Executive Summary - Energy Saving Trustenergysavingtrust.org.uk/sites/default/files/reports/EST... · Web viewEnabling Measures Final Report Produced for the Energy Saving Trust May

Enabling Measures Final ReportProduced for the Energy Saving TrustMay 2013

Changeworks36 Newhaven RoadEdinburgh, EH6 5PY

T: 0131 555 4010E: [email protected]: www.changeworks.org.uk/consultancy

http://www.changeworks.org.uk/consultancy

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................3

1. Introduction..............................................................................................6

Note on this report....................................................................................................6

2. Context: Green Deal, ECO and Enabling Measures..............................7

The Green Deal........................................................................................................7ECO .......................................................................................................................8Home Energy Efficiency Programmes for Scotland: Area Based Scheme (HEEPS ABS)………………………………………………….....................................................9

3. Methods..................................................................................................10

4. Learning from Previous Insulation Programmes................................12

Lessons from UHIS / HIS – Enabling Measures for Loft and Cavity Wall Insulation……………………………………………………………………………..... 12Understanding Barriers to Install............................................................................15Perceptions on Enabling Measures Required for ECO and Green Deal................21Experience of Key ECO-Eligible Installations.........................................................22Summary.................................................................................................................22

5. Survey of Consumers’ Experience of UHIS-Related Enabling Measures.......................................................................................................24

Survey of Households who had Installed Insulation...............................................24Survey of Households who had not Installed Insulation.........................................32Conclusions............................................................................................................37

6. Developing a Classification for Enabling Measures...........................40

Piloting Enabling Measures in the Context of Green Deal and ECO......................44

7. Piloting Enabling Measures – Following Up Install Cancellations to Enable Installations......................................................................................45

8. Piloting Enabling Measures – External Solid Wall Insulation............47

Pilot Overview.........................................................................................................47Household Perceptions in Advance of Install.........................................................47Enabling Measures.................................................................................................50Measures Piloted....................................................................................................52

9. Piloting Enabling Measures – High Rise Hard to Treat Cavity...........53

Lessons on High Rise and Multiple Occupancy Installations from UHIS Funding of Schemes.................................................................................................................53Pilot Site Measures Used.......................................................................................54

Enabling Measures: Final Report May 2013 1

10. Conclusions and Recommendations................................................56

Types of Enabling Measures..................................................................................56Demand for Different Measures..............................................................................57Recommendations..................................................................................................58


EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThis report presents the findings from a study commissioned by the EST and delivered by Changeworks into the enabling measures that could be used to support the installation of energy efficiency measures delivered as part of the Green Deal and ECO.

The overall aim of the project was to enhance understanding of the barriers to uptake of installs, and to explore the enabling measures to overcome these. This was achieved through a range of research and pilot activities, including:

Desk research exploring previous and current use of enabling measures in insulation programmes.

Interviews with key stakeholders involved in insulation programmes Surveys of households to explore perceptions and importance of enabling

measures. 3 pilots of enabling measures (a follow–up of households that had not taken

on previously offered measures; as part of an area-wide solid wall insulation installation, and as part of a high-rise cavity installation)

The desk research and in-depth interviews with key stakeholders to explore enabling measures used in previous programmes demonstrated a wide range of possible barriers to installation of insulation. These ranged from supporting and working with households through to covering the costs of technical or repair work. This research also highlighted that the legacy of previous funding schemes has resulted in differing opinions and expectations as to what could, or should, be funded or described as an enabling measure and what should be included in the core costs of an installation. For example, scaffolding has been funded as an enabling measure previously, but this could be viewed as a core cost of the work as it could not go ahead without it (in some cases).

The surveys with households that had previously enquired about insulation suggest that there are a range of concerns which may deter people from proceeding with insulation. These include: reassurance on the offer of insulation that they are targeted with; the quality of the installation or installers; suitability of the insulation for their property or the damage it may cause; and additional costs or requirements pre or post installation works (e.g. laying down boarding in lofts).

To alleviate concerns and encourage households to install insulation, the findings suggest that support, advice and information from an impartial body are essential in enabling households to install insulation.

A Classification of Enabling MeasuresThese research findings were used to develop a classification of enabling measures in order to facilitate an understanding of what the potential enabling measures and what might be required to deliver these. A wide range of items were identified as enabling measures, including such diverse items as loft vents, scaffolding, supporting


transport costs to rural areas and direct assistance in clearing lofts. As such, enabling measures can be viewed as being grouped into four categories along a spectrum, with costs and challenges of installation at one extreme and supporting the household to install measures at the other. These are presented in the following diagram, with examples of measures included.

Piloting Enabling MeasuresThree trial sites were identified in order to test out this understanding of enabling measures and to explore if any further insights into key enabling measures that could be used to support ECO and HEEPS ABS rollout.

The follow-up pilot with households who had not installed loft or cavity insulation after making an enquiry with Home Energy Scotland explored the extent to which additional support to encourage and engage installs can achieve success. From a small sample of 64 households that had not proceeded with installation, two were assisted to achieve a successful install. This occurred as a result of providing further advice and support to households and working with installers to pursue these homes. Although a small pilot, this highlights that concerns can be alleviated (and installs achieved) by providing further support to households.

The area-wide solid wall insulation pilot explored perceived barriers in advance of installation (via a household survey) and trialled measures during the install process. This identified that the majority of measures requested and used related to returning the properties to their original state (e.g. repair of fences and gardens damaged during install). This pilot also highlighted the importance of having support and advice available to households to facilitate installs and project management.

Enabling Measures: Final Report May 2013

Supporting the costs and challenges of installation

Supporting the household to install measures

Non-standard technical

issues or costs

scaffolding

loft vents

unusual technical surveys

access / travel to remote areas

Returning the property to

original state

redecorating

replacing fences and walls

Preparing for installationdecant / storage

clearing of gardens

Engaging and encouraging

installs

enhanced recruitment

targeted marketing and hand holding

4

The high-rise cavity pilot again highlighted the importance of advice and support in enabling residents to install, and also in identifying resources to return properties to their original state after installation.

Conclusions and RecommendationsThis research clearly identified that household support, engagement and recruitment is vital in delivering installs. This not only relates to scheme promotion and information dissemination from impartial and trusted sources, but also in managing queries and questions and working with installers to facilitate installs. This is especially important as technologies such as solid wall insulation require significantly more upheaval and intrusion than loft and cavity installs. In addition it will be important to ensure that any available measures are effectively promoted and resources invested to follow up with interested clients to ensure households feel supported and therefore follow through on their decisions to install. This is likely to require close working with installers and other key stakeholders (such as builders who may be renovating homes) to ensure that those that need the measures are aware of them and that effective advice can be sought.

Based on this research we recommend that local authorities should be encouraged to allocate significant resources to household engagement, support and follow-up, along with exploring routes to engage wider stakeholders, such as local tradespeople, in the promotion of measures.

The spend on enabling measures through HEEPS ABS projects should be monitored closely. This should include

An outline of the types of property or insulation types that are to be targeted (high rise; EWI etc.) to facilitate an informed understanding of enabling spend

Monitoring staff time spent engaging with households (and the nature of this engagement – e.g. seeking collective agreement for communal buildings; responding to complaints queries about installers etc.)

Value (and nature) of enabling spend on preparing site for install, making good sites after install, and non-standard technical issues or costs

Reporting on what is and is not specified as core costs when asking installers to prepare bids for work

This data should provide vital information to inform the targeting of measures in the future. Throughout this process it will be important for scheme managers to ensure that the installation market does not take advantage of this provision for enabling measures and that these are contained, where reasonably possible, in the core costs of installation.


1. IntroductionThis report presents the findings from a study commissioned by the EST and delivered by Changeworks into the enabling measures that could be used to support the installation of energy efficiency measures delivered as part of the Green Deal and ECO.

The overall aim of the project was to enhance understanding of the barriers to uptake of installs and develop and evaluate enabling measures to overcome these. The ultimate aim of the work was to identify how best to support the roll out of the Green Deal / ECO in Scotland through the use of enabling measures.

This was achieved through exploring the following objectives: Understanding the barriers to energy efficiency installs Evaluating previous enabling measures used in energy efficiency schemes Identifying enabling measures that may increase uptake Evaluating the uptake of measures and exploring the impacts in relation to the

Green Deal and ECO environment.

Note on this reportThis work was undertaken in late 2012 – spring 2013 during the period that the ECO and Green Deal schemes were first being ‘rolled-out’. Subsequent to this research being completed, changes have been made to the legislation upon which these schemes are based1 – in particular in relation to the ECO targets (being reduced) and the insulation measures included in the scheme being widened. Despite these changes, the findings from this research still stand and are still highly relevant to the future roll out of insulation schemes.

1 Consultation on changes available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/the-future-of-the-energy-company-obligation


2. Context: Green Deal, ECO and Enabling Measures2

The Green Deal is the UK’s flagship energy efficiency policy introduced in 2013. It is intended to drive installations of energy efficiency measures by eliminating the need for households and businesses to pay upfront for measures. Instead, households will make payments over a specified time period to cover these costs. The ‘Golden Rule’ aims to ensure that these Green Deal payments do not exceed savings made on energy bills as a result of these measures, meaning that households will not be worse off. Measures in hard-to-treat housing that do not meet the Golden Rule, or measures in low income households, will be funded or part-funded through the Energy Company Obligation (ECO). DECC initially estimated that 14 million homes would be insulated under Green Deal.

It is therefore important to understand what types of activity could facilitate uptake and maximise the flow of Green Deal/ECO funds into Scotland. Barriers to uptake can be wide ranging and, based on previous experience from other energy efficiency schemes (focusing on loft and cavity insulation), can include a wide range of ‘measures’ such as flat owners needing support to agree to joint works, assisting with the cost of scaffolding to make insulation affordable or households requiring support or assistance to clear lofts. Enabling measures to address these have been used as part of CERT / CESP activity, but the Energy Saving Trust (EST) acknowledges that they do not yet have a clear picture of the effect of these enabling measures on uptake.

The Green DealHouseholds interested in the Green Deal will have a Green Deal assessment carried out on their home by a certified Green Deal assessor. This will include a technical assessment of the measures suitable for the house (based on an EPC) and an occupancy assessment to help ensure energy savings predicted for any potential improvement are accurate for the occupants (i.e. based on their specific heating patterns). Measures that meet the Golden Rule will be eligible for Green Deal finance. Finance is available for up to £10,000, paid back over a 20 year period or less and interest of approximately 8% is charged on the loan. The finance and overall process will be managed by a Green Deal Provider.

