network serves 3,300 homes across the estates.

​

Why the Project Exists

To meet Westminster Council's 2030 net zero target and because the infrastructure is failing due to decades of poor maintenance, openly admitted by the Council. The Council states that the project is intended to:

• Reduce carbon emissions

• Improve energy efficiency

• Secure the long‑term future of the heat network

• Address ageing infrastructure

• ​

What Is Being Proposed (High Level)

The Council is proposing a major intervention in how the PDHU system is upgraded and managed. This includes:

• Significant capital works

• Changes to the Churchill energy centre, distribution pipes and infrastructure, and energy sources (including River Source Heat Pump with either gas boilers or electric boilers at the energy centre, and Mobile Heat Batteries with Cory)

• Long‑term contractual arrangements with external partners

How the Project Has Been Framed by the Council

 

From ‘Environmental’ Project to ‘Housing’ Project

A central concern is that the Council has shifted how it formally categorises the project:

• Originally framed as an environmental / decarbonisation project, which would normally require:

  • Stronger environmental assessment

  • More extensive public consultation

  • Greater transparency around alternatives and impacts

• Later reframed as a housing project, which:

  • Reduces the level of environmental scrutiny

  • Limits statutory consultation requirements

  • Narrows the scope of issues formally considered

Why this matters: This change affects residents’ rights to be consulted and reduces independent oversight of environmental, financial, and social impacts.

Consultation: What Residents Should Know

 

Our Key Concerns

Pimlico Unites believes the consultation process has been:

• Insufficient – limited engagement relative to the scale and impact of the project

• Fragmented – information released in stages, without a clear overall picture

• Hard to scrutinise – technical detail without accessible summaries or access to proprietary models used by the Council’s consultants

• Late – consultation occurring after key decisions appear to have been made

• Dismissive of resident opposition - clear, repeated rejections of the PDHU project by a majority of consulted residents have been ignored by the Council

 

What Meaningful Consultation Should Include

• Clear explanation of all options considered (including lower‑impact alternatives)

• Transparent costs, risks, and long‑term consequences

• Genuine opportunity for residents to influence outcomes

• Adequate time for independent review and feedback

• Evidence that residents views have been heard and considered, with reasons given when they are rejected

Governance and Delivery Risks

 

High Turnover of Consultants

The project has seen a high turnover of consultants, raising concerns about:

• Loss of institutional knowledge specific the each estates design and unique heating infrastructure

• Inconsistent technical advice and shifting cost assumptions reflected in the variations in feasibility assessments 

• Reduced accountability for earlier recommendations and decisions that have shaped current proposals and the Council’s preferred options, selected in October 2025

• Increased consultancy costs over time

 

Complexity and Oversight

Large, technically complex infrastructure projects require:

• Stable leadership with deep understanding of estate specific challenges, resident concerns and technical constraints

• Clear lines of responsibility and decision-making authority

• Robust challenge to technical assumptions and cost projections.

Residents have not been given confidence that these governance conditions are in place.

Transparency, Information Sharing, and FOI Restrictions

 

Moratorium on Freedom of Information (FOI) Requests

Pimlico Unites is deeply concerned by the Council’s decision to impose an effective moratorium on Freedom of Information (FOI) requests relating to the PDHU project.

The Council has stated that it has received more than 20 FOI requests relating to PDHU and is therefore refusing to process any further PDHU-related FOI requests by aggregating them under the cost exemption provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.

In practice, this means:

• Residents are being blocked from accessing important information about a project that will significantly affect their homes and finances

• Requests relating to borrowing, interest costs, and financial assumptions are being refused

• Transparency is being reduced at precisely the point when scrutiny should be increasing

 

Why This Matters

The use of FOI exemptions in this way:

• Reinforces concerns about the Council’s reluctance to share key information

• Prevents residents from independently testing claims about affordability, risk, and value for money

• Undermines trust in the consultation process

For a project of this scale, complexity, and financial impact, restricting access to information is incompatible with meaningful public engagement.

The Council’s Track Record on Major Projects

​

Pimlico Unites’ concerns about delivery risk are informed by the Council’s previous experience with large, complex capital projects, where outcomes have often diverged significantly from early assurances.

