Industry Viewfinder


“How important do you believe the decarbonisation of social housing is?”


said ‘helping to combat climate change’, 16% ‘reducing fuel poverty’, 16% ‘modernising older stock’, 14% ‘reducing bills’, 7% ‘reducing maintenance’, 5% ‘satisfying tenant demand’ – with 11% being lone responses including ‘multiple benefi ts all round’, ‘to get people to pay’, and the less positive, ‘it’s a waste of money’. To see if it’s residents who aren’t interested, housing providers were also


asked how important they estimated these issues to be to their tenants – again showing this is unlikely to be the most signifi cant barrier. T is year, the previously highly-rated tenant engagement had fallen in


importance to reduced bills, rated as important by 86% of our respondents, and energy effi ciency, by 77%. Again, this year, 63% said engagement was important to their residents, and an increased 61% the environmental impact of their homes.


STOCK PERFORMANCE Focussing on their current stock, for now, to further expose the long journey ahead, when estimating the average performance of their homes, just 3% of respondents said A and 8% B, with the majority (65%) saying C, 19% D and 5% E – improved negligibly from the previous study – with the majority (68%) of these saying they were looking to improve this. When asked why they were looking to improve the effi ciency of their stock,


saving money was most commonly mentioned, with comments including “to get the bills down,” “reduces cost,” and “lower cost of maintenance.” Other respondents said it was because of the benefi ts it brings to tenants,


“bettering people’s lives,” “improving their situation,” and benefi ting both “the tenants and the organisation”, and another commented: “the higher the effi ciency the lower the bills.” Its eff ect on the houses themselves was also noted. One respondent said


they were looking to improve this rating as an “investment into the stock itself ”, multiple for “performance” and “quality”, and that their housing simply “needs updates”. T e remaining reasons why they were looking to improve this were around


“reducing carbon emissions” and “sustainability”, as well as “to meet the net zero carbon strategy that most HA have to meet by 2050”, and similarly: “we are committed to achieving the 2050 net zero targets”. T is of course leaves 32% of respondents who said they were not currently


looking to increase the performance of their housing stock, however. When asked why not, mirroring those who were looking to improve their


rating, respondents cited “the cost,” with the “cost to balance ratio not there.” Others said it was because of a ‘lack of knowledge’”, others still had “never


thought about it,” were “quite happy with what they’ve got,” or said that they had “other priorities” or “things that take precedent.”


THE BARRIERS TO CHANGE T ough slow progress continues to be made by housing providers in some areas this year, considering the continuing levels of fuel poverty among their tenants, residents will likely take little refuge in this. Of course, there are myriad problems standing in the way of improvement.


Tight budgets factor fi rst and foremost – with estimates of decarbonising England’s housing stock alone reaching past £100bn. Yet, housing professionals face further tough decisions. All stakeholders


must be brought along on the journey, especially residents. Will residents have to move out while retrofi t work is completed? How are the benefi ts of such work communicated with tenants? And, evident in this year’s responses, will the Government introduce the necessary funding and frameworks to enable these changes?


MAIN BARRIERS Looking at the main problems housing professionals face here, this year’s respondents were asked to rate their ‘top fi ve’ most signifi cant barriers to the decarbonisation of the UK’s housing stock, with 1st being scored fi ve points and 5th being scored one point. As is oſt en the case in our research, cost led the way by some distance, at 208


points, followed by a lack of government support (125 points), a lack of internal skills (83 points) and the ageing of the UK’s housing stock (72 points). Less popular, a lack of stock knowledge scored 61 points, with a lack of


external skills and access to homes at 52 points each. Tenants refusing improvements was next at 44 points, followed by increased


maintenance at 30 points, a lack of resident education at 28 points, and – signifi cantly lower than last year – supply chain issues last at 26 points (down 20 points year on year).


GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE Considering the Government’s performance generally in the eyes of housing professionals, respondents were also asked how they believe it has performed in relevant areas – with those surveyed being largely dissatisfi ed.


24 | HMMJune/July 2024 | www.housingmmonline.co.uk


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44