Should any subsidised enabling measures be made available for Green Deal work, these will be likely to reduce the overall cost of the work and therefore reduce repayments. This will potentially have an impact on the likelihood of meeting the Golden Rule, resulting in potential to increase take up.

ECOThe ECO will initially run until March 2015. It will place three obligations on energy companies: 2 The information contained in this chapter was accurate in May 2013; subsequent changes to ECO, Green Deal and HEEPS ABS schemes are not discussed here.


a) Affordable Warmth Obligation – will provide funding for low income private households for any measure that ‘reduces the notional cost of heating the property’. This will include boiler repairs if accompanied by a level of aftercare for households. Only those in private households will be eligible. Qualifying benefits will include: child tax credit with a household income under £15,860, income-related employment and support allowance, income-based jobseekers allowance, income support, state pension credit and working tax credit with a household income under £15,860. District heating will also be included.

b) Carbon Saving Obligation – will fund measures in hard-to-treat properties. All properties receiving money through this stream must have solid wall insulation or non-standard cavity insulation installed. Alongside this, other measures may be offered such as loft insulation, glazing, draught-proofing and district heating systems.

c) Carbon Saving Communities Obligation (CSCo) – will target insulation measures in low-income communities (defined using the ‘data zones’ in Scotland which represent the 15% of multi-deprived areas). This target will be set at 20% of overall carbon saving target. Loft and cavity wall insulation are expected to be the most commonly installed measures through this scheme but a wider range of measures will be eligible, including solid wall insulation. Energy companies will need to deliver 15% of this obligation in rural, low income households in small settlements with a population under 10,000.

A summary of these three streams is provided in the table overleaf. It is important to note that the different types of ECO funding will tend to require different types of measures. They will, therefore, tend to require different types of enabling measure: The Affordable Warmth and Carbon Saving Communities strands will mirror (to some extent) the technologies installed as part of the Scottish UHIS (Universal Home Insulation Scheme) projects and as a result the need for enabling measures may be similar. However, the Carbon Saving element will be more likely to focus on solid wall and hard-to-treat cavity insulation (and is the largest element in terms of funds). These are areas where there is a significantly smaller knowledge base in relation to the enabling measures needed to facilitate installs and significant amounts of active learning is being undertaken by all stakeholders as the use of these technologies becomes more mainstream. Some examples of possible enabling measures are presented in the table overleaf and will be explored further in the next section.


Table 2.1 Summary of the three streams of ECO funding (May 2013)ECO obligation

Affordable Warmth Carbon Saving Carbon Saving Communities

Estimated funding (million/year)

£350 £760 £190

Estimated proportion of ECO funding

27% 58% 15%

Target households

Private households Low income

households (on specified benefits)

Hard-to-treat properties

Households on any income

Low income areas (15% lowest multi-deprived areas)

20% can be delivered in aligning areas

15% of target must be targeted at low population settlements

Eligible measures (for full list see appendix)

Any measures that reduce heating costs

Likely to be mainly cheaper measures – CWI, LI, heating upgrades

SWI or non-standard CWI must be installed

Other measures can be installed alongside (glazing, LI, etc.)

All insulation measures eligible

LI and CWI expected to form majority of installs

Examples Enabling Measures

CWI: access; vents LI: boarding; loft

clearance

Internal Solid Wall Insulation: Decant costs; respite care

External SWI: structural surveys; building improvements

CWI: access; vents LI: boarding; loft

clearance

Home Energy Efficiency Programmes for Scotland: Area Based Scheme (HEEPS ABS)HEEPS ABS is a Scottish Government programme which replaces previous energy efficiency schemes (such as the Universal Home Insulation Scheme). Pilots were run in 2012-3, and further projects will run in 2013-14 and 2014-15. It is an area-based scheme delivered by local authorities and will fund measures in private households.

HEEPS ABS is intended to be used alongside ECO funding, and in this way ECO funding can be leveraged into Scottish projects. It is expected that a ratio of 3:1 of ECO to HEEPS ABS funding will be achieved across the scheme (not per property). Thus, to some degree, HEEPS ABS funding is dictated by ECO criteria. All Green Deal and ECO measures are eligible (although ensuring that secondary measures defined under ECO are only installed when primary measures are installed). It is expected that schemes should be a mix of higher cost measures (such as HTT, CWI and SWI) and lower cost measures (such as LI). As a result it can be expected that enabling measures in relation to this funding programme will mirror those described above.


3. Methods

This project was undertaken over a number of phases and involved the following elements: desk research exploring previous and current use of enabling measures; interviews with key stakeholders involved in insulation programmes; a survey of households to explore perceptions and importance of enabling measures; and a pilot enabling measures. These are described in more detail below.

Desk ResearchThis stage of the research sought to gather learning from existing datasets, programmes (HIS and UHIS) and other relevant literature. This focused primarily (but not exclusively) on loft and cavity installs (due to the prevalence of these measures in these programmes). The learning explored barriers and the importance of currently offered enabling measures (mainly in relation to loft and cavity wall insulation). This sought to highlight knowledge about barriers to installation and possible enabling measures currently and previously used.

The research involved: Analysis of data from UHIS schemes based in the Home Energy Scotland

South East advice centre to explore the uptake of measures. Reviewing EST supplied data on:

o HIS installationso Market research in relation to barriers to HIS installationso Scottish Government information in relation to UHIS enabling

measures Related desk review of other projects / papers that have tackled enabling

measures and engagement and recruitment from across the UK.

Research interviewsTo complement this background data search a series of interviews were undertaken with key stakeholders, including

A range of stakeholders at Energy Saving Trust Scotland A series of 4 interviews with surveyors/ assessors working for insulation

installers to explore their perceptions of barriers and enabling measures and on engagement with households.

Interviews and engagements with the multi-occupancy engagement team at Changeworks (working on the City of Edinburgh Council UHIS contract to engage flats to install measures). These continued throughout the research.

Interviews with other key stakeholders included: a representative of British Gas to explore lessons in relation to enabling measures highlighted from the EAP programme; a representative from a local energy organisation facilitating installs in rural areas; and representatives from a small number of area-based household engagement (insulation) projects.


These interviews focused on lessons from previous programmes but, as the research developed further, interviews were undertaken with installers who had experience of ECO-related technologies such as solid wall insulation to understand which enabling measures could be funded as part of wider GD / ECO activity. These included:

Multiple engagements with installers, site visits and on-going monitoring of a solid wall project in Midlothian (CESP funded)

A series of detailed interviews and communications with installers (project managers) to understand the technical, social and cost challenges facing installations (5 contacts in total). These focused on understanding the prevalence, frequency and costs of the diverse technical and social challenges related to installs.

Household ResearchUtilising a dataset accessed via the Home Energy Scotland South East advice centre, an internet survey of recipients of UHIS measures and non-installer households (i.e. those who had explored UHIS installations and not proceeded) was undertaken. This explored the impact of current enabling measures on installs and sought to understand what other enabling measures could be offered. This was administered as an internet survey.

In-depth interviews were also undertaken with households who had experienced installation of solid wall insulation in the Midlothian test site.

Identifying Pilots and Testing MeasuresIt had always been an aim of this research to test possible enabling measures on a pilot site, as it was anticipated the ECO funded install would have been underway in late 2012. The delay in ECO meant that funding was not available until very late in the project (spring 2013) and that opportunities for pilot trials were extremely limited. However, measures were piloted in three sites. The first comprised a follow–up of households that had not taken on previously offered measures, to explore if they could be persuaded to install with additional support. The second was a solid wall insulation installation (an extension to the works in the area that was the subject of the research contained in this report). The third was a high-rise cavity site that was funded under UHIS.

The solid wall pilot area also included a pre-installation survey of households to identify possible enabling measures that could be used to facilitate installs.


4. Learning from Previous Insulation ProgrammesThis chapter presents an overview of the key findings from the background research, including stakeholder interviews and analysis of data available from previous insulation schemes. This highlights key lessons in relation to barriers to install and enabling measures. This is first presented in relation to information gained about loft and cavity wall insulation obtained from experience of the HIS and UHIS schemes. This is followed by a discussion of barriers and possible measures that may be required for solid wall insulation which will be likely to be of increasing relevance to ECO roll out.

Lessons from UHIS / HIS – Enabling Measures for Loft and Cavity Wall Insulation Enabling measures have not been uniformly included in all HIS and UHIS activity across Scotland in recent years. That said, there have been a number of schemes that have used these to varying degrees and from which further data analysis (via Home Energy Scotland advice centre / Local Authority datasets) may yield insights into the effectiveness of measures in encouraging households to install insulation.

National UHIS Data Data collected centrally by the Scottish Government, based on responses from UHIS area managers, collated the spend used on enabling measures in 2010-12. This was based on feedback from 15 local authorities and demonstrates the range of measures offered around loft and cavity installs.

It is important to note that each UHIS area chose to support the enabling measures that best met their needs. As a result, measures were not available uniformly across all areas (e.g. the Western Isles offered subsidised ferry travel, and nearly 2/3 of the scaffolding measures were from one local authority area focusing on a specific property type). The measures used are described in the following table.

Table 4.1 National enabling measures for UHIS 2010-12

Measure

% of total budget Total no of households requiring measure

% of local authorities where measure taken up

Scaffolding 67% 1,730 73%Loft clearance 2% 705 80%Loft hatches 1% 361 40%Roof vents 23% 486 60%Walk boards 4% 604 27%Gas safety check 1% 387 13%Data based on feedback from 15 Local Authority Areas

Scaffolding clearly represents the largest enabling measure, both in terms of costs and properties using this measure. That said, the impact of lower cost measures,


such as loft clearance and hatches, may represent a significant impact in terms of uptake relative to budget.

It is clear from this data that the uptake of these measures is well spread across local authorities, however what is not apparent is the extent to which these measures resulted in installations that would not have occurred without the support. It could be hypothesised that many cavity wall installations would not have occurred due to the costs of scaffolding. However, it is unclear whether, for example, loft clearance is just an ‘added bonus’ for the household or an essential enabling measure without which the installation would not have occurred.

Data from Two UHIS AreasWe have obtained and analysed data from two UHIS areas to explore the uptake of enabling measures in more detail. The data below is based on information provided by the Home Energy Scotland South East advice centre in the City of Edinburgh and Borders installations as part of UHIS 2011-12.

