An attempt to install solar panelling at Juniper House.

Click to view or download Project Assessment

Click to view or download full history of Junipower Project 2017

History of Juniper House Solar Project, including details of final rejection, and Juniper case for reconsideration:

Case for reconsideration.

To: Helen.Dennis@southwark.gov.uk
Chair of Housing & Environment Scrutiny Commission

Dear Councillor Dennis
I’m sure you can imagine our disappointment at the conclusions of the BRE report into the Juniper House Solar PV Project. We appreciate that LBS has to consider the Bigger Picture, but would urge you to consider the benefits of the scheme beyond the cold business model employed.
I think I can safely say that we cannot understand quite why it has been submitted to this kind of audit.
Juniper’s offer is to fund a large part of the capital cost of the kind of project which LBS has committed itself to. If LBS is to meet these commitments, surely Juniper should be treated as a very timely, self-subsidising Pilot Project. A practical chance to learn the lessons needed to perfect the process of energising LBS-owned buildings across the borough. Merely relying on new-builds will surely not be
enough.
In return we would expect the deletion of the relevant Estate-Lighting Service Charge for all Juniper Tenants and Leaseholders. Given that at present, this charge only covers roughly half the total cost of consumption, eliminating the entire consumption would deliver roughly the same benefit to LBS as to Juniper Residents, while simultaneously reducing consumption for the Neighbourhood Area.
The project has not only given a central purpose to the community in an undoubtedly principled cause, but also promises to deliver tangible, direct benefits to each individual resident. I cannot think of a better advertisement for Local Environmental Initiatives, or for much-needed co-operation between communities
and LBS. We have seen that a smaller LBS project at Surrey Docks Farm was enacted under the ‘Cleaner Greener Scheme’ in 2017. Surely Juniper is the next step forward from that level of installation.
We have professionals at Juniper who have long experience of planning and delivering projects similar to ours in nature and scale. I would hope that their advice be sought as a matter of urgency.
Juniper also has a further motive for wanting to make this investment.
Maintaining the reserve fund dedicated to the project requires prolonging the existence of Juniper House Co-operative Ltd, which is now obsolete, and is proving very difficult to dissolve. Under F.C.A. regulations we cannot simply transfer the assets to Juniper TRA. The reserve has to be disposed in the general interest. This duplication involves an unsustainable level of administration for a community our size, and is having the effect of stifling the new TRA.
My personal reasons for supporting this project include re-energising the Juniper community; and to dispel the cynicism towards community action which has undoubtedly grown in the last two decades, and which is a severe barrier to the larger project of creating awareness of the environmental problems we all face.
If these problems are to be addressed, communities have to feel they can play a meaningful part, and not merely that they are hostages to bureaucratic decisions made by those who Know Best. I believe that it is reasonable to assume that if, as in our proposal, people can see a direct reward for their efforts, their belief in community action in general will be renewed, and there will be a conspicuous incentive for further such projects – requiring further community cohesion, with all its known beneficial spin-offs. Spin-offs which would indirectly save LBS money in various ways, which you will know better than I can imagine – especially if replicated across the borough.
I would further claim that helping communities find a role in addressing major issues is essential to help counter the current artificial divisions and frictions within them – which in turn destroy social cohesion further. It is an awful time, but in a way, the perfect one for our project.
Having lived at Juniper for 40 years, I can testify to the direct and indirect benefits of a vibrant, inclusive, active community, and that such a thing is possible to achieve. But only if it is has a sense of purpose and identity, and feels it has the power to make changes in its own interest.
The Juniper community has worked together on this project for over 2 years, during which time several opportunities have been missed to advance it. My fear is that further prolonged delay will mean that residents will feel that the money is better spent on something more possible, even if it is less relevant and will have less impact.
I hope to discuss these issues further at the meeting mentioned by Martin at his consultation session on 19/3/2019. Please find relevant minutes attached . Also searchable Juniper News Archive.
Sincerely
Rob Kenyon (secretary)
Juniper House TRA
0207 732 8493

From Minutes of TRA Meeting with Martin Kovats (LBS). 19/03/2019

The conclusion of the Building Research Establishment report was that there would be ‘no return on total Capital Investment within 25 years’.
f) Complete BRE report to be forwarded for inspection.
Meeting Comments on BRE Report.
Martin Hughes (MH). Was disappointed that BRE neglected to contact him during the process given his extensive experience of precisely this kind of project. This might have rectified any misconceptions and saved time.
The BME report does not constitute a reason for not pursuing the project. The large-scale approach adopted by LBS tends to discourage individual initiatives. To achieve its objectives in a diverse housing environment, LBS needs to adopt a far more incremental strategy; targeting achievable goals. As at Juniper.
Jackie Wilford (JW). Felt that the BRE report was based on the false premise that Juniper is seeking any return on investment other than the elimination of the relevant Service Charges.
It also seemed to work on the assumption that LBS was bearing the Capital expense of the project. Which is misleading.
RK. LBS should be taking the opportunity to use Juniper estate (and funding ) as a technical experiment, not a financial one.
The burden on Juniper of managing both the TRA and Juniper Housing Cooperative was proving to be unsustainable, and was sapping the energy of the TRA.
Tim Burrow (TB). Are existing lights due to be replaced with LED bulbs soon? This measure will also reduce community energy consumption. And even reduce the capital cost of the PV project by reducing the generation demand.
MK. The matter is being considered for gradual implementation.
LBS is also exploring the possibility of becoming a Civic Power Generator, using exclusively renewable sources.
MH Sought assurances that Juniper comments be appended to the BRE reported, and to LBS Scrutiny. MH agreed to undertake specialist assessment of report, and forward to MK.
LBS Action. MK to:
a) Get costings for ‘roofing side’ of project.
b) Pass results to LBS Scrutiny for processing.
Juniper Action. Members at meeting to write to LBS scrutiny independently, stating their reasons for supporting the project. Secretary to circulate relevant address.
MK sought formal assurance from meeting of intention to proceed with the project.
Passed Unanimously