28 Industry Viewfinder
on current practices, innovation trends, and practical lessons for delivering resilient, low-carbon housing at scale.
SURVEY FINDINGS: PRIORITIES T e two key retrofi t priorities of ‘EPC C’ and reducing carbon reductions were echoed in our survey responses; they were the top two priorities for respondents with 139 and 125 points respectively. Maintenance cost reductions was in third, with increased maintenance demands also one of the key barriers we canvassed social housing teams on. For residents, it was reassuring reducing bills (and therefore lowering risk of fuel poverty), was placed relatively high at number four. As well as legal compliance, residents’ health and wellbeing were also central,
with addressing damp and mould issues now legally regulated in the wake of Awaab Ishak’s death in 2020. Unfortunately, using resident feedback sat at the bottom of the list, but only just behind the much-advocated ‘one-hit’ whole- house retrofi t approach, showing how many other practical concerns were confronting social housing teams. T e persistent lack of trust among many tenants needed to be recognised and tackled, however, and using feedback is one way to help mend this. For our respondents, damp and mould mitigation and resident health
were seen as priorities, but only at numbers seven and eight in the list. T e overarching problem of short-term cost, versus long-term savings, was illustrated by the fact that was high in the list at 96 points, while reducing operational expenditure was three spaces below it. We asked who was involved in decision-making on retrofi t projects;
executive leadership had a signifi cant number of votes; the same as repairs and maintenance at 43%. T is was revealing, as it showed potentially why a focus on initial expenditure remained a key issue, and too high a priority for social housing organisations, with board decision-making being central to many choices within projects.
CHALLENGES OF WHOLE-HOUSE RETROFIT Holistic and whole-house approaches to retrofi tting housing are acknowledged as the most eff ective means of tackling the upgrades in ‘one-hit,’ and ensuring the balance is struck between diff erent, oſt en competing elements, and residents’ needs. Bearing in mind the inevitable challenges of achieving this in occupied properties, we wanted to gauge respondents’ views on how diffi cult achieving whole-house retrofi t is at scale. T e majority (62%) said
As well as legal compliance, residents’ health and wellbeing were also central, with addressing damp and mould issues now legally regulated in the wake of Awaab Ishak’s death in 2020
that it was either a ‘signifi cant’ or ‘very ‘signifi cant’ challenge, and only 13% said it was a ‘low level’ challenge. Due to constraints ranging from the need for resident decants to putting the
necessary time and investment into design and build, whole-house is clearly not going to be the panacea for all authorities. Most of our respondents picked ‘funding barriers’ as their chief reason for ‘not delivering holistic whole-house retrofi t,’ but this was also potentially due to projects’ ineligibility for funding. T e second highest answer was ‘limited supply chain or delivery partner capacity,’ Supply of skilled installers of heat pumps has lagged behind demand, but this is unlikely to be the main reason for the supply chain capacity issues. T e ability of the supply chain to integrate eff ectively to achieve whole-
house, one-hit retrofi ts was explicitly covered in the next question. T ird in the list of reasons for housing organisations not delivering holistic retrofi t at scale was ‘technical complexity of integrating measures.’ T is was relative to constraints around residents (for example temporary decants, loss of fl oor space and disruption) being the bottom pick at 31%; possibly expected to be higher. T e second from bottom was ‘scale and logistical challenges,’ around for example property size and type, as well as location and issues caused by having a geographically dispersed stock. We asked whether the term ‘retrofi t’ itself was an issue for their tenants, and
most thought it was ‘confusing’ (37% of the total picked this). A lower fi gure of 28% said it was ‘understandable,’ but this was not a ringing endorsement. And 22% said it was ‘somewhat problematic.’ Clearly, the jury is out on whether ‘retrofi t’ should be the blanket term for selling programmes which are designed to bring huge long-term benefi ts for tenants and their buildings.
COMPARISONS WITH 2024 In all of our three decarbonisation and retrofi t oriented studies of housing professionals, (2023, 2024 and 2026) we asked what the sector’s biggest barriers
“What are the main reasons your organisation is not delivering holistic, whole-house retrofi t at greater scale?”
Housing Management & Maintenance Spring 2026
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 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52