It is important to note that the enabling measures that this data relates to include a range of different areas of support offered as part of the installation, including: insulating water tanks, insulating pipes, lofts clearance, fitting walk boards, installing loft hatches, widening loft hatches, installing loft vents and, fitting extra loft insulation to ensure the whole install is free.

The table below shows that the proportion of properties that have used enabling measures are different between the two UHIS areas, with one third to one half of clients using enabling measures in Edinburgh and proportions slightly higher in the Borders. There are larger differences in the proportion of measures used when comparing by insulation type.

Table 4.2 Overall proportion of enabling measures installations compared to clients engaged with UHIS (UHIS 2 Edinburgh & Borders)

Edinburgh BordersNo. Percentage of clients

with enabling measures installed

No. Percentage of clients with enabling measures installed

CWI installed 1038 54% 233 31%LI installed 603 31% 140 19%LI Top-up installed 694 36% 516 69%All LI 1297 34% 656 58%Total measures installed

2335-

889-

Total No. Clients 1915 753


The tables below describe the proportions of different types of enabling measures used. In Edinburgh almost one fifth of households (19%) utilised loft clearance and over half had hot water tanks and pipes insulated. Loft vents and hatch widening were only used by a small proportion of clients (1% and 6% respectively)3. Just under half of clients utilised the additional insulation offered via UHIS (over and above that which was covered by CERT funding).

Table 4.3 Loft insulation enabling measures (UHIS 2 Edinburgh)TO

TAL

Tank

s in

sula

ted

Pipe

s In

sula

ted

Lofts

C

lear

ed

Wal

k bo

ards

Hat

ches

In

stal

led

Hat

ches

W

iden

ed

Loft

Vent

s In

stal

led

Loft

extr

a m

2

LI installed 603 347 374 111 8 5 0 47 250LI Top-up installed

694 374 422 134 6 13 0 34 378

Overall 100% 56% 61% 19% 1% 1% 0% 6% 48%

In the Borders, loft clearance was not offered as part of the scheme in 2011-12, and the table below shows that the most frequently used enabling measure was walk boards (13%) – apart from the extra insulation offered via UHIS (19%).

Table 4.4 Loft insulation enabling measures (UHIS 2 Borders)Insulation measure

TOTA

L

Tank

s In

sula

ted

Wal

k bo

ards

Hat

ches

In

stal

led

Hat

ches

W

iden

ed

Loft

Vent

s In

stal

led

Loft

extr

a m

2

LI installed 140 7 21 5 1 14 18LI Top-up installed

516 16 67 2 1 22 106

Overall 100% 4% 13% 1% 0% 5% 19%

These charts suggest that, for loft insulation, loft clearance and walk boards are taken up by significant numbers of households (in addition to additional insulation to pipes and tanks).

The tables below show the enabling measures for cavity wall insulation. This highlights that access systems (scaffolding and ‘cherry pickers’) to install measures were required by one quarter of the Borders clients and 13% of the Edinburgh clients.

3 However it is important to note that, based on discussions with EST, the budget for loft vents increased significantly subsequently due to concerns over condensation, and this data (as it is from 2012) may not be reflective of these changes.


Table 4.5 Cavity wall insulation enabling measures (UHIS 2 Edinburgh)TOTAL Cavity extra

m2Access systems

Vents fitted

CWI installed

1038 658 132 19

Overall 100% 63% 13% 2%

Table 4.5 Cavity wall insulation enabling measures (UHIS 2 Borders)TOTAL Cavity extra

m2Access systems

Vents fitted

CWI installed

233 43 59 27

Overall 100% 18% 25% 12%

It is important to again note that although these ‘enabling measures’ were taken up, we cannot be clear on the extent to which these were central in facilitating install. In the case of cavity wall insulation, we could hypothesise that properties requiring scaffolding or vents to facilitate install would not have gone ahead (although this could have been paid for by the owners).

It is also important to note that many homeowners may not have been aware of the enabling measures, or if they were available to them. Although the Home Energy Scotland South East advice centre staff may have mentioned this, should they have enquired through that route, many households will have been reliant on installers to offer such measures at the point of survey.

Understanding Barriers to InstallIn addition to understanding enabling measures taken up, it is important to understand the reasons why insulation was not taken up by households. The table below shows that a limited proportion of clients who were engaged by UHIS (i.e. those that had requested a survey) actually followed through and completed an installation (19% in Edinburgh and 42% in the Borders).

Table 4.6 Installations compared to clients engaged (UHIS 2 Edinburgh & Borders)

Edinburgh BordersNo. properties

Percentage of Total Clients Engaged

No. properties

Percentage of Total Clients Engaged

Total clients engaged 10010 1781Clients installed 1915 19% 753 42%Properties with enabling measures

1528 15% 323 18%


The reasons for not continuing to install are presented in the tables below. This data is aggregated due to the nature of data collection (and data was not collected in the same way for both projects). It is also important to note that this data was collected via installers (not via an independent body) and based on installers’ surveyor reports, not on a rigorous data collection process. As a result, we cannot vouch for the accuracy of this data.

The data does however suggest that the majority of installs are not going ahead because the property is not suitable for work – e.g. it already has insulation or is not suitable for technical or building reasons.

Table 4.7 Cancellation reasons (UHIS 2 Edinburgh)Cancellation reason No PercentageNo work required 6353 79%Client Refused 557 7%No Contact for Install 539 7%No Access for Survey 464 6%Block Affected 119 1%Technical Issues 22 0%Grand Total 8054 100%

Table 4.8 Cancellation reasons (UHIS 2 Borders)Cancellation reason No PercentageNo contact - customer not in 127 33%Already insulated 117 31%Duplicate record 35 9%Customer - does not want survey 22 6%Loft - Not suitable 17 4%No Cavity - solid walls 14 4%Cavity - Not suitable 9 2%Customer needs longer to decide 7 2%No access 4 1%Cavity not suitable: timber framed property 4 1%Other 18 7%Grand Total 382 100%

There are clear differences in the success rate of the installations in the Borders when compared to those in the Edinburgh area – with significantly fewer cancellations in the Borders area. A key difference between the two areas was the fact that in the Borders a very high percentage of clients were referred from the Home Energy Scotland South East advice centre to the installers, whereas in Edinburgh, the majority were installer generated leads. The chart below explores this factor.


Chart 4.1 Reasons for cancellation (UHIS2 Edinburgh)

Base=8054, Installer lead=7607, HES SEac leads=447

This chart shows that, even for clients who had taken steps to progress the installation after contacting the Changeworks-run Home Energy Scotland South East advice centre (CW Leads), a large proportion were ‘dropping out’ and refusing the installation (20%) when installers visited the site. It is not clear why this is the case; it may relate to physical or social barriers, trust in the installer, or technical concerns with the measures. It does however suggest that the advice centre may be more effective in identifying properties effectively and making recommendations based on their expertise, as a smaller proportion dropped out due to no work being required.

Results from analysis of cancellations from the earlier HIS programme echo these barriers and are demonstrated in the chart below (data provided by EST). This shows that refusal and inability to contact clients made up nearly two-thirds of the cancellation reasons, with a further quarter relating to buildings not being suitable / already insulated.


Chart 4.2 Reasons for cancellation (HIS)

Base=30737Above chart based on re-coding available data provided by EST. N.B. High levels of uncertainty with data reported by

EST due to data collection issues

Results from an EST funded consumer research project on the HIS programme4 showed that for over one quarter of consumers, a lack of follow-up was the main reason for not going ahead with a home survey. In addition, a smaller proportion of people who completed a HEC (Home Energy Check) on the doorstep ‘dropped out' before install (when compared to telephone-based HECs). This data highlights the need for direct engagement with households to persuade them to install.

Further, the chart below taken from the HIS research, shows that for 29% of people, the reason they did not proceed with a HIS install related to factors associated with engaging and persuading people to take up an offer (i.e. the consumer ‘not wanting it’, convenience, time and concerns about costing them money). These are all issues that need to be overcome for Green Deal and ECO to be a success.

4 PowerPoint presentation provided to Changeworks by EST


Chart 4.3 Reasons for not proceeding (HIS)

Overcoming Homeowner ScepticismThe tables above demonstrate that a significant amount of resources is devoted to attending properties to undertake surveys that are not then subsequently undertaken. Based on comments from a series of in-depth interviews with installers (which included members of the surveying and installation teams) and with the Home Energy Scotland South East advice centre UHIS team, it is suggested that high levels of scepticism are present in many homeowners in relation to installing insulation. This is perceived by these respondents as being based on a range of factors including: homeowners being cautious, concerns about technologies that may have performed poorly in the past and perceptions that houses are designed the way they are for a reason and should not be changed. This is particularly the case for cavity wall insulation. Typical quotes in relation to this are as follows:

“Some residents are very cautious, some need reassurance, and this can be the cause of lots of discussion [when we are trying to survey properties]”

“Many households are ‘anti-insulation’ in their properties, they say things like “our house wasn’t built with it, it doesn’t need it…you are putting something alien into our property””

“People are worried about the damp caused by cavity wall insulation; this was based on older technology - “I didn’t believe in it myself in the 80s, but the new stuff is fine”

Some, but not all, of the installers contacted indicated that they used papers and information in their discussions with households to try and inform their potential clients that the technologies were appropriate. Examples mentioned included technical documentation on cavity wall insulation technologies or advice sheets on condensation.


Related research from the ‘Future Fit’ retrofit project undertaken by the Housing Association Affinity Sutton5 echoes the need for engagement to overcome concerns about installs. The project highlighted that there is “little appetite for these works among unengaged residents. Without strong encouragement and support, take-up (of the Green Deal) is likely to be low”. The report clearly highlights the importance of engaging with households in relation to facilitating installation: “It would be a mistake to see retrofit as a purely technical challenge…it’s more about people than technology…we need to convince our residents to have the work done and help them change their behaviour to live in an energy efficient manner.”

The findings discussed thus far in this chapter therefore suggest that it may be that particular, non-physical ‘enabling measures’ could be as, if not more, important as physical measures in facilitating installs.

Working with Flats and Tenements to Enable InstallationsThe challenge of engaging and working with households was highlighted by interview respondents’ comments in relation to flats and tenement working. All respondents highlighted that gaining consent for CWI and LI works within flats and tenements was a genuine challenge due to the time involved to contact and gain approval from all owners and tenants – over and above that of working with individual properties. It is important to note that this type of activity forms an important precursor to activity that could take place around future ECO-related work to identify properties that are deemed as hard-to-treat due to their height (over 3 storeys) and are therefore eligible for ECO funding.

