Sector groups call for more support for social landlords to meet energy efficiency rules

Sector bodies have called for more support for social landlords to meet the government’s latest proposed energy efficient rules for new homes.

The Housing Forum and the Chartered Institute of Housing are among the bodies to respond to the government’s technical consultation on the Future Homes and Buildings Standards, which closes today.

The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) is proposing further measures to improve the energy efficiency of homes, including airtightness requirements and a ban on fossil fuel-fired boilers and hydrogen and biofuels.

Its aim is to ensure homes built from 2025 will produce 75-80% less carbon emissions than those built under current regulations, contributing to the UK’s target of achieving net zero by 2050.

DLUHC is consulting on two specification options for new homes. ‘Option 1’ has higher additional build costs but lower bills for residents, as it includes solar PV panels, a wastewater heat recovery system, increased airtightness and a decentralised mechanical ventilation system. ‘Option 2’ does not have these elements so has lower additional build costs.

The Housing Forum in its submission said it supports the more ambitious ‘option 1’ but has some concerns around the real-world performance of mechanical cooling.

“Social landlords do not currently have any capacity to charge higher rents for housing that is more energy efficient, so the full costs of meeting the higher standards will fall on their own budgets.”

The Housing Forum

It also questioned the assumption that increased costs could be passed on to landowners via lower land prices in weaker housing markets and said more social housing grant will be needed.

It said: “Social landlords do not currently have any capacity to charge higher rents for housing that is more energy efficient, so the full costs of meeting the higher standards will fall on their own budgets.

“This means that the grant for social housing will need to be increased to cover the additional upfront costs.”

“We support the establishment of a genuinely long-term plan for housing that can enable the social housing sector to deliver more decent, safe, accessible, and affordable homes for social rent.”

Chartered Institute of Housing

The CIH in its submission also said it prefers ‘option 1’ as it felt option 2 would be a “missed opportunity to tackle fuel poverty”.

However the CIH said it wants a “genuine long-term plan” for housing to be established.

>>See also:What the Future Homes Standard means for net zero

It said: “Instead of considering Future Homes Standard specification options that will cost less but place more residents at risk of fuel poverty, and/or introducing exceptions that will increase the risk of poor quality, energy inefficient homes being developed en masse, we support the establishment of a genuinely long-term plan for housing that can enable the social housing sector to deliver more decent, safe, accessible, and affordable homes for social rent.”

The institute also said an 18-month transition period is too short a timeframe to adjust business plans and policy to meet the requirements.

It said: “A longer transitional period will enable design assessments and development pipelines to be fully compliant. In addition, clear guidance, support, and the timely laying of regulations in 2024 will be essential for giving the sector clarity on the changes it needs to make, and by when.”