Decision

1. 1

The Committee considered the report of the Executive Director, City Futures on Sheffield’s Local Area Energy Plan (LAEP). The LAEP provided Sheffield's first citywide, spatial and evidence-based assessment of how the local energy system may need to change over time. It combined technical modelling, spatial analysis, economic assessment supported through stakeholder engagement to identify where intervention was needed, where investment should be focused and what conditions were required to support delivery. 

The report sought approval for the Phase 1 LAEP outputs as Sheffield's strategic evidence base for future energy planning and delivery, and confirmation that its findings, priority areas and enabling actions should shape Phase 2 and future project development.  The report also noted how the LAEP supports Council Plan outcomes for people, prosperity and planet. 

1. 2

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY:- That the Transport, Regeneration and Climate Policy Committee:

(a)  approves the Phase 1 Local Area Energy Plan (LAEP) Technical Report and Executive Summary as the strategic basis for future energy planning, partnership working, infrastructure co-ordination and project development, subject to the qualifications and limitations set out in this report;

(b)  confirms that the Phase 1 findings, priority areas should inform Phase 2 commercialisation and future delivery planning, but do not constitute approval of a delivery programme or individual projects, or changes to existing Council policy or targets and that the LAEP Executive Summary and Technical report be launched to stakeholders following completion of final quality assurance and any non-material corrections authorised by the Director of Investment, Climate Change and Planning;

(c)  notes that the LAEP does not change the Councils existing net zero ambitions or policy commitments and this approval does not amend the Council’s existing net-zero ambitions or select one pathway as Council policy;

(d)  note that the priority projects, modelled interventions volumes and geographic focus areas are indicative, high-level outputs for further investigation and prioritisation, rather than approved schemes and that future decisions on specific projects, funding, procurement, delivery models or governance arrangements will be bought forward separately where required; and

(e)  notes the progress already made with LAEP Phase 2, which is focussing on commercialisation, investment readiness, delivery models, funding routes, stakeholder engagement and the development of priority projects.

1. 3

Reasons for Decisions

1. 3.1

Approval of the Phase 1 LAEP outputs is recommended because it gives the evidence base clear strategic status and enables it to be used consistently in future decision-making, stakeholder engagement, investment discussions and Phase 2 project development. The positive case for the decision is that it provides clarity, maintains momentum, strengthens partnership working and helps align future activity with Council Plan outcomes for people, prosperity and planet.

1. 3.2

The decision also recognises important limitations and risks. Approval of Phase 1 does not approve specific projects, funding commitments, procurement activity, delivery models or governance arrangements. The LAEP identifies priorities and enabling actions, but delivery will depend on external funding, partner capacity, community engagement, grid coordination, supply-chain readiness, affordability and future commercial and legal assessment.

1. 3.3

The recommended approach therefore balances ambition and assurance. It allows the Council to use the LAEP as a transparent citywide framework for planning, investment and partnership work, while preserving proper governance by requiring future project-specific decisions to return for separate approval where expenditure, funding bids, procurement, contracts, delivery models, consultation or statutory duties are engaged.

1. 4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

1. 4.1

Alternative Option 1: Do not seek Committee approval of the Phase 1 LAEP outputs at this stage.

This option is not recommended because it would leave the LAEP as an internal technical evidence base only, limiting transparency, weakening governance and reducing confidence in using the outputs for investment discussions, partner engagement and Phase 2 delivery planning.

1. 4.2

Alternative Option 2: Defer Committee consideration to a later meeting.

This option is not recommended because Phase 1 is complete and Phase 2 is already underway; deferral would slow the move from evidence into project development, commercialisation and investment readiness without materially improving the evidence base. 

1. 4.3

Alternative Option 3: Seek approval for specific delivery projects at this stage.

This option is not recommended because Phase 1 identifies priority areas for further development, not fully scoped, funded or approved schemes; Phase 2 is needed to test deliverability, commercial viability, funding routes, risks, stakeholder requirements and governance before project-specific decisions are brought forward.

1. 4.4

The recommended approach gives the LAEP clear strategic status now, maintains momentum into Phase 2 and preserves proper governance through separate approvals for future projects, funding, procurement and delivery models.