As part of the research we explored a range of previous work undertaken across Scotland that has included targeted recruitment and use of incentives or other enabling measures to encourage flat and tenement residents to participate in installs. This research reinforced the fact that engagement is typically hugely time intensive and required the use of multiple techniques to build relationships and trust, and to incentivise and persuade residents to participate in schemes – particularly those involving multi-occupancy housing. These have included the Strathclyde and Central Home Energy Scotland advice centre, which utilised one staff member who was dedicated to matching up UHIS applications, mapping addresses and undertaking active recruitment to generate installations across four-in-a-block properties. In Aberdeen, the Victorian Tenements Project actively engages residents to facilitate loft insulation. It offers direct incentives to those not living on the top floors (e.g. chimney, balloons, draught excluders and radiator panels). Anecdotally these types of projects have success, but are very time consuming.

5 http://www.affinitysutton.com/about_us/corporate_responsibility/environment_and_sustainability/our_homes/futurefit_project/monitoring_and_evaluation/phase_one_report.aspx


Perceptions on Enabling Measures Required for ECO and Green Deal In order to explore what measures might be required to overcome barriers to installation as Green Deal and ECO becomes established, the qualitative research interviews explored future technologies and measures with industry representatives. Respondents highlighted a range of expectations in relation to which elements of installations should be supported as ‘enabling measures’.

As part of this, a number of installers were asked to consider two hypothetical Green Deal / ECO situations that included some requirement for measures that could be described as physical enabling measures. They were asked to consider if they would anticipate that funding for these ‘enabling measures’ would or should be provided as part of Green Deal and ECO finance, or as an additional enabling measure cost:

In the first example, a house required loft and cavity wall insulation and to achieve this, loft hatch widening, scaffolding and loft vents were required.

In the second example, a property required external wall insulation, but in order to clad the house, a garden shed needed to be moved and some amendments were required to the roof to ensure it overhangs the new surface

Installer responses to these scenarios were very mixed. One installer anticipated that all these issues, excluding the garden shed removal, were…

“…fundamental preliminary items and as such should be funded through ECO/Green Deal…[however] moving items to allow works [e.g. shed removal] would fall on the household in the main or be a separate charge.”

However another installer had a very different view:

“I would hope that they are [funded as enabling measures] otherwise there is little prospect of work being carried out where that expense is high. Granted the cost of a loft hatch is not too great in a modern property, however in older properties with high ceilings, lath and plaster roofs and decorative finishes the costs could run into several hundreds of pounds. In the case of scaffolding costs, these could run into several thousands of pounds”

A third installer had developed a list of possible enabling measures that they would expect to be supported by the Government (in relation to all types of ‘Green Deal’ measures) – however he did acknowledge that many of these were ‘grey issues’ as to whether or not they should be funded as an enabling measure or viewed as part of the install.

These findings suggest that the legacy of HIS and UHIS schemes has perhaps generated an expectation by some installers of items such as scaffolding needing to be supported (due to expense). This compares to a more pragmatic approach of


everything essential to the install coming under the costs of the Green Deal / ECO finance which was held by one respondent.

Experience of Key ECO-Eligible InstallationsInstallers who had experience of key ECO-eligible installations, in particular internal and external solid wall insulation, were able to provide insights into the barriers that they have faced in terms of both technical and household related challenges to installations.

In terms of internal solid wall insulation (IWI), the significant upheaval of having to prepare and apply IWI, remove furniture and potentially decant households for the duration of the works was a clear barrier. In addition, one installer highlighted that in some IWI work, the budgets were not available to completely redecorate rooms, so in some cases households were left with the insulated walls having slightly different finishes to others in the same room. For some clients these issues were not a concern as the benefits of the insulation outweighed the upheaval and change to properties. However, resistance to undergoing this upheaval and redecoration was reported by installers as a major reason for households rejecting free insulation offers.

In terms of respondents with experience of external wall insulation, similar concerns were also identified, although in this case this related to damage to gardens (especially for households that had invested in their exterior environment). Removal of external structures such as sheds, fences and walls, and items attached to walls such as telephony cables, satellite dishes, hanging baskets and utility meters were also identified as costs or issues that may be barriers to installation (when seeking to achieve installs within a limited budget)

Issues in relation to obtaining building warrants for external solid wall installs were also discussed by a number of installers throughout the research. Based on contact with staff in the Scottish Government Building Standards department, they were aware of the challenges in relation to this and have since sought to offer guidance to local authorities to streamline this process.

Other costs such as structural, dampness and asbestos surveys and planning applications were also discussed by installers as challenges. For both internal and external wall insulation, costs for relevant repairs and refurbishment to, for example, exterior roofs and walls, decorative and listed building features, electrics, doors, pipe runs and kitchen and bathroom fitments were also identified as potentially significant issues for many households.

SummaryThis chapter has discussed research that has demonstrated a wide range of possible barriers to insulation installs and explored the use of enabling measures to overcome them. These have ranged from supporting and working with households through to covering the costs of technical or repair work. In advance of exploring this range of


measures in more depth, the next chapter of this report will explore research to explore the relative importance of these different measures to households.


5. Survey of Consumers’ Experience of UHIS-Related Enabling Measures

In order to obtain some specific primary research data on the impacts of enabling measures on the households’ propensity to take up free insulation, an online survey was undertaken of households who had engaged with the UHIS scheme. This chapter outlines the results from two related surveys:

1. Survey of households who have received loft and/or cavity wall insulation through the UHIS scheme;

2. Survey of households who were surveyed for loft and/or cavity wall insulation but did not proceed with the installation.

The surveys explored motivations for installing insulation, concerns about insulation/the installation process, enabling measures and reasons or factors related to proceeding or not proceeding. All surveys were issued by Changeworks using data provided via the Home Energy Scotland South East advice centre (via installers).

Survey of Households who had Installed Insulation

IntroductionThis survey was carried out with households in Edinburgh and Midlothian who had insulation installed between December 2011 and November 2012. All had been in contact with the Home Energy Scotland South East advice centre prior to install. The survey was carried out in December 2012. All households received insulation for free through UHIS (the Universal Home Insulation Scheme). The survey was issued to 1421 respondents of whom 355 responded (a response rate of 25%):

83% had loft insulation installed (294) 46% had cavity wall insulation installed (163)

Motivations for installationsThe most important motivations for households to install insulation (Chart 5.1) were to:

make their house more comfortable/warmer (82% indicating this was very important);

Save money on their fuel bills (77% indicating this was very important).

A significant majority of people cited these as ‘very important’ motivations. Helping the environment was a significant motivation too, although fewer people considered this ‘very important’ (46%). A majority of people also felt that repairing/extending the life of their home and improving the value of their home was an important or very important motivation to install insulation (66%).


Chart 5.1 Households’ motivations for installing insulation

Encouraging installsHouseholds were asked which factors were important when they were considering the offer of insulation (Chart 5.2). The factors most commonly considered important or very important were EST approval/advice (65% very important) and use of registered/accredited supplier (54% very important). Also considered as important or very important by a majority of respondents was that the offer was free and that it was approved by the local authority.

Chart 5.2 Importance of factors in households' considering insulation

N.B. Totals do not add up to 100% as not all respondents answered each question

Respondents were also asked to indicate the importance of a range of different factors that could contribute towards reassuring households that the insulation was a


good idea. These are presented in chart 5.3. This shows that EST approval was again the most important factor:

Chart 5.3: Importance of factors in reassuring households that insulation was a good idea

This was reinforced by responses to open ended question asking respondents what made them reassured, a typical example of which is as follows:

“The EST advisers I spoke to on the phone were most helpful”

Talking to the installer and finding out information from other sources such as the internet were also considered important by a majority of people:

“Talking to the surveyor was important. He offered reassurance that the work would not cause problems with damp crossing the cavity, for example.”

“I checked bona fides of those concerned”

In contrast, talking to friends and neighbours was not considered important by as many respondents, nor was a public meeting with EST/installers (although fewer people participated in the latter). However, for some people talking to neighbours and friends was important in finding out more about the work:

“Neighbour in terraced row had previously had work done.”

Concerns about insulation or installation processOver a third of respondents (36%, 122) had concerns about the insulation or installation process when they were first offered the insulation. This mirrors concerns identified through research with installers in the previous chapter. All were asked to comment on their concerns and an overview of the main concerns households had


with loft insulation, cavity wall insulation or in general is illustrated in Figure 5.1. More detail is provided subsequently.

Figure 5.1 Concerns with Insulation

General concernsMany households had concerns that were not specific to either cavity wall or loft insulation but stemmed from the fact the insulation was free. Sixteen people (5%) could not believe it was free and thought it might be a ‘con’ or that there was a ‘catch’:

“Found it hard to believe it was true!”

“I thought there might still be some sort of charge”

A further three people were concerned that there might be hidden costs, and three other people were concerned that the free offer was a ‘way-in’ to sell them other products:

“I was concerned that it might be a scam, or a mechanism to sell me other items.”

Two people stated that they did not trust the way they were informed about the insulation:

“[My concern was] the door to door aspect! I did not accept until I received a letter from my Council and then I called the Energy Saving Trust and took up the appointment.”


Loft insulation:

Loft clearing Loss of storage space

Loft hatch widening Access to loft

Impact on property e.g. damp

All installations:

Not a legitimate offer Hidden costs / selling

other products Quality of installers

Cavity wall insulation:

Damage to property e.g. structural

Unsuitable for property type

Cause damp Finish of walls

27

However, as shown in the quote above, some households stated that they received reassurance from other sources such as the Local authority or EST. Others found reassurance from adverts in newspapers or speaking to neighbours or friends and family:

“Just general suspicion that the offer may not be what it seemed. Having spoken to others that took up the offer, it seemed all above board.”

Three people stated concerns over the quality of the installation; one person specifically mentioned this was because the offer was free (and therefore assumed installers may not be of high quality). Another was concerned because the installers were not a familiar or trusted body:

“[My concern was] reliability of installers as I would usually use a firm recommended by friends or neighbours”

There were some concerns about disruption and mess, although these were in the minority:

“Thought there may be some disruption but turned out to be no problem.”

Finally, one person was worried about getting landlord approval for the installation.

