What are the main factors influencing registered social landlords by pptfiles

VIEWS: 4 PAGES: 19

									What are the main factors
influencing registered
social landlords’ decisions
to build beyond level 3 of
the Code for Sustainable
Homes?


 By Andrew Lau and Paul Grainger
    Housing Studies Association
           Conference
               York
            April 2010
Overview
 Introduction

 Research Questions

 Literature Review

 Findings

 Conclusion

 Question Time
Introduction
 CO2- ~30% from homes.
 Under the revised Climate Change Act, the UK is
  committed to reduce its GHG emissions by 80% by
  2050- housing sector is the likeliest sector to make this
  commitment across the whole economy (Footprint,
  2009).
 What is CfSH?
 Code for Sustainable Homes- ‘the most challenging
  and demanding housing standards” (Osmani and
  O’Rielly, 2009, p. 5).
Introduction

 CfSH timeline

  2010- 25% more energy efficient and 50% more water
  efficient than 2006 standards. Code Level 3.
  2013- 44% more energy efficient and 50% more water
  efficient than 2006 standards. Code Level 4.
  2016- zero carbon and 80% more water efficient than
  2006 standards. Code Level 6.


              Projected increase in building regulations requirements

                                         Source: Bodkin, (2009, p. 3).
Research Questions

 What are the main drivers for RSLs to build beyond
  level 3 of the Code?
 What are the barriers for RSLs to build beyond level 3
  of the Code?
 What would RSLs like to be doing more of in terms of
  providing low or zero carbon housing and how this
  can be better facilitated?
Literature Review

 UK Government: all new build by 2016 will be zero
  carbon.
 Social housing is at the forefront of demonstrating the
  possible (Hancox, 2009).
 Drivers:
1.Business
2.Cultural
3.Legislative
4.Technological
Literature Review

 Barriers:
1.Cultural
2.Financial
3.Legislative
4.Technology and Design
Findings
 Drivers
1.Legislative: “industry will respond best to legislation”
  (Osmani and O’Reilly (2009, p. 9). Higher levels under
  the Code= funding. Create a level playing field:
 “If all housing providers follow the Code then it
 becomes cheaper for us to do that.”
2.     Cultural: tenants are becoming more
  environmentally aware/cautious, can drive RSLs to
  build to higher levels.
Findings

1. Business: More likely to get schemes funded by the HCA
   compared to another organisation building at minimum
   standard. Only benefits the tenant through lower bills.

   “No advantages…cost is disproportionate and prevents
   us from providing housing”.

   Contradicts various findings e.g. greater publicity,
   enhanced brand recognition, motivates supply chain,
   attracting more customers and attracting a higher
   caliber of employees

2. Technology: sufficient choice is available. Looking at
   new methods of construction
Findings

 Barriers
1.Financial: Not enough financial incentives.
  Insufficient data available to to build beyond Code
  level 3 in terms of costs- aura of uncertainty.
 “No not at all, very little data to build level 3 never
 mind beyond. The amount of help has been nothing,
 the Code assessors only there to assess they don’t
 give advice, recommendations etc. We need more
 money to build beyond level 3”.
Findings
2. Cultural: Negative stigma attached to low or zero
   carbon technologies- high cost and reliability issues.
   “We want to do a communal heating system for five
   houses, cost £50,000, that’s £10,000 per property and
   look after costs. It doesn’t make good sense”.
3. Legislation: lack of guidance and too complicated.
   “Very little data to build level 3 never mind beyond.
   The amount of help has been nothing, the Code
   assessors only assess, they don’t give advice,
   recommend. What needs to be done is somewhere
   we can access good coherent information on
   practices like a good practice website”.
Findings
 Council workers lack knowledge as they don’t come from
 a ‘housing background’.
 “We need the councils support before we go to the HCA.
 We spoken a lot of councils but when we talk to them they
 don’t realise the difficulty of achieving level 3 and 4. There
 are a lot of things in the Code that the councils aren’t
 aware of”.
 CfSH- harder for small and rural RSLs- especially the
 mandatory requirement to reduce surface run off. Very
 inflexible and increases friction between HCA, LA and RSLs.
 “Maintenance issue on solar panels and heat pumps. You
 would have to go to that organisation because they are
 the organisation can do it… It’s a bit unpopular [CfSH], we
 don’t have a choice and they [LA and HCA] don’t see
 that. They just think we are being awkward”.
Findings

 Social landlords should focus on housing that is
 affordable rather than to develop higher levels of the
 Code.
 HCA relaxed the demand for homes beyond Code
 level 3 due to the current economic climate.
 Existing homes must be made more efficient- same as
 new development. If not, problems will arise for
 housing management e.g. different running costs,
 older stock may become unpopular.
Findings

3. Design and Tech: Only applicable for large scale
   developments.

   “Yeah you could look at district heating systems,
   economies of scale… If you are going to build six up in
   the Dales you got no chance”.

   Renewable technologies- costly, reliability issues, tenants
   find it difficult to use and difficulties on managing e.g.
   someone needs to manage a district heating system.

   “Is it value for money or just ticking a box in a form?”.
Findings

 Reducing surface water runoff- implement rainwater
 harvesting system  costly for organisation,
 unpleasant for tenants and requires electricity that
 goes against the 25% reduction on CO2.
 Peoples’ wants might be compromised in order for
 the RSL to meet various standards e.g. lack of en-
 suite, can’t have full bath and radiators on walls. Low
 carbon lifestyle must be developed first.
Findings
 What would RSLs like to be doing more of
  in terms of providing low or zero carbon
  housing and how this can be better
  facilitated?
1.Targeting private developers.
2.More funding.
3.Increase flexibility.
4.Clearer guidance on the CfSH.
Conclusion

 CfSH is the most important factor to build beyond Code
  level 3. Must be treated with caution.

 Building beyond Code 3 can fulfill the landlords moral
  obligations.

 Financially unviable to build to Code level 5 and 6.

 Must be a level playing field.

 If the UK Government does not put the CfSH high on its
  agenda then it is unlikely to move beyond tokenism and
  rhetoric.
Question Time
Thank you very much

								
To top