Housing Scrutiny Committee Meeting Raises Concerns

The following letter was sent to members of the Housing Scrutiny Committee Meeting following the meeting on the 2nd October 2025. The meeting left residents feeling frustrated and ignored. We continue to call for a pause in the Council's consultation

Re: Concerns Following the Housing Scrutiny Committee Meeting on 2 October 2025 – Pimlico District Heating Undertaking (PDHU)

I am writing to formally raise a number of serious concerns following the Housing Scrutiny

Committee meeting held on 2 October 2025 at 6:30pm, convened to discuss the Future of the PDHU project.

“Not a Meeting in Public”

From the outset, the Chair stated that “this is a meeting in public, but not a public meeting.” While it

was understood that residents would not be permitted to participate directly, it was extremely

disappointing that many of us were unable to clearly hear the options being presented, debated, or any conclusions reached, due to poor sound quality throughout the meeting. Given the scale and financial implications of the PDHU proposals, it is unacceptable that residents, who will ultimately bear the cost, were effectively excluded from even passively following the discussion. As a result, several residents felt compelled to leave, as the meeting gave only the appearance of transparency without offering any meaningful substance.

Inappropriate Political Point-Scoring

During the meeting, Councillor Ryan Jude appeared to engage in political point-scoring when he

criticised Conservative councillors for asking questions that highlighted apparent flaws in the

Council’s consultant-led options appraisal and ranking. Councillor Harvey pointed out that, prior to

the pandemic, under the previous Conservative administration, the Council had begun exploring

tailored, block-by-block heating solutions, rather than adopting a one-size-fits-all heat network

replacement. This approach was reportedly resisted by Council officers, including Debbie Jackson,

who preferred a new district heat network instead.

Councillor Jude dismissed this earlier Conservative-led analysis as slow and ineffective, claiming that the current Labour administration is now moving forward with greater urgency. However, it became clear that the current Labour-led Council is pursuing a heat network strategy that closely mirrors the officers’ pre-pandemic preference, without adequately revisiting block-level alternatives or in-flat alternatives. Councillor Jude expressed clear support for a heat network-led solution, while Councillor Begum made limited contributions but appeared content to follow the Council’s direction uncritically.

Yet again, Councillor Ryan Jude, declared no conflicts despite having an interest in the Green Finance Institute. Councillor Jude is an employee of the Institute which is in partnership with the Council.

Wessex Gardens: Failed Heating System Replacement

During the meeting, a councillor asked whether the Council operates any other district heating

networks, and officers confirmed that there are, including one at the Wessex Gardens estate,

although this is only about one-tenth the size of the PDHU project.

This comparison is particularly troubling given the well-documented failure of the recent heating

upgrade at Wessex Gardens. Despite an agreement with the Wessex Gardens Residents’ Association to pause collection of major works charges and subsequent repair costs, and to allow an independent investigation into the failed system, the Council has since issued demands for payment and withdrawn from its commitment to resident-led oversight. This raises serious concerns about the Council’s ability to competently manage large-scale heat network projects or uphold agreements made with residents. If the Council has failed on a project a fraction of the size of PDHU, it does not inspire confidence in its capacity to deliver or govern a significantly larger and more complex scheme.

Specific Concerns Raised:

1. Lack of Awareness Among Invited Speakers

A retired councillor and resident of the Tachbrook Triangle, was invited to speak. He stated that he found his PDHU bills reasonable and was in favour of remaining on the network. However, under questioning, he admitted that he had not carried out any comparative billing analysis with other systems. More concerningly, after the meeting, he told residents that he had been unaware of key issues, specifically the problem of heat creep experienced by Longmoore Gardens residents and the disproportionately high bills they face as a result.

In 2007, the Council extended the PDHU network to the new Tachbrook Triangle development,

combining it with Longmoore Gardens under a single heat meter. This was done without any

statutory consultation or engagement with affected leaseholders, seemingly in breach of Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The connection resulted in persistent base temperatures in the communal pipework (heat creep), increasing year-round heating losses and inflating costs for Longmoore Gardens residents. Mr Neville’s lack of awareness raises questions about the Council’s decision to invite him as a speaker, and whether balanced representation was provided to the Committee.

2. Concerns Regarding Financial Transparency and Analysis

A number of issues were raised concerning the financial modelling presented to the Committee:

• Optimism Bias: Officers claimed that different options had different optimism bias percentages, contradicting earlier statements that a uniform 30% had been applied. No clear or consistent methodology was provided to explain these figures.

• UK Power Networks (UKPN): Officers confirmed that the Council had received just one initial budget quote from UKPN (£3–4 million), yet the financial model continues to show grid connection costs of £21–35 million. This suggests that the model has not been appropriately updated or independently verified.

3. Information Withholding and Process Failures

• Officers attempted to justify the ongoing “moratorium” on the release of information by citing exemptions under the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR), but they failed to explain why over 100 resident-submitted questions remain unanswered when much of the information was not commercially sensitive.

• Officers acknowledged that the current stage, referred to as an “interim Outline Business Case (OBC)”, does not exist within HM Treasury’s Green Book framework. This appears to be a process invented by the Council.

• The financial modelling being used has not been independently reviewed and relies solely on data and assumptions from consultants' own Total Energy Modelling (TEM).

• Legal advice on leaseholder charging, which is essential given the scale of financial exposure for residents, has not yet been obtained, despite Cabinet approval for this work in March 2025.

• An application for electric grid connection with UKPN has only recently been submitted, nearly three years after the Strategic Outline Case (SOC) was produced.

4. Failure to Address Key Risks or Provide Reassurance

• The Committee did not recommend pausing the project or requesting further analysis before the matter proceeds to Cabinet, and appeared to disregard the recommendations of the expert Andrey Bulavin.

• There was no commitment to commissioning an independent technical or financial review, despite repeated concerns from residents and elected members.

• Serious concerns raised under Section 151 of the Local Government Act, regarding financial prudence and risk management, were acknowledged but not substantively addressed.

5. Residents’ Concerns Dismissed

Ultimately, the meeting ended with a brief wrap-up. There was no meaningful engagement with the flaws identified in the process or with the risks residents will face. The proceedings gave the

impression of going through the motions rather than offering genuine scrutiny or democratic

oversight.

Conclusion

The residents four estates affected by the PDHU proposals are being asked to bear potentially

enormous costs for a project that lacks transparency, accountability and genuine public

engagement. The Housing Scrutiny Committee had both an opportunity and a responsibility to probe these shortcomings and demand proper due diligence. Regrettably, that opportunity was not taken.

I therefore urge the Council to pause the project until the following conditions are met:

1. A fully independent financial and technical review of the PDHU options and cost modelling.

2. Completion and publication of legal advice on leaseholder charging and cost recovery mechanisms.

3. Full and open disclosure of key project documents and answers to all outstanding questions from residents.

4. Meaningful consultation with affected leaseholders, in full compliance with statutory obligations.

I ask that this letter be formally recorded as part of the public record of the PDHU project and the

Housing Scrutiny Committee’s proceedings.