Concerns about loft insulationThe most common household concern regarding loft insulation was the requirement to clear the loft of items being stored there. This was stated by 36 households (12% who received loft insulation); for example:

“Clearing the loft was a big problem - the loft insulation had to be postponed twice!”

Some households stated that loft clearing was a particular problem, for example because they were elderly, which meant they had to get help from family to achieve this task. Despite this, some households felt that this task, although onerous, was a worthwhile one:

“Clearing the loft was quite a task but it needed doing and we feel better about it now”

Linked to this, 10 people (3% of those who installed loft insulation) were concerned about the lack of storage space elsewhere in the property once the loft had been cleared:

“Clearing the loft - there was a cause for concern having nowhere else to store the items kept there.”


Related to this, one respondent commented that they had been unable to get loft insulation as it stored their landlord’s boxes.

Other common concerns about loft insulation related to additional works that needed to be done:

Widening the loft hatch; Ensuring water tank and pipes were insulated; Replacing roof tiles before installation; Removing / replacing boarding; Installing air vents.

Many households stated that these measures were not offered for free (despite often being available through UHIS). In some cases, households were not sure whether these works were necessary, or it was a concern that they needed to ensure the work was done before the installation.

A small number of households were worried that the insulation would not be possible to install due to size of loft hatch, pipes in the way, or space in loft:

“Only the surrounds of the loft were required. I was unsure whether it would be possible to roll out insulation.”

There were a few concerns about the impact of loft insulation on the property – for example, that it might cause damp:

“I am still a little bit worried about ventilation in the loft and whether condensation will build up.”

In two instances, this has been due to conflicting advice given by installers or surveyors:

“I was previously told I couldn't have it [loft insulation] as the loft would get damp, but when it was surveyed again they said it was fine, but I am now concerned about the loft getting damp.”

There were also concerns around lights under the loft insulation over-heating and becoming a fire hazard, rat infestation (from previous experiences) and rain damage. Despite these varied issues, most of the concerns with loft insulation related to preparatory work or additional costs required to undertake the work.

Concerns about cavity wall insulationIn contrast to loft insulation, the most common concerns about cavity wall insulation were the impacts or potential damage it would have on the property. Of those who had CWI installed:

8 people (5%) were worried about damp; 8 people (5%) were worried about generic damage to the property; 1 person (1%) was worried about structural damage to the property;


6 people (4%) were worried about the impact to the external appearance of the wall, e.g. drill holes, damage to ornamental brickwork.

Many of these concerns seemed to be due to information households had received from other sources, which may not have necessarily related to their circumstances or been accurate:

“Rumours that cavity wall insulation was unsuitable for our house had been circulating on the estate.”

“I previously saw reports of extensive damage to property following installation of cavity wall insulation in older type bungalows.”

In some cases, people expressed concern about the potential damage that CWI could have on the property, although they did not specify what this damage may be. This perhaps suggests a general nervousness about the impacts of CWI:

“Concerned that cavity insulation may have a negative effect on my property.”

There were concerns (sometimes correctly) that the insulation was not suitable for the property, for example, due to its construction type. In a small number of cases, households were concerned that their extension/porch would not be included, or that parts of the walls would be difficult to access during installation.

There were also a small number of concerns relating to the toxic effect of insulation, re-decoration requirements and feasibility of installing CWI.

Enabling measuresFree enabling measures were available in some UHIS schemes to encourage households to install insulation. In the case of this research:

o All households should have been offered6: Widening/cutting of loft hatches; Installation of vents; Loft clearance;

No respondents in this group would have been offered loft boarding as it was not available during this period.

It is interesting to note that very few respondents reported that they were offered these enabling measures (Chart 5.4). The results show that most measures were offered to 3% or less of households, except for insulating pipes and water tanks which was offered to 18% of households. Therefore, very few households were able to take up these measures.

6 These were available in Edinburgh, Midlothian and East Lothian for Phase 2 (Oct 11 – March 12) and Phase 3 (April 12 – March 13) of UHIS. This covers all of the survey respondents.


Chart 5.4 Percentage of respondents who were offered and took up enabling measures

Despite this, where measures were offered, the results suggest that they had a high uptake rate. For instance, 97% of those offered pipe and water tank insulation went ahead with it.

Of households who took up one of these measures, three quarters (75%) stated that the measure was ‘quite important’ or ‘very important’ in ensuring that the installation went ahead.

Summary: Survey of Households who had Installed InsulationSurvey respondents’ most important motivations to install insulation were to make their house more comfortable/warmer and to save money on their fuel bills.

Over a third of households had initial concerns about the insulation or installation process. Many of the general concerns stemmed from the fact the insulation was free; some households did not believe it was a legitimate offer or that there would be hidden costs involved. This suggests that households need reassurance and support to facilitate installs. In particular this relates to knowledge on the following issues:

That there are no hidden costs; Why it is a free offer; That the installers are approved and accredited; That the programme is not concerned with selling other products.

The survey results also show that many respondents need this reassurance from a secondary source – whether that is the Local authority, EST or friends and neighbours. Therefore, it is important that these messages come from an impartial and trusted body, as well as the surveyors and installers.


The most significant worry about CWI was the potential damage it may have on the property: damp, structural damage, unforeseen damage, impact on external appearance of wall. Similarly, there were also some concerns about how LI may impact the property, for example worries about damp or fire hazard from lights below insulation. In a small number of circumstances, worries had arisen where conflicting advice had been given by contractors.

Many of these concerns could have been alleviated by providing more advice and information on the impacts and potential risks involved with insulation. Again, survey respondents commented that talking to installers on these issues was important – but impartial advice was also indicated as important. This was also true of concerns about the suitability of LI or CWI for the property and concerns about whether the installation could take place.

For loft insulation, the biggest concerns were the requirement to clear the loft (and associated preparatory works) and loss of storage space. Although all households should have been offered free loft clearance, few stated that they were offered this. This enabling measure would seem particularly useful, especially for households who may be less able to clear the loft themselves and have to rely on help from friends or family e.g. elderly people. Other UHIS enabling measures would also have alleviated many of the stated concerns: loft boarding, widening loft hatches, insulating water tank/pipes and installing air vents. However, these were not always available through UHIS and/or not offered to households. When they were offered there was a good uptake of the measures, and they were important in enabling households to install the insulation.

Survey of Households who had not Installed InsulationHouseholds who had been booked for an insulation survey through the UHIS scheme but did not proceed with insulation were also issued with an online questionnaire. Again, these households would have been involved with the UHIS scheme between late 2011 and late 2012, and the online survey was carried out in late 2012. In this case a sample from East Lothian was also included in addition to Midlothian and Edinburgh. In total the sample was issued to 353 potential respondents, of which 64 responded:

72% had been surveyed for loft insulation (42) 67% had been surveyed for cavity wall insulation (39)

A small number (6) had also been in contact regarding other measures e.g. floor insulation, solar panels, heating advice, a new boiler and flat roof insulation. Whilst these households did not proceed with insulation through the UHIS scheme, the survey indicated that 23 households have now installed insulation through different routes.


Motivations for considering insulationHouseholds’ motivations for exploring installing insulation were similar to those who proceeded with insulation. Saving money on their fuel bills and making their house warmer/more comfortable were of prime importance.

Chart 5.6 Households' motivations for exploring possibility of installing insulation

When considering whether or not to proceed with insulation, the most important factor to households was the approval and advice provided by the EST (see chart 5.7). Following this, the use of registered/accredited suppliers, and approval from local authorities was important. These are similar results to those who proceeded with installation.


Chart 5.7 Importance of factors in households' considering insulation

Reasons for not proceedingRespondents were asked why they did not proceed with insulation (see chart 5.8). Almost half of those who answered this question stated that their property was not suitable for insulation.

Chart 5.8 Reasons for not proceeding with install

Additional comments suggest this may be because, for example, the property had a hard-to-treat cavity wall (such as a narrow cavity) which could not be installed under current grant programmes:


“After a survey they came to do cavity wall insulation. I was told that my house was made of stone so wasn't appropriate.”

“We were told that we could not have cavity wall insulation due to the ties in one of the walls having cement round them.”

In other cases, additional measures (and costs) were required to enable the installation e.g. scaffolding, vents or removal of existing insulation. It was also the case for two households that although insulation could be installed into their home, the proportion of wall or loft that could be insulated was not sufficient to meet grant criteria.

However, the chart shows that the second largest response (5 households) concerned those who were worried that the insulation would damage the property. This clearly aligns with the concerns of those who proceeded with insulation. Additional comments to this question suggested some dissatisfaction and/or lack of trust with the installers:

“There was not a clear way forward offered - the person who came really did not seem to want to do it.”

In some cases, the installer or surveyor had not turned up or returned to carry out the job:

“The company said that they would get back but no-one bothered to contact me again.”

In other cases, the surveyor and installer had given conflicting advice, for example on the suitability of insulation or feasibility of installation:

“Despite what the surveyor had said, when asked by myself whether there was sufficient access to certain parts of the roof space, the fitters stated that there was inadequate access.”

Respondents were also asked if they had concerns about the insulation. The responses were similar to those in the survey of those proceeding with insulation e.g. clearing the loft and damp from cavity wall insulation. One household commented that the installer had not been prepared to install loft insulation due to access issues, but they went ahead with the installation with another installer who solved these problems.

Enabling measuresSurvey respondents were asked if there were issues that would have made them more likely to install insulation (chart 5.8). A significant proportion of the responses (10) stated that there were no such factors as their property was not suitable, they were not interested, or they were looking to install a measure other than those being offered (e.g. flat roof insulation).


Chart 5.8 Issues that would have made respondents more likely to install insulation

However, as the chart above shows, a greater number of respondents (15) indicated that they could be encouraged to install insulation through more advice and support on the process of installation or more information about the insulation and impact on their home, or reassurance about the installer. Comments such as the following demonstrate this point:

“Clear information about the installers e.g. what is their remit, who gave them their licence, etc.”

A small number of households stated that they needed more specialised advice than could be offered by the installer e.g. an appropriate method for a historical building:

“I believe that there are forms of "blown" insulation available for inaccessible spaces, but no-one has been able to give me advice on this.”

Five respondents commented that they felt they required a different installer:

“A willing contractor who wanted to do the work and not find excuses not to do it”

A small number of respondents could have been encouraged to install through being offered grants to cover additional works e.g. creation of air vents, boarding in loft area, re-decoration.