 

Common Patterns Seen in Past Projects

Across a number of major infrastructure and regeneration schemes, residents and councillors have observed recurring issues, including:

• Significant cost escalation between outline business cases and final delivery

• Optimistic early assumptions that were later revised once contracts were signed

• Delays to delivery, sometimes measured in years rather than months

• Limited transparency once projects encountered difficulties

• Residents bearing the consequences, through higher charges, prolonged disruption, or reduced service quality

​

Case study: ​​2025 Wessex Gardens Summary Heating Replacement

 

This all began with Westminster Council’s failed heating replacement project, which Wessex Gardens’ residents were made to pay for. After the problems became clear, the Council agreed with the WG Residents’ Association (WGRA) that no one would be charged anything further until an independent investigation could be carried out to understand what went wrong, what actually needs putting right and who should be responsible for the costs.

​

But despite that agreement, the Council suddenly issued a Demand for Payment to WG residents. Although they later paused collecting the money, the Council still haven’t returned to the original deal that allowed residents to bring in independent experts and oversee the process themselves.

​

To WG residents, it must feel like the Council is trying to shift the cost of its own mistakes onto them yet again. Repairs remain poor, communication from the Council has deteriorated, and it seems as though the Council is hoping people will become confused, exhausted or pressured into giving up.

​

Without standing together and seeking proper legal help, WG residents risk facing ongoing problems, rising costs, and more attempts by the Council to backtrack on promises. Working collectively is the only way to secure a fair and accountable outcome.

 

Relevance to PDHU

While each project is different, these patterns are directly relevant to PDHU because it shares key risk characteristics:

• High technical complexity

• Long delivery timescales

• Heavy reliance on external consultants and contractors

• Large upfront borrowing with long-term repayment commitments

 

Why Track Record Matters

The Council is asking residents to accept:

• Uncertain costs

• Long-term financial commitments

• Disruption to homes and estates

In this context, it is reasonable for residents to ask:

• What assurances can be given that PDHU will not follow the same trajectory?

• What safeguards are in place if costs rise or delivery slips?

• How will residents be protected if early assumptions prove wrong?

Without clear answers, past experience suggests that risk is likely to be transferred to residents rather than absorbed by the Council or its partners.

The Nature of the Proposed Heat Network Solutions

 

Scale and Irreversibility

The heat network solutions being discussed are:

• Large‑scale, complex, risky and disruptive

• Capital‑intensive and costly for residents

• Long‑term and difficult to reverse once implemented

 

Key Questions That Remain Unanswered

• Are there smaller‑scale, estate-specific, block-specific or phased alternatives?

• How resilient are the proposals to future energy price changes?

• What happens if the chosen technology underperforms?

• Who ultimately bears the financial and operational risk?

Cost, Affordability, and Financial Risk

 

Indicative Costs Raised by the Council

Early Council presentations suggested that the works could cost up to £66,000 per leaseholder. While the Council has repeatedly stated that tenants will not be directly charged, Pimlico Unites anticipates that tenants may still face rent increases as costs are absorbed into the Housing Revenue Account.

These figures are of a scale that many residents reasonably consider unaffordable.

 

How the Council Uses the Term “Affordability”

The Council frequently responds to residents’ concerns by stating that “affordability” accounts for 40% of the Critical Success Factors in its options appraisal.

However, in Council communications, affordability is defined as:

“Affordability is being assessed through several measurable financial indicators that capture both the upfront and lifetime costs of each heating option.”

This definition:

• Measures cost to the project, not affordability to residents

• Does not assess whether households can realistically pay these sums

• Does not consider debt burden, household income, or financial stress

In practice, affordability to residents is not being assessed at all.

 

Costs Are Unknown Until a Preferred Option Is Chosen

The Council has confirmed that it will not know the full cost to residents until it narrows the project down to a single preferred option.

This means:

• Residents are being asked to engage without knowing what they will ultimately pay

• Affordability cannot meaningfully influence decision-making

• Financial risk is being deferred until it is effectively unavoidable

 

Lifetime Project Cost and Council Borrowing

The currently stated total estimated lifetime cost of the project is around £400 million.

It is highly likely that the Council would need to borrow heavily to fund this:

• Increasing long-term debt

• Exposing the Council to interest rate risk

• Potentially crowding out funding for other services

Key unanswered questions include:

• How will this borrowing affect the Council’s overall financial position?

• What impact will it have on services across the rest of the borough?

• Who bears the risk if costs increase further or savings do not materialise?

“Cost-Effective” Claims and the Reality for Leaseholders

 

Political Commitments

Over the summer 2025, Westminster Labour distributed a leaflet stating:

“We are committed to the most cost-effective, least disruptive solution.”

