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 ensuite, 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