Summary: Survey of those who did not install insulationIn terms of motivations and barriers to installing insulation these survey respondents were similar to those in the survey of those who had had installations. In addition, the factors that encouraged them to look into insulation were also similar, reinforcing the importance of EST approval and advice.

The most common reason households did not proceed with insulation was that it was not suitable for their property or was not eligible under the grant scheme. However, there were other reasons households did not proceed with insulation and indeed many survey respondents had eventually proceeded with insulation, but not through the initial UHIS route explored.

These reasons included: Concerns over damage to property from insulation; Poor service from the installer e.g. installer did not turn up; Lack of trust in installer/perceived poor quality installer; Other work/costs required before installation e.g. air vents, scaffolding.

This suggests that to encourage households to install insulation the following factors are critical: impartial support, advice and information. These factors are particularly relevant in terms of:

Advice and reassurance about potential risks (if any) to property from insulation;

Reassurance about the installer and their accreditation; More support on installation process – for example, when the installer does

not turn up or provides conflicting advice. This is something specifically stated by households.

ConclusionsThe results from these two surveys suggest that there are a range of concerns which may deter households from proceeding with insulation. The main concerns were:

That free insulation is not a legitimate offer – that there may be hidden costs or it is a scam;

The quality of the installation or installers; That the insulation is not suitable for the property or there may be problems

with the installation; The insulation would damage the property - for example, causing damp or

structural damage; The installation would negatively impact the appearance of the property; The preparatory work required by the household e.g. loft clearance; Additional costs/requirements for pre- or post-installation works e.g. laying

down boarding.


It could be anticipated that these concerns will not be any different in the context of Green Deal and ECO insulation offerings. Indeed, given the focus of the new schemes on potentially more challenging installations such as solid wall insulation (requiring more disruption to households and impact on building fabric) or high rise hard-to-treat cavities in multi-occupancy buildings (requiring multiple engagements with households), overcoming these concerns may become more important.

To alleviate concerns and encourage households to install insulation, the findings suggest that the following is required:

1. Reassurance on the offer – reassurance that the offer is valid and legitimate, and that there are no hidden costs (or clear explanation of any possible additional costs if applicable). This needs to come from an impartial body such as the EST or local authority. This should also reassure households that the installer is accredited and approved, and that no other products are sold as part of the package.

2. Advice and information – households need technical guidance on: Potential impacts / risks to their property; Suitability of their property for insulation; The installation process and final appearance of the property.

The installer may provide much of this information which will be very important in the process. However, the households may also require this information from another impartial and trusted body, such as the EST.

3. Support – in addition to the above, households need an impartial source of support in case issues arise (e.g. installers do not turn up), or if they have specific concerns. Indeed the examples of non-installs arising out of the survey highlight that additional support could be beneficial to installs.

4. Promotion of physical enabling measures (where appropriate) – Despite the perceived importance of the enabling measures (e.g. loft hatches and loft clearance) identified by respondents in facilitating installs, it is clear that awareness of these was low and consideration needs to be given to promotion to raise awareness in future programmes.

Overall, households will always have some concerns or apprehension about work being carried out to their property but providing as much guidance and support as possible helps alleviate concerns. In many cases it is important that this is from an impartial source to ensure households trust this information. This wider support and advice will only become more important as installations become more technical and invasive (e.g. solid wall installations).

It is clear therefore that dedicated resources need to continue to be provided to offer impartial and trusted advice to households to overcome concerns and as a result, facilitate installations.


6. Developing a Classification for Enabling Measures

The research outlined in the previous chapter has focused on the energy efficiency installations that have been undertaken for previous installation programmes. These predominantly resulted in measures that relate to loft and cavity wall insulation (although much applied to both). Given the diverse nature of energy efficiency installations eligible for the Green Deal and ECO, a wide variety of enabling measures, comprising different mechanisms, types of support, advice or technologies could become available or appropriate. In order to provide some clarity and focus for the analysis and to develop pilot measures, a classification for enabling measures is required.

This chapter presents this and has been developed based on the evidence presented in the previous chapters. This classification groups enabling measures in such a way as to facilitate an understanding of the resources required to deliver these, and to facilitate a rationale for supporting such costs.

The possible enabling measures that could be used to support energy efficiency installations have been kept as broad as possible. They reflect the range of physical enabling measures and the advice and support that has been identified, or used / described as enabling measures in previous programmes. These include such diverse issues as loft vents, scaffolding, supporting transport costs to rural areas and direct assistance clearing lofts. Within this range, enabling measures can be grouped into two broad categories:

Supporting the household to install measures, and Supporting the costs and challenges of installation

The diagram overleaf presents a spectrum of possible enabling measures (with some simple examples included) – the unifying element of which is that they are all routes to facilitating installations in properties.


. Figure 6.1 Classification of enabling measures

Measures to the left of the diagram focus on reducing the costs of installation for properties that have potentially expensive, technical, or logistical challenges. These measures make it easier or cheaper for installers to deliver installs (e.g. the provision of costs for scaffolding, or funding ferry travel, as used in UHIS projects). These could be described as ‘levelling the playing field’ for those who reside in such properties to give them equal access to free insulation (when compared to those living in a standard property in central Scotland). Enabling measures to the right support or engage households to take on installs or to overcome physical, financial or social barriers that may prevent installation (e.g. helping with loft clearances as used in UHIS projects).

These categories are discussed in more detail below.

1. Non-standard technical issues / costsThis category covers clearly defined technologies and works that enable energy efficiency measures to be installed that would not be required on ‘typical’ or easy to install properties. In effect this is levelling the playing field so households are not restricted from accessing insulation due to cost (relative to other households).

Some of these measures have been provided as part of the UHIS schemes in local authorities across Scotland, or have been identified as part of this research project as potential measures in terms of other Green Deal / ECO installs. Some examples of these have been described in the table below. It is important to note that this list is not exhaustive and may be open to interpretation (e.g. some installers / programme managers may assume that costs for some or all of these items should be built into the costs for the work and not be funded by additional funds). The table is restricted to the main insulation types.





issues or costs

scaffolding

loft vents




original state

redecorating



clearing of gardens


installs



40

Table 6.1 Enabling measures: Non-standard technical issues / costsInsulation Type Possible Enabling Measures (examples)All efficiency measures Technical surveys / checks (e.g. Green Deal

Assessments, surveyors reports, advanced technical checks, structural surveys)

Travel costs to remote areasLoft Insulation Installation of loft vents

Loft hatch installation / wideningCavity Wall Insulation (incl. HTT) Gas safety checks

Scaffolding / access technologies Cleaning ‘dirty’ cavities Installation of core vents

External Wall Insulation Gas flue extensions Scaffolding / access technologies Telephony, satellite, utilities works (removal/

reinstatement of infrastructure) Roof extensions (Minor) repairs to building to prepare for

installInternal Wall Insulation (Minor) repairs to building to prepare for

install

2. Returning property to the original stateThis category covers costs that are required to get a property back to its original state post-install. This area has been almost non-existent in the case of cavity installations as the installation of these measures is very non-invasive (although in the case of cavity wall installations some work may be required on properties with paint or coatings on walls to repair drill holes). In terms of loft insulation, this covers issues such as installation of boards to maintain storage space in lofts post-install. This was identified as a potential barrier to installation in the research and an established enabling measure in many local authorities in Scotland as part of UHIS. In the context of Green Deal and ECO, where internal or external solid wall insulation, boiler replacements, windows etc. are to be installed, significant re-instatement works may be required (e.g. redecoration, repair of gardens etc.) and these costs and upheaval may become more important barriers to installation.


Examples of these have been described in the table below. Again this list is not exhaustive.

Table 6.2 Enabling measures: Returning property to the original stateInsulation/ Efficiency Measure Type Possible Enabling Measures (examples)Loft Insulation Fitting boarding for access / storageCavity Wall Insulation (incl. HTT) Repair / recoating drill holes in wall

coverings to matchExternal Wall Insulation Reinstating structures attached to walls, e.g.:

Hanging baskets, Non-structural decorations / porches ‘Lean-to’s

Clean / repair of gardens Replacement of fences / walls removed for

accessInternal Wall Insulation Redecorating / colour matchingBoiler Replacement Redecorating

3. Preparing for InstallationThis category covers costs that are required to get a property into a condition that enables an installation to take place. This covers activities and works that could not reasonably be considered to be part of the preparatory work for the installers. This area was evident in the case of loft installations delivered as part of UHIS, for example in terms of loft clearance. In the context of Green Deal and ECO, where more invasive works such as internal or external solid wall insulation are undertaken, additional preparatory works such as this may be required. Examples of these have been described in the table below.

Table 6.3 Enabling measures: Preparing for installationInsulation Type Possible Enabling Measures (examples)Loft Insulation Decant

StorageExternal Wall Insulation Removal of structures, e.g.:

Sheds, ‘lean-to’s Fences, walls

Removal of vegetation, garden clearanceInternal Wall Insulation Removal of fixed or fitted furniture, shelves

etc. Preservation of historic elements (cornices

etc.)

4. Engaging households and encouraging installsThe category covers impartial, trusted, expert advice to both encourage households to engage with energy efficiency installs and select the best solution for them; and to support them through the installation process.

This comprises a suite of services and support including: Making households aware of energy efficiency improvements Informing them of the types of measures that are available and the funding

sources and support to deliver them Advising them on the best solution for them and their property


Technical advice and assistance the households need to go ahead or complete the more complex and intrusive installations

Engaging with households and neighbours to facilitate installations in tenements / flats (e.g. supporting installations in multi-occupancy buildings)

Handholding and liaison (with households to overcome the technical or logistical challenges of installation)

These roles are fulfilled to some extent currently by the Home Energy Scotland advice centres, local authority insulation scheme managing agents, and installers, and have been identified as important in the research in previous chapters. In relation to the Green Deal, the Home Energy Scotland advice centres’ role (as Green Deal Remote Advisors) will be similar, along with Green Deal Providers, Assessors and Installers. Local authorities may have a clear role here too – similar to the role that they played in relation to delivering UHIS – that is, in targeting and identifying households and recommending a solution from those available.

However, based on the research undertaken it is clear that building relationships and contacting households is a key barrier to installs. Effective targeting of promotions co-ordinated with in-depth engagement is essential in terms of enabling installs. This will be particularly important in the context of enabling installs in high rise (and therefore hard-to-treat) multi-occupancy buildings eligible for ECO funding.

