Agenda item

(1)         Members commented on the volume of written evidence that had been sent to them and that it was difficult to decide on the relevance and authority in some cases.  The Chairman reminded Members that the purpose of receiving the documents was to provide a background and to help them to identify key issues and from whom they wished to take oral evidence.

(2)         Members were given the opportunity to highlight key points from the written evidence received to date which included the following:

Mr Ferrin:

·        What is the available capacity of renewable energy to replace conventional sources in the UK and in Kent?

·        We need an understanding of the costs and rewards

·        How much can be achieved with a practical approach to the subject?

·        What can be adopted and what are the hurdles for KCC (such as regulation)?

·        What is the role of KCC in encouraging the development of renewable energy in the County?

·        We need to identify key witnesses such as potential suppliers, Forestry Commission, NFU and seek information on wave and tidal energy.

·        Mr Ferrin requested that we obtain an update on payback periods in light of the new Feed-in tariff.

Mr Hirst

• Like to look at the new system on wave power such as the sea snake
• We should concentrate on employment opportunities to benefit the community such as those created by wind farms and the wood fuel industry. KCC has a duty of care to its neighbours and its residents in generating employment eg coppicing.

Mr King

·        The committee should  look at renewable energy from the micro to the  macro scales, from generating energy at the domestic or single plant level e.g. PV in relation to the Feed-in tariff and feeding energy back into the system

·        Need to look at whether we need to promote a change in the planning process and how to use the planning system to encourage this to happen; heating using solar panels, property by property, feeding renewable energy back into the system or reducing the amount taken out of the system on our own properties – seeing returns and reductions on fuel bills.

·        What can we do in Kent? Evidence showed that there could be a sustainable yield in Kent of 90,000 cubic metres of wood per year sufficient for 90MW of heating sufficient for 19 institutions the size of West Dean College. We could do the same as Austria, reinstating derelict and semi derelict coppice in Kent.

·        It is important to have independent witnesses.

·        Regarding wind energy, Mr King was not keen on the visual impacts but wind energy is free and so at 30% efficiency this is free electricity for 30% of the time as compared with conventional energy using a resource which is not sustainable. There is a need for a grid, but we already have that so on balance, the free source, even if available for a short time, is good.

·        CHP/efficiency should have been considered at the Allington Incinerator for heating the hospital and Mr Hirst indicated it was not too late to consider this.

·        KCC should be leading by example with its own estate, looking at what are worthwhile investments and how the planning process needs to be changed for example to promote PV on houses.

Mr Smith

·        Not one type of renewable energy fits all. The ability to use conventional electricity, gas and coal for industry and to heat houses is coming to an eventual end. This needs to be supplemented with sustainable sources of energy.

·        There was a good report on biomass in Austria from David – they do have more trees and woods – we tend to knock them down and build houses. The evidence from Hadlow College was of great interest.

·        We should have an amalgamation of say 3 or 4 things for the residents of Kent to supplement the electricity and gas we have with ie wind, biomass, PV and ground source heat pumps.

Mr Prater

• Agreed with Mr King that there was a need to look at renewables from the micro to macro levels – there was no magic bullet, not much space for onshore wind in Kent and not much for Kent to do with regard to deep sea offshore wind.
• What can we do to assist the householder, at the micro level, to install their own PV, solar thermal, GSHP or turbine, encouraging the most effective ways. FIT is to be introduced tomorrow and from then on, things will have changed. What advice can we give for example if someone has £5-10,000 to invest – what should they do? We can help to provide clarity for small scale renewables and help people to understand the best systems for the greatest benefit.
• We need more evidence on PhotoVoltaics to be assured of pay back periods. Evidence indicates small scale turbines are not effective. For our own estate and for Kent residents how can we encourage and make things easier. Is it necessary for roofs to be directly south facing? Regarding planning, it is permitted development except in conservation areas. PV tiles are available that are less visible – what is the planning guidance on these? How can we simplify planning to make it quick and easy? How can we mitigate the capital requirements? We could tell schools it is worth doing – could we give loans and implement PAYS, similarly for residents. At the domestic level people need clarity.
• Regarding rapeseed and biofuels, is this a magic bullet – no! There is not a lot of space for this. Woods could be better maintained supplying woodchips to specific locations but this is not a game-changer.
• Allington could be retrofitted for CHP commercially.
• Car recharging points could have their own storage. In London they are moving towards having more electric cars and there is the opportunity for other local authorities to become involved. Could the vehicle estate be moved towards electric vehicles while also generating electricity renewably? We could look at the electric car system introduced by Westminister City Council.

Mrs Tweed

• Had concerns about PV and the capacity of a particular system costing £23,000.
• Coppicing has public appeal and should be explored – people like wood-burning stoves. What incentives are there for woodland owners to manage woods?
• Would like to know more about hydrogen as a fuel.
• Biomass boilers are a nice idea but too expensive, though we should take the lead where we can.

Mr Hibberd

• Need to look at how the population of Kent is going to develop over the next 10-20 years

·        Advise County to reduce the population in Kent 

·        Need to have clear idea of the existing supply of energy in Kent, of the sources and how long it was going to last.

·        Need to be clear on the current usage in Kent, the balance of supply and demand, and of the political risks

·        Can we justify importing energy to Kent such as with hydro contracts with Scotland?

·        There is a good supply of wood which used to be sent to paper mills and is now available – it is a pity to waste it.

·        Forestry Commission evidence was most useful.

·        We need information on demographics of Kent from Mr Peter Marsh.

Mrs Stockell

·        There is a range of things – we need to think about producing a policy document, influencing planning and creating incentives such as energy grants.

·        Hadlow College evidence was good. Kent is one of the best achievers on renewable energy, by 2010 achieving 92% of its 2016 target.

·        All new build properties have SUDS etc., good insulation, BREEAM good standard. We need the right mix of encouragement and suggestions.

·        Bringing woodlands back into coppicing is one area to improve employment. MBC have a biomass boiler though it is labour intensive and (referring to Austria) producing woodchips involves the use of diesel.

(3)    RESOLVED that the Key issues highlighted in the written evidence identified by the Select Committee be noted by the Policy Overview Research Officer.