PDHU POLITICAL FACT SHEET

You may have seen Labour’s and the Conservatives’ leaflets about the PDHU and wondered what it really means for you and your home.

The Pimlico District Heating Undertaking (PDHU) is the ageing communal heating network serving more than 3,300 homes across Pimlico. With major decisions due on whether to replace it, and local elections this May, PDHU has become a key political battleground. Each main party is circulating leaflets with very different messages.

Pimlico Unites is independent and politically impartial. We do not support any party. Our role is to help residents understand what’s being said, what’s missing, and what the facts show. Below, we set out each statement the parties are making, followed immediately by what that statement means in practice, based on publicly available council documents, resident evidence and consultation records.

Westminster Labour is in political control of the Council and have been since the start of ‘The Future of PDHU’ project in 2023. Councillor Liza Begum, as Labour’s Cabinet Member for Housing, has been the key decision-maker on this project the whole time.

LABOUR: What they say, and what this actually means

Claim 1: “No decision has been taken yet on the future of PDHU.”

What this means:This is correct, but important context is missing. The Council has already conducted ranking exercises where heat-network options were prioritised, and the electric combi-boiler option was ranked worst, despite being one of the simplest and cheapest solutions for residents. Decisions are technically “open,” but behind the scenes, the Council has already been steering things in a particular direction.

Claim 2: “We will choose the cheapest overall option in 2027.”

What this means:Although Labour says costs are unconfirmed, the Council’s own documentation shows that some heat-network options could cost up to £66,000 per home. This figure appears nowhere in Labour’s leaflet. It also excludes additional costs like internal works, redecoration or temporary moves.

Claim 3: “We want lower bills, fewer leaks and individual metering.”

What this means:Most options under consideration would reduce leaks. But “lower bills” depends entirely on which option is chosen. Heat-network options have higher running costs than individual systems in some scenarios — but these comparisons have not been publicly released.

Claim 4: “Tenants and private renters will not be directly charged.”

What this means:The Council has already ringfenced over £80 million from the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) to help fund the PDHU programme. The HRA is funded directly by tenant rents.

This means:

• Tenants are indirectly paying for PDHU through rent income

• Spending £80m from the HRA puts significant pressure on reserves

• This creates a real risk of maximum rent increases for many years

Labour’s leaflet does not mention this impact, even though it will be felt by thousands of tenants.

Claim 5: “Don’t believe the scare stories.”

What this means:Residents’ concerns are not “scare stories” — they come from:

• The Council’s own cost estimates

• The Energy Ombudsman’s recommendation to pause the project

• The February 2026 shutdown of the Resident Working Group, and the removal of independent co-chairs

• A 670-signature petition and a 2025 survey showing clear resident preferences

• Multiple unanswered requests for basic information (the legal basis for charging leaseholders, electricity-cost modelling, “Do Nothing” calculations etc.,)

These are genuine evidence-based concerns, not rumours.

CONSERVATIVES: What they say, and what this actually means

Claim 1: “Labour’s plan is unfair and undeliverable.”

What this means:The Conservatives have consistently positioned themselves as opponents of the Council’s current PDHU proposals. They have voted against PDHU decisions repeatedly and have engaged with resident groups. Their criticism reflects their long-standing view — not a new election-time position.

Claim 2: “Leaseholders could face £50k+ bills and a decade of disruption.”

What this means:These figures are broadly aligned with Council-sourced cost ranges and the expected timeline for replacing 5km of underground pipework. However, the Conservative leaflet does not include detailed modelling or the assumptions behind these estimates, and the Council has not shared  this information publicly.

Claim 3: “We will cancel the current PDHU heat-network plan entirely if elected.”

What this means:This is an unambiguous political commitment but the Conservatives have not yet published a fully costed alternative. It is worth noting that the detailed technical data needed to produce one (grid capacity modelling, flat-by-flat costings, transition planning) has not been made publicly available. This modelling is being carried out by AECOM, the Council's appointed consultants, but their full findings have not been shared with residents or, it appears, with opposition parties either.

Claim 4: “We will take a building-by-building approach and consult properly.”

What this means:Assessing each building separately would allow different estates to benefit from solutions that works best for them, rather than imposing a one-size-fits-all network across Pimlico. Still, the operational detail would need to be worked up and this depends on the kind of granular, building-level technical data that AECOM has been commissioned to produce and which has not yet been shared.

QUESTIONS EVERY RESIDENT SHOULD ASK TO ALL PARTIES

These questions cut through political messaging:

1. What is the whole-life cost of each option, including installation, maintenance, energy bills and borrowing?

2. What assumptions (grants, loans, interest rates) underpin each cost estimate?

3. What is the legal basis for charging leaseholders for major capital works?

4. What disruption will take place inside homes, and how long will works last?

5. Will residents need to move out temporarily during the works, and if so, what financial and practical support will be offered? Will residents be rehoused within half a mile of their current home, or moved much further away? Will the council provide guarantees that residents who move out temporarily will not face pressure from the Council (whether openly or behind the scenes) to give up their homes?

6. Will the Council look fairly at options that don't involve a shared heating network (such as individual boilers or heat pumps in each home) and give them the same serious consideration as the heat network options?

7. When will the Council publish all technical data, not summaries or presentations?