The Bonfield report is well-intentioned, but if the green agenda is to catch on with homeowners better guarantees and smart meters are a good start, says Steve Hodgson.
Steve Hodgson
So the long-awaited and much anticipated Bonfield report was quietly published before christmas. Each Home Counts is a brave and well-intentioned attempt to set a framework to promote the sustainable growth of the retrofit insulation and renewable energy industry in the UK and in doing so tackle the issue of carbon dioxide emissions in domestic building.
These are responsible for approximately a quarter of UK carbon dioxide emissions. About 5.5 million homes in Great Britain lack cavity wall insulation and 92% of solid walled homes are uninsulated.
Unfortunately, the report looks and feels like the work of a very large committee. Although it attempts to deal with the big issues across no fewer than 27 recommendations, it lacks clarity and boldness in places and fails to deal with some of the more pernicious technical knowledge gaps that emerged for past initiatives and that are starting to come back to bite us.
What stands out is the question of whether it will seed another boom in the retrofit and microgeneration sectors, without dealing with what used to be “unintended consequences”, but are now the anticipated consequences of retrofit.
It remains our considered view that collectively we still don’t really understand the full implications of the changes in holistic building performance which come with making older buildings perform like new ones.
“The proposal to create robust and deliverable standards should be welcomed. When written, applied and adopted properly they work.”
What we do know is that buildings which are sealed and encased with insulation use less energy. However, we still don’t really know how much less they use. We know that some of the energy saving measures affect the way the old building manages water loading. We don’t know how this plays out in the long term or how to deal with repairing and maintaining retrofit buildings.
The acknowledgement of these issues and the opportunity to create strategies to manage the now ‘expected consequences’ of retrofit seem to be missing from the report and that’s a real shame.
The background
In considering the content and outcomes of the report, we should look at the reason for its being. This is summed up in a single word, failure. Not only the failure to sell Green Deal, but also the failure to prevent a rush to the bottom by contractors, utilities and a government driven by volume rather than quality. Add in erratic changes in funding available as grants – and an Energy Company Obligation (ECO) scheme which was in no way fit-for-purpose – and we are halfway there.
Consider also the desperate lack of enthusiasm from homeowners, and evidence that the work carried out often failed to deliver the energy savings or commercial returns promised. Then, add to this the growing catalogue of damp-related problems in homes which have been ‘improved’ and it’s no surprise the grand project failed.
Something needed to be done to get the train back on the tracks and so who do government go to when they don’t understand construction? Call Dr Bonfield.
Unanswered questions
Within the report a great deal is made of the protection consumers will take from a new Consumer Charter, a Code of Conduct, a Quality Mark and alternative dispute resolution (ADR).
This is fine and very useful if defects are found quickly. However, in our experience, deboning panels, water penetration, cold spots and internal atmospheric moisture problems may take years to come to light.
With the passage of time comes a feeling of separation from consequence and with this comes conjecture. In real life, when a job that’s been OK for five years is reported as a problem the immediate reaction of the contractor is often to pass the buck. The report sees this and asks for the creation of a Single Promise Guarantee.
Regardless of the unusual nature of this title, we see no means of making this work unless the insurance companies needed to underwrite the scheme can charge big premiums.
The report says the product must cover “the range of losses a consumer may suffer”. However, the question we can’t answer is whether we understand, and can we quantify, the range of defects a customer may encounter? For the answer to this question we should look at CIGA and SWEGA and ask them if they have been taken by surprise by the range and nature of the defects, complaints and claims they are seeing sometimes over a decade after the work was completed?
The creation of an information hub for consumers is another great idea but we’d question if this should be set up and manned by a team of people who have the express aim of promoting retrofit and renewables.
Furthermore, the question also needs to be raised as to whether we can provide advice about the long-term effects of retrofit. If so, can this be made available in a way that consumers can process and is it realistic to deliver this impartially and meaningfully via a website or call centre staff?
Driving improvements and confidence
The proposal to create robust and deliverable standards should be welcomed in every sector of the building environment. When written, applied and adopted properly they work. Industry must take the lead, but support and buy in from DCLG and building regulations is a must.
Dr Bonfield acknowledges the lack of well-trained people in the sector and makes provision for improvement. What the report fails to acknowledge however is the fundamental reason for the current lack of investment in these skills. Until employers can be assured of constant and predictable workstreams, confidence will be weak and so will any investment in skills.
We are told the new Quality Mark is needed to signpost consumers to good contractors and to house the regulatory and enforcement elements of the plan, but is this really needed with guilds and trade associations actively protecting standards and promoting best practice?
The main function of any guild or association, is to deliver a beneficial trading position for its members. This is the carrot and sets the signatories on a pedestal by becoming something consumers can look to and respect. The stick which drives the maintenance of best practice is the possibility of exclusion from the club and the harm that exclusion could cause to the prospects and livelihood of those who are side-lined.
The Quality Mark suggested by Dr Bonfield is something which is as well understood in the construction industry as bricks and mortar. I would also suggest the vehicles for his vision are out there today and are very keen to be involved.
Design matters
Arguably the biggest failing of both ECO and Green Deal was the lack of design liability built into the system of product specification. In normal procurement, a surveyor, architect or QS will be responsible for drafting a specification which is then skilfully delivered by trained and competent tradesmen. If the design is defective the professionals take the rap and if the workmanship is faulty it is down to the contractor. I know it’s more complicated than that but please stay with me.
The report attempts to provide a means of setting a normalised route for design and delivery but it needs to go one small, but fundamentally important, step further. Please make Professional Indemnity Insurance mandatory for system designers. Without it, there is no real safety net.
Reversing the trend
Every Home Counts strongly supports the swift and comprehensive roll out of smart meters. With the support of Government and the energy companies, this measure alone has the capacity to fundamentally change the way we consider, use and produce energy at home.
Let’s hope that a programme of advice and awareness which supports the delivery of smart metering includes information on maintaining a healthy equilibrium using energy and ventilation in a balanced way.
The importance of recognising, testing and promoting new energy saving technologies is also highlighted. Though this is not our area of expertise, what has been suggested as a strategy seems very sensible. It would seem obvious that there could be great gains taken from promoting innovation and the adoption of a range of energy-saving technologies which work as well as their suppliers claim and deliver a decent return on investment.
Housing associations and other significant social housing providers play a key role in the stabilisation of the energy improvement market. The potential for larger multiple property projects can deliver very poor results where projects are driven by the need to get lots done cheaply.
Drawing social housing providers into the values set out in ‘Each Home Counts’ could curtail this and promote the notion of quality over quantity – reversing the trend which has led to the unintended consequences of retrofit insulation becoming the problem we face today – and for the long term.
Steve Hodgson is chief executive of the Property Care Association
