Written evidence submitted by the Chartered Institute of Architectural Technologists (CIAT) (HEA0133)

Foreword

CIAT is the global membership qualifying body for Architectural Technology professionals. It represents those practising and studying within the discipline and profession and qualifies Chartered Architectural Technologists. Chartered Architectural Technologists, MCIAT and FCIAT, are qualified to offer full architectural design services and lead and manage projects from inception to completion.

As a design function, Architectural Technology relates to the anatomy and physiology of buildings and their production, performance and processes based upon the knowledge and application of science, engineering and technology, which are compliant with regulatory, statutory and legal requirements.

Architectural Technology achieves efficient and effective construction and robust sustainable design solutions that perform and endure over time.

Our members’ competences are innovative, creative and practical. Their fundamental skills include the ability to consider design holistically, contemplating all aspects of the composition. This includes the vision to run and lead projects from inception to completion, evaluating the client requirements balanced with the performance of the building together with its impact on the environment and the safety of its users.

We would offer the following as CIAT’s response to the questions in this call for evidence:

• What policy changes are needed to deliver energy efficient homes across the UK?

We feel that this question should be split into multiple categories to permit a meaningful response:

• Type 1 – Existing Homes (historic and traditional (built 50+ years ago)) – The majority of homes that fall into this category and that are still in use come from the Victorian era. They were designed with little or no regard to energy efficiency and relied on a highly permeable fabric to ensure air quality.  These properties have generally, although not universally, been upgraded to gas central heating / double glazing and various incarnations of fabric insulation to walls / roofs etc., although houses constructed using solid walls have extremely limited options. We are seeing some major issues today where the housing stock of this era is subject to ‘untested and generic’ policies which have been put in place without taking account of actual makeup, fabric and performance methods of the property.

• Type 2 – Existing Homes (any house built approximately 50 years ago to present day) – During the 1970s with the stark fuel price increases due to economic factors out with the government’s control, policymakers started to bring energy efficiency into the public forum and having an energy efficient home was no longer seen as a subliminal benefit. However, the regulatory framework was setting minimum standards with no encouragement for the construction industry to build to a higher level as the increase in the cost of building an energy efficient home could not be categorised. Something which the Energy Performance regulations (EPCs etc.) were meant to do but did not translate as was intended.

• Type 3 – New homes yet to be built – The housebuilding industry will only build what is regulated by government and will carry out the bare minimum unless government policy is directed towards rewarding higher efficiency.  A consideration here is client budget and what clients have the incentive to fund.

In terms of fabric and overall energy efficiency, policymakers have to set targets, but these targets must allow for different technologies and solutions without mandating a specific route. Targeted improvements in heat loss for example over a period of time should assist. 

A clear policy/direction as to whether the approach will be hydrogen or electric.  Currently innovations are underway to support both technologies, leading to confusion as to which is the right approach.

• What are the key factors contributing to the under-delivery of the UK’s government-backed retrofit schemes?

Several including:  Lack of marketing, need to source/assess/finance the work themselves, high interest rates, low financial benefits.

Multiple barriers being put before homeowners / landlords etc. The mandate of requiring ‘government backed accreditation schemes’ is single handedly responsible for the exorbitant costs of carrying out upgrades.  We operate in an industry that is always out to improve profits and is full of opportunistic schemes.  Policy needs to regulate companies in the private sector limiting fees and charges to only be commensurate with a fair price for a project.

• Which standards and assessment frameworks are needed to deliver a reliable, skilled workforce capable of transitioning UK homes to modern heating solutions?

PAS 2035/2030

• How might the Government support innovation in delivering local solutions?

Grant schemes which consider multi-home solutions.  For example, the application of external wall insulation across a row of terraced homes, thermal bridging, building envelope gaps (such as windows, doors), moisture management etc.

To support the skills and competence development of the workforce in regard to retrofit and energy efficiency, i.e. CPD or training supported by the government, developed by specialists and professional bodies whose members already possess relevant experience and expertise in these areas.

• What role should customer choice play in the future planning of energy networks for home heating?

There should be sufficient choice to enable market competition and, to ensure that cost-effective, innovative solutions are available. To make informed decisions about future planning of energy networks, it is firstly critical to educate the public on sustainable measures and their benefits.

• Does the current state of consumer protections for low-carbon home technologies represent a barrier to uptake of these products?

There is little or no consumer protection, only barriers. Consumer protection only works where it does not burden the consumer. Government has to decide whether it wishes to have an industry that is willing to take on these projects or not. The lack of suitable competent trades is the real reason why there is so little consumer protection, there are not enough tradespeople with the requisite understanding to carry out the work that is required.

• How will the public be able to afford the switch to decarbonised heating?

Solutions which support further integrations.  For example phase (1) solar panels which are battery-ready, phase (2) battery which can support electric car charging. Further data on the impact of retrofit on the value of homes when it comes time to sell. (i.e. does going up a band add ~£5k to the value.  If so, there is a clear return on investment beyond utility bills).

• How will decarbonisation plans be drawn up in each area?

The question is unclear, however if the consultation is referring to areas in which Decarbonisation Plans should be drawn up by Local Authorities, we would respond as follows: They should form part of the LDP process and the Local Authorities should be able to respond within their own frameworks and in timescales that are achievable.

• Do the current EPC frameworks help consumers make informed decisions on transition?

Yes in part.  However more detailed holistic retrofit plans are required to make an informed choice.

The EPC and calculation methodology in its current form was never designed for improving homes.  The ‘improvements’ are very high level, and may actually do more harm than good, as they cannot be applied to a specific type of property and are generic only. One of the concerns that we have is the understanding and knowledge needed to carry out a proper assessment on a home, which cannot be executed in a 30-minute visit.  It should take however long it needs to, and then only be carried out by competent professionals that have been through proper and rigorous training (taking years, not days or weeks as is current).  The proliferation of ‘apps’ making it easier, is only as good as the person inputting the data.  Misunderstanding of fabrics etc will result in meaningless results.

• Do standards need to differ for different types of housing?

CIAT would suggest the development of a framework of common principles, but its use would need to be contextualised according to the type of home (see answer to Q1), and unique characteristics should be considered as part of the assessment. What works for one, will not necessarily work for another, and may in some cases be detrimental to the fabric and structure.

It is important to recognise that standards must be upheld in all retrofitting situations, however, the framework and guidelines must be adapted to ensure that the standards are effectively met. While standards provide a necessary baseline for assessment, they should also allow for flexibility to account for the unique characteristics, context, and condition of each type of home. Energy efficiency goals should be pursued, but it is essential to consider the practical limitations of older buildings and the potential variations in exposure and conditions. By classifying standards for different types of dwellings and allowing for context-specific adaptations, a balance between maintaining consistent standards and addressing the diverse challenges posed by various housing types would be a practical way of moving forward.

What is the role of different levels of government in developing, funding and implementing schemes?
 

Measures that do not offer a return within a reasonable timeframe are not motivational enough for home owners, and grants or subsidies could expand could promote their feasibility. Local authorities should look to have grants or street/district level proposals which directly benefit their area as they play an important role in area-based regeneration schemes that have a wide range of objectives, most notably, energy efficiency. By performing local community consultations, it would help facilitate and make more informed decisions.

August 2023

Page 4 of 4