The Green Deal consultation – a role for Registered Providers?

John Milner, Equity Partner, Baily Garner

It’s good to see that the consultation on Green Deal and ECO is finally out and having sat in a few forums it’s easy to seem negative about it. But the focus and energy of government has been on new build for too long and, however we feel about the Green Deal, it’s positive that Government’s focus has shifted to the existing stock.

From a social housing perspective, I think it is wise to take a step back and look at the average SAP scores of the stock compared to private sector stock. We know from our experience on FutureFit and our other projects that almost every SAP point progressively added to a home’s SAP rating costs more than the last (see latest FutureFit follow-up report for more details). Coupled with the Golden Rule, this means that the Green Deal is primarily a private sector driven initiative. Add to this that it is not a top down driven stock approach but one that is consumer and individual focused, it is not surprising that the consultation is largely silent about social housing homes.

There are a few questions in the consultation that allow consideration of how Registered Providers may add value. For example, Question 10 taking account of trigger points in existing stock programmes and Question 52 regarding channelling the money through most cost effective delivery options.

FutureFit and the results from current monitoring provide a goldmine of information to feed into the consultation and will continue to contribute to shaping the Green Deal. I feel it is important that Registered Providers do become lead partners in a Green Deal provider consortium to test and shape the changes that will undoubtedly occur.

Green Deal – the questions you should be asking

Susie Andrews

Group Environmental

Sustainability Manager

Susie Andrews - Group Environmental Sustainability Manager at Affinity Sutton

Since the launch of our FutureFit report a month ago, the debate and discourse around the Green Deal has continued to rage.  No doubt it will keep going until we are given some framework to hang our discussion on in the form of the Energy Bill consultation, due later this month.  At the moment the endless discussion can all seem a bit too much: can Government really get this right and ready to go in 12 months?  A couple of weeks ago I took part in an online panel debate about Green Deal delivery, hosted by the Guardian, and there seemed to be many more questions than answers. 

But this isn’t necessarily a negative thing.  Those of us already engaged in the Green Deal are flexing our visionary muscles, turning the concept over and over with each other, and trying to look at as many angles as we can and pose all the questions that need to be answered so that the Green Deal will be something that people want and that will significantly help UK Plc towards its carbon reduction targets.  Many of those taking part in the numerous discussions have considerable experience not only in retrofitting homes, but also in delivering other improvement programmes such as Decent Homes, and in working positively with residents. We know that the Green Deal has the potential to be what Government wants it to be, despite the obstacles that need to be overcome.  But we need Government to ask the right questions in the consultation: how can we ensure people want to take up the Green Deal?  How can we ensure large scale delivery?  How can we maximise carbon savings?  And then we need them to take heed of our answers. 

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?