1 September 2011

Should there be a separate Green Deal for social housing?


Jeremy Kape, Director of Property Investment at Affinity Sutton

We have just released our first FutureFit report. This £1.2M project, which will take place over two years, has examined the implication and opportunities for large scale retrofit of Affinity Sutton’s 56,000 homes to improve energy performance and reduce carbon omissions. Uniquely we have also been able to assess the government’s funding initiative for these improvements – the Green Deal. 

FutureFit has shown that although Green Deal will work, the application of the golden rule (that the energy savings achieved must be greater than the cost of repayment for the measures installed) means it will deliver limited carbon savings in the social housing sector. This is due, in part, to social housing’s existing  levels of energy efficiency where many of the low cost high saving measures that are essential to support the Green Deal have already been carried out.

FutureFit has identified that the performance of the Green Deal can be greatly improved, and more significant savings achieved, if we have equal and open access to the new Energy Company Obligation funding (ECO) but more importantly if we can realise economies of scale by delivering works at volume through our existing asset management programmes. This would ensure that we made the most of our existing touch points i.e. installing insulation as part of kitchen replacement programmes savings further disruption to residents and reworking.

Delivery through existing programmes and on an estate by estate basis would significantly challenge the consumer driven focus envisaged by the government and would almost certainly require the creation of a Social Housing Green Deal, something the government have previously said they would not do.
But does achieving a more significant carbon saving justify a separate green deal for social housing or should we accept a lower carbon saving?

3 comments:

  1. This research is useful and timely - costs and carbon aside, the point about disruption to residents is interesting. Surely any approach that lessens this (and so encourages more people to take up any Green Deal offer) should be prioritised? Be interesting to hear a response from Government on this.

    ReplyDelete
  2. John Milner, Bailey Garner16 September 2011 at 02:08

    This illustrates a tension in Government policy between a top down and bottom up approach. The government doesn't want to make a special case for anyone but it need to foster the conditions for creation of a market.

    If it gives some control to Social Landlords through a Social Housing Green Deal then this may mean more carbon is saved but more importantly it may create some controlled momentum. A Green Deal for Social Housing is definitely worth further consideration.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I do not see how a Green Deal can work withou involving the RSL, they have the expertise of dealing with the tenants and more often than not have the inside line of who will be pro project!
    Most RSL's also have a day to day contact with propeties for one reason or another, they can also carry out installation of measures on a more controlled basis.
    I am aware of a number of RSLs that could increase the amonut of carbon being cut and also help those in fuel povity, but due to the current rules (likley to be used within Green Deal)it cannot get the funding.

    ReplyDelete