Piloting Enabling Measures in the Context of Green Deal and ECOUnderstanding needs and impacts of this range of measures is important as Green Deal and ECO roll out. Previous UHIS projects have enabled the take up of measures related to loft and cavity wall insulation to be explored.

At the outset of the research it was anticipated that Green Deal and ECO delivery would be in place by the time that the research was underway and that enabling measures would be able to be piloted. However, this did not prove to be the case and, as a result, with pilot ECO projects only commencing in spring 2013, trials were difficult to identify and the ability to test other enabling measures limited.

However, three trial sites were identified and these are discussed in the next three chapters.


7. Piloting Enabling Measures – Following Up Install Cancellations to Enable Installations

The non-install survey described in Chapter 5 of this report identified that there may be some possible installations within this sample group that had not gone ahead. Given the identified importance of support and advice in facilitating installations these leads were passed onto the Home Energy Scotland South East advice centre for follow-up to explore if any could be encouraged to install through allocating additional resources. In terms of the classification of enabling measures described in the previous chapter, this relates to enabling measures as ‘engaging and encouraging installs’.

The survey responses were reviewed by the Home Energy Scotland South East advice centre and 9 clients were identified that they thought they could help progress to install. Given that there were 64 respondents to the survey, this represents 14% of all those who had initially been surveyed – a significant proportion. These households are described in the table below:


Table 7.1 Non-Installation Survey Follow-Up Reason No Description Outcomes

Installer did not arrive / re-visit

5 On investigation it was found that the surveys, rather than the installation hadn’t gone ahead.

3 were passed to installers to be rebooked for survey

o 2 installs achievedo 1 household not re-contacted by

installer 1 had received survey after questionnaire and

property not suitable 1 could not be contacted by Home Energy

Scotland South East advice centre

Awaiting contact from installer regarding under floor insulation

1 Home Energy Scotland South East advice centre contacted client and forwarded details to installer to survey

Property not suitable

Property not suitable

3 Clients disagreed with assessments of surveyors, Home Energy Scotland South East advice centre contacted clients / installer for re-survey

1 was flat roofed and not covered by scheme. Advice offered on Green Deal and client called by our Green Deal Advisor.

1 was timber framed so not suitable for CWI 1 could not be contacted by Home Energy

Scotland South East advice centre

The table shows that of these potential leads, further contact resulted in two being transferred to installation (3% of a sample of 64 households that had not proceeded to install). These were both properties that had not received or missed a survey.

It is interesting to note that in a number of cases, those that had been advised their property was not suitable would appear to have been given correct information, but were not satisfied with this advice. Based on feedback, when the installers and the Home Energy Scotland South East advice centre had spent a little more time to explain the reasons and possible alternative options, they seemed much happier with the outcome.

This small follow-up study highlights that concerns can be alleviated, and installs achieved, by providing further advice and support to households. The research in chapter 5 showed that, typically, advice from installers is considered important by households and it is also important for installers to be accredited so households can trust them to carry out the job to a high standard. However, results suggest that households often need reassurance or further advice from other sources. For example, EST approval and advice is considered very important and reassurance from other bodies such as the local authority or from friends or neighbours can also be crucial.

Of perhaps more importance, this additional work shows that increases in installs can occur simply by working closely to support households through the process and ensuring that surveyor visits are made or followed up if missed.


8. Piloting Enabling Measures – External Solid Wall Insulation

Pilot OverviewThis pilot comprised 59 properties of “no fines” construction undergoing external solid wall insulation installation. The area had previous installation work done via CESP (Community Energy Saving Programme) funding.

The original CESP project identified 50 properties in the area to be insulated. These were to be completed in early 2013 and the ECO and HEEPS ABS pilot project built from this base of support. This project provided an interesting opportunity to evaluate the challenges and barriers to installing measures. Research was undertaken via interviews with those who had received installs and surveys with potential recipients of the ECO-funded work into potential barriers to install.

Household Perceptions in Advance of InstallA short survey was carried out door-to-door with 42 owner-occupiers who had been approached regarding installation of the free external wall insulation (EWI). The main purpose of the survey was to explore households’ barriers and concerns about EWI installation to inform what enabling measures could be required. Interviews were also held with three owners who had completed installations to evaluate their experiences.

The previous CESP installations that took place on the same site could have made households either more or less enthusiastic about the installation. They will have seen the extent of the works required to install EWI (which was subject to some minor delays and extended periods of scaffolding being in situ), but they may also have learned of the benefits in terms of increased comfort and / or reduced bills arising from the installation.

Proceeding with installation and motivationsAll respondents were aware of the offer and almost all respondents were intending to proceed with the offer of insulation. Only one respondent was not. It is worth noting that 80% of these households had previously expressed interest in installing EWI for free through CESP, but had been rejected as they did not meet funding criteria.

Households who had stated that they would proceed with insulation were asked which factors were most important in their consideration of EWI (figure1). All factors were considered important or very important by all respondents. Those considered very important by a higher number of respondents were:

Saving money on their fuel bills Improving the value of their home Making their house warmer and more comfortable


Base=42

Concerns about EWIFigure 8.2 illustrates that around a fifth of surveyed households were worried about the insulation or associated works.

Base=42

The main concerns were as follows:

Mess: five respondents were worried about the mess caused by the installation. Of these:

o three were worried about their garden;o one was worried about their drive;o one was worried about their windows.


Figure 8.1: Importance of factors in households' consideration of EWI

Figure 8.2: Number of households who are concerned about the insulation or works

47

Costs: four respondents were concerned that the measure would not be free or that there would be additional costs of repairs/replacements e.g. garden fence (if it came down), satellite dishes, down-pipes etc. These concerns were reiterated by responses to a following question in which seven households stated that they were only interested in the insulation if it was free.

Disruption: three were worried about the disruption and time taken for installation (although one person commented that they recognised there would be disruption but still wanted to proceed).

Wall finish: two were concerned about the impact of the work on the appearance of their wall, for example around the windows.

Other concerns included: Work would not match the extension to the house and that the household

would not get a completion certificate; That the extension might not be included; Confusion of dealing with contractors; Access to rear of house where it was a mid-terrace.

Respondents were asked if they worried about specific issues (figure 8.3). These results highlight that most households do not have concerns and very few were ‘very concerned’ about anything. However, some of the most common concerns were:

Damage to the garden; Disruption of installation; Dealing with contractors; Timescale of installation; Impact on the house’s visual appearance.

Slightly fewer households were worried about whether the insulation material would work and whether it would damage the property.


Figure 8.3: Number of households worried about specific issues

48

It is interesting to note that none of the households appear to have been deterred installing as a result of their concerns or these issues. In some ways, observing the installation process on neighbours’ houses could have a positive impact as households are better informed about what the installation process will involve. This means they are accepting the insulation offer with more knowledge, and possibly different expectations from a household who knew little about the installation process. In addition, they will have observed the post-installation appearance of the houses, which should have a positive influence on their decision to proceed with insulation.

Despite this positive response to the concerns, these findings again highlight the need for effective communications and household engagement around installations. Indeed, the interviews with those who had already received insulation highlighted a number of complaints around duration of installation, mess, problems in dealing with contractors and so on, despite their general satisfaction with the installation.

Enabling MeasuresRespondents were asked if there was anything that could be done to alleviate their concerns or encourage them to proceed with installation. As most of the households intended to proceed with the measure and had minor concerns, there were few answers to this question. Those who provided responses appeared to want reasonable reassurance that the work would be carried out to a high standard and with the least hassle.

ConclusionsFrom the 42 households surveyed, all bar one wished to take up the offer of free EWI and few had major concerns about the insulation or installation process. However, households’ main worries about the EWI or installation were:

Mess or damage caused by the installation process e.g. to garden, drive, windows

That the installation would not be free (as stated) or there would be additional costs for repairs/replacements, such as fences or satellite dishes

General disruption by the installation and the time taken for the process to complete

Finish of the wall/damage to visual appearance of house Dealing with contractors.

These can be summarised into the classification of enabling measures described in the previous chapter as follows:

1. Non-standard technical issues / costs: The survey did not identify any of these measures, although anecdotally (via the installer) some of these did arise later in the install process. These were relatively minor issues relating to, for example, ensuring that walls were prepared to take hanging baskets


and other minor external wall attachments such as satellite dishes – these did not require additional funding.

2. Returning the property to its original state: The survey highlighted that many were concerned that there would be resources to ensure that fences etc. were returned after install and that windows and finishes would be restored

3. Preparing for installation: Although not explicitly identified by respondents, issues such as fence and larger structure removal could be a factors

4. Engaging and encouraging installs: Even in an area where there had been significant engagement and a track record of free installs, it is clear that concerns still existed over the exact offer (e.g. was it free) and in relation to liaising with contractors. Indeed many of the concerns that survey respondents had about EWI or its installation could be dealt with by providing households with more information, i.e.: Reassurance that the insulation is free; More details on the installation process so households know what to

expect in terms of mess, repairs and finish – for example, whether downpipes would be replaced;

More support around contractor liaison

The need for information to be delivered by an impartial and trusted body is again noted here. For example, the installer may have provided information about the insulation process to the household already, but the household may need reassurance from an impartial body that this information is accurate. As stated in the last bullet, some households are not confident in communicating with installers and may need support from an independent body.

Measures PilotedBased on the survey results it was anticipated that the majority of measures used would relate to returning the properties to their original state. However regular communication was undertaken with the installers and a range of other issues, in particular in relation to preparing properties for installation, were identified. This included removing a number of outbuildings, lean-tos and fencing. In addition ensuring that driveways and gardens were satisfactorily reinstated was requested due to the damage caused by scaffolding and re-harling. These types of measures, in terms of the classification described previously, come under the two categories of ‘preparing for installation’ and ‘returning the property to original state’.

The final data on measures actually taken up is described in the table below.

Table 8.1: Enabling Measures DeliveredEnabling Measure No. of propertiesPreparing for installationRemoval and disposal of porches / sheds / lean-tos 4Hedge removal 1Returning the property to original state


Fence replacement 33Refit gate or gatepost 25Paving and drive work 5

In addition to these measures the pilot period also identified a funding shortfall (due to uncertainties in the then new ECO processes) and additional Green Deal assessments (rather than EPCs) were required to secure funding. This was funded to enable the project to progress and could be described as a ‘non-standard technical cost’ enabling measure.