However, “cost-effective” has not been clearly defined:

• Cost-effective for whom?

• Over what timescale?

• Compared to what alternatives?

 

The Leaseholder Repayment Plan

The leaflet also referenced the Council’s new leaseholder repayment scheme for major works:

• Bills over £20,000 can be spread over 25 years

• Or payment deferred until the property is sold

While presented as supportive, the financial reality is stark.

 

Example: £66,000 Bill

Under the repayment plan:

• First 8 years: interest-free

• Next 17 years: interest charged at 1.5% above the Bank of England base rate

A £66,000 bill would result in a total repayment of approximately £133,000–£140,000 — more than double the original cost.

 

Even at Lower Costs

• A £25,000 bill would still result in over £50,000 paid over time

These figures are staggering for what is, in effect, a replacement heating system.

 

Comparison With Individual Alternatives

For context:

• A new gas boiler or an air-source heat pump can typically be installed for under £10,000 per flat

 

Residents are therefore being asked to accept costs many times higher than individual solutions, with limited explanation of why this represents value for money.

Impact on Tenants

 

What the Long‑Term Options Really Mean for Tenants:

1. No Control Over Your Own Heating Bills

• A heat network means tenants cannot choose their supplier, switch tariff, or reduce costs through competition.

• Tenants are permanently tied to whatever pricing structure is set, regardless of affordability.

2. Heating Costs Far Higher Than Standard Systems

• Current comparisons show PDHU costs can be three to four times higher than typical gas boiler or electric radiator systems.

• Even with outages, tenants still pay full standing charges, leaving many in financial difficulty.

3. Fuel Poverty Concerns

• At a time when many households are struggling, tenants feel the council should be prioritising the cheapest, most reliable option, not the most complex or long‑term.

• High charges combined with outages push many tenants into avoidable fuel poverty.

4. Risk of Not Returning to the Same Home

• In previous regeneration or major works projects, residents who moved out were not always returned to the same size or type of home.

• Tenants are concerned that long‑term PDHU works could lead to permanent displacement or downsizing.

5. Loss of Space Inside Homes

• Past repiping works have resulted in tenants losing around 10 inches of internal space to accommodate new pipe routes.

• Despite this intrusion, these works have not consistently reduced leaks or improved reliability.

6. Disruption That Could Last Decades

• Many of the proposed long‑term solutions will take years, possibly decades, before they are fully delivered.

• This means prolonged construction, repeated access to homes, and estates left in a constant state of disruption.

• Tenants fear their homes will feel like building sites, not stable places to live.

7. Tenants Want Decisions Now — But the Options Are Long‑Term

• Tenants are asking for clear, immediate decisions about affordability, reliability, and future plans.

• Most proposed solutions offer no short‑term relief, leaving tenants stuck with high bills and unreliable service for the foreseeable future.

Impact on All Residents

​

Residents may be affected through:

​

Disruption:

• Digging up estates to replace underground pipes

• Work inside your home to replace pipework

• Noise, dust and restricted access for years

Changes to your bills: 

• New heating charge structures

• Possible increases to cover costs

• For tenants: likely rent increases

Loss of choice: 

• Residents will be locked into using the PDHU network and won’t be able to choose their own heating provider

• No ability to shop around for better prices

• No flexibility to switch if the service is poor or prices increase

 

These impacts require clear explanation and resident consent.

What Pimlico Unites Is Asking For

​

We are calling for:

1. Reclassification of the project to ‘environmental’’ to reflect its true environmental and infrastructure impacts

2. Full publication of options appraisals, risk assessments and access to modelling

3. Independent scrutiny of costs, technology choices, and governance

4. Proper consideration of taking all properties off a heat network and installing in flat boilers

5. A resident‑centred approach that prioritises affordability, reliability, and accountability

6. Decoupling this project from the urgent need to address ongoing issues of leaks and unreliable heating and hot water in Lillington and Longmoore Gardens properties

7. Genuine influence over outcomes; residents’ voices and views must be reflected in decision-making, not simply ‘noted’ and ignored

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

​

Q: Is decarbonisation necessary?
Yes. Pimlico Unites supports decarbonisation, but it must be done transparently, affordably, and with resident consent.

​

Q: Are we opposing the project entirely?
No. We are opposing the way the project is being developed and consulted on, not the principle of the project.

​

Q: Can the project still change?
Yes – but only if residents engage and demand proper process and accountability.