It is interesting to note that the contractor that delivered the repair works to gardens and fences has continued to be used in the area since this pilot phase completed to support further installations. The local authority has also accessed additional funds to enable porches to be purchased and reinstated onto properties in subsequent installs. Anecdotally, the role of the contractor now extends beyond repairs to gardens and reinstatement of fences to being an impartial advisor to the installer and households to assess the damage and repairs that may occur to the garden in advance of install. This extends his role as a deliverer of enabling measures to ‘return the property to the original state’, to ‘engaging and encouraging installs’. This again highlights the importance of having support and advice available to households to facilitate installs.


9. Piloting Enabling Measures – High Rise Hard-to-Treat Cavity

Lessons on High Rise and Multiple-Occupancy Installations from UHIS Funding of SchemesAs part of the City of Edinburgh UHIS scheme, the Home Energy Scotland South East advice centre was contracted to target flats and tenements to foster and support collective engagement around energy efficiency installs. Members of this team were interviewed repeatedly as part of this study to explore their role as enablers to engage residents and encourage installs in multi-occupancy settings.

This engagement with the larger blocks included leafleting, development and distribution of Q&A forms, door knocking, scheduling and attendance at residents meetings (including inviting installers and insulation manufacturers to properties). Residents and residents associations were also encouraged and supported to engage their neighbours directly to gain approval for installations.

By end of 2012, the project covered ten flat or tenement sites in Edinburgh, comprising a total of 587 properties. Of these, 192 properties were directly engaged by the staff team across all sites. 56 properties (comprising five sites) completed installations. Based on a simplistic analysis of the resources used, it cost approximately £147.00 per property to directly engage residents and successfully install measures. This is a significant level of resource, but it is clear that without this impartial, enabling advice these installations would not have happened.

Recent research into energy efficiency in tenements7 by Changeworks has highlighted that a range of engagement techniques are used across different agencies undertaking this type of activity – both for communal installations or to undertake improvement works across estates. These are used to differing extents by different stakeholders and at different times in the engagement process. But the key principles are similar and include:

Letters and emails; Leafleting; Development and distribution of Q&A forms; Door knocking; Scheduling and attendance at residents meetings (including inviting

maintenance companies, installers and insulation manufacturers to properties);

Seeking guidance from installers on technical issues Tracking down landlords via the landlord’s register.

7 Consumer Focus Scotland 2013, Delivering Energy Efficiency in Tenements in Scotland (http://www.consumerfutures.org.uk/reports/communal-improvements-energy-efficiency-in-tenements-in-scotland)


All of these activities highlight the importance of engaging with consumers to overcome barriers and resistance to installations as a particular and important enabling measure. In addition they also demonstrate the extra resources that may be required to successfully roll out larger sale programmes.

Pilot Site Measures UsedA key challenge in relation to installations in many of the multi-occupancy buildings was the funding available for high rise scaffolding. This was expensive (due to the height required for tall blocks), but was able to be covered in the possible pilot studies we identified by UHIS funds.

However, in the case of the works on one site (a cavity build set of 87 properties comprising 5 separate blocks of flats), an additional technical challenge was identified. During installation a range of problems arose in relation to duration of works and impact on buildings during the installation of the first block. This in turn added to the uncertainty and concerns by some residents in other properties in the blocks as to the suitability of the buildings for insulation. Securing agreement to close off works in this first block was proving difficult, in particular making good some of the specially plastered external surfaces on residents’ balconies that had been drilled for insulant injection holes. Closing off works was vital to securing agreement to proceed to the next four blocks and as a result additional funding was required to achieve this. This comprised full repaint to balcony elements on one face of the building using specialist paint, and was funded through this pilot project as a ‘returning the property to its original state’ enabling measure. This contributed to the building being satisfactorily signed off in late spring 2013.

Installation completion Extensive resources were committed by the engagement team (along with the site factors, installers, insulant manufacturers and the local authority) to secure agreement of all owners on site for the works to go ahead on the initial block and the remaining four. Unfortunately, despite all these engagement efforts, significant resistance to the works from a small number of residents who were concerned about the impact of the insulant on the properties prevented the work on the remaining four blocks going ahead.

The efforts of the team to secure install was significant and included multiple public meetings with residents, repeat communications, door-knocking, extensive responses to queries and liaison with the management committee, factors, installers and manufacturers. Home Energy Scotland energy advisors offered face-to-face advice on the doorstep and surveyors from the installers also offered individual property surveys. A total of twelve meetings took place, with four of these meetings open to all residents to attend. The others included technical inspections with members of the residents committee, factors, insulant manufacturers, insurers, etc. The factors for the site also issued household information packs to all residents including the BBA’s (British Board of Agrement) endorsement of the product and a copy of the manufacturer’s 25 year guarantee.


Ultimately the committee of management and factors attempted to utilise the legislation in the Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004 to progress works. This legislation enables owners in communally owned properties to force works through on a majority vote (rather than seeking a unanimous). Unfortunately, this course of action was challenged legally by residents (requiring the involvement of local authority lawyers) and ultimately the work was cancelled as the process that was outlined in the legislation was not followed appropriately.

The whole process for this site took approximately two years and was only partly successful. Although it is important to note that other blocks of flats facilitated by the same team have been successful in a fraction of this time, this does highlight the vital importance of enabling measures that ‘engage and encourage installs’ in delivering programmes. It also reinforces that significant resources will need to be committed to facilitate installation in multi-occupancy buildings, and where technologies unfamiliar to households are used.


10. Conclusions and RecommendationsThis report has highlighted a range of possible barriers to installation of energy efficiency measures and possible enabling measures to overcome these.

Types of Enabling MeasuresThe analysis of the data available, interviews and the pilots that have been undertaken have highlighted that barriers to install exist in a variety of forms. These range from additional costs required for unusual or complex properties, through preparing buildings for installation and returning them back to a reasonable condition post-installation, to engaging and encouraging households to take up the installation. These are described in the diagram below (with examples) which could be used to classify and monitor the enabling measures used as ECO and HEEPS: ABS develops.

Figure 10.1 Classification of enabling measures (with examples)

This research has clearly identified that household support, engagement and recruitment is vital in delivering installs and is a clear theme throughout this report. This not only relates to scheme promotion and information dissemination from impartial and trusted sources, but also in managing queries and questions and working with installers to facilitate installs. This is especially important as technologies such as solid wall insulation require significantly more upheaval and intrusion than loft and cavity installs. In addition it will be important to ensure that any available measures are effectively promoted and resources invested to follow up with interested clients to ensure households feel supported and therefore follow through on their decisions to install. This is likely to require close working with installers and other key stakeholders (such as builders who may be renovating homes) to ensure





issues / costs

scaffolding

loft vents




original state

redecorating



clearing of gardens


installs



55

that those that need the measures are aware of them and that effective advice is available.

The solid wall pilot explored in this study highlighted that with major installations such as external wall insulation, preparing sites for install and returning them to their original state can be crucial for both households (e.g. ensuring that gardens or garden structures, porches etc. are repaired or replaced after install) and for installers (in ensuring walls are clear and accessible for install).

The ‘non-standard technical issues and costs’ group of measures are clearly important in ensuring that installs take place. However, whether these should be viewed as enabling measures or as core costs for install is a key issue. Measures such as scaffolding and vents for cavity wall installations have been classified as enabling measures in previous insulation schemes (e.g. UHIS) but are an essential part of most cavity installations and therefore perhaps should be described as basic install costs and should be accounted for in the core costs of insulation programmes. Clarity on what should and should not be a core cost for the full range of installation technologies would help the installation market.

Demand for Different MeasuresBased on this research it is difficult to make firm recommendations on the level of spend required on these different enabling measure types. The market for installs is changing significantly, involving different technologies and giving rise to a range of challenges that were not in place for loft and cavity-focused programmes. As a result, significant learning is taking place across the industry. In addition, different local authority areas will, through their HEEPS ABS applications, have been focusing on different property types (based on the prevalence of housing in the area and on previous programmes). An area focusing on high rise hard-to-treat cavities will require extensive funding for household engagement as multiple agreement will be required for work to progress (scaffolding costs would also be significant, should this be viewed as an enabling measure), whereas one focusing on detached solid wall work may need to focus more on measures that prepare sites for installation and return sites to their original state afterward.

Clear decisions could be made as to what could be funded if a rationale for including or excluding certain works from enabling measure funding is provided. Learning from the first year of HEEP: ABS installs will be vital. The latest HEEPS ABS bids were able to allocate up to 10% of the total cost on administrative and enabling costs, including:

i. Scheme marketing, promotion and publicity;ii. Scheme development costs, including resident consultation, sample

physical surveys, etc.iii. Transport costs (for remote and rural areas);iv. Scaffolding costs;v. Scheme management costs, including quality control, sampling etc.; andvi. Complaints procedures.


Given this research, it is highly encouraging that this funding includes a range of issues in relation to household engagement, encouraging installs and complaints procedures (i, ii, and vi in the list above). That said, given that there is no requirement for a proportion of this funding to be ring-fenced for these activities, a situation could arise that would mean the entire budget for enabling could be spent on scaffolding (which clearly could be described as a core cost of the installation) and this would mean that vital engagement activities could be underfunded.

How this enabling funding is and has been spent, and what guidance has been issued to installers by local authority managers for costing purposes, will therefore be of great value. Monitoring this closely, using the categorisation of enabling measures outlined in this conclusion, could prove highly informative to the future focusing of enabling measures, and in highlighting the importance of each enabling measure type.

RecommendationsBased on this research we recommend that local authorities should be encouraged to allocate significant resources to household engagement, support and follow-up, along with exploring routes to engage wider stakeholders, such as local tradespeople, in the promotion of measures.

The enabling measures spend on HEEPS: ABS projects should also be monitored closely. This should include:

An outline of the types of property or insulation types that are to be targeted (high rise; EWI etc.)

Monitoring staff time spent engaging with households (and the nature of this engagement – e.g. seeking collective agreement for communal buildings; responding to complaints and queries about installers etc.)

Value (and nature) of enabling spend on preparing site for install, making good sites after install, and non-standard technical issues or costs

Reporting on what is and is not specified as core costs when asking installers

to prepare bids for work

This data should provide vital information to inform the targeting of measures in the future. Throughout this process it will be important for scheme managers to ensure that the installation market does not take advantage of these enabling costs budgets and that these are contained, where reasonably possible in the core costs of installation.


Documents

Executive Summary - Energy Saving Trustenergysavingtrust.org.uk/sites/default/files/reports/EST... · Web viewEnabling Measures Final Report Produced for the Energy Saving Trust May