Document template - Energy Saving Trust Recommended · Web viewBCA Group (Fife) The feedback from stakeholder interviews focussed on two main themes: Customer engagement: how they

Solid wall insulation pilotProject report

August 2013

Energy Saving Trust page 1 of 23

1. Executive summaryThe solid wall insulation pilot was a programme delivered by the Energy Saving Trust for the Scottish Government between 2011 and 2013. It was designed to assess if loan funding was effective in supporting and incentivising the installation of solid wall insulation and to see if comprehensive information, advice and hand-holding also contribute to increased uptake of solid wall insulation. The programme looked at householder attitudes to carrying out solid wall insulation and at factors affecting their ability to install measures and their experience of the process, when supported by a package of assistance including grant and loan funding, advice visits in their homes and technical assistance.

The Energy Saving Trust assessed the suitability of local authority wards in Scotland for an initiative of this type. This involved ranking all wards according to the:

Proportion of suitable solid-walled properties. Proportion of owner-occupiers. Demographics of house owners, which are influential in determining the likelihood of take up.

In addition, following preliminary discussions with the Scottish Government, it was agreed that the selected area or areas should include rural off-gas grid properties and former social housing properties in Community Energy Saving Programme (CESP) areas. This would provide the opportunity to support delivery to low income households on the margins of fuel poverty, who are well represented in CESP areas and to hard to treat homes in rural areas, where the scattered nature of dwellings and resultant higher installation costs mean that rural properties need additional support.

Based on this assessment and discussion, Orkney and parts of Fife were selected as pilot areas. In each an area-wide solid wall offer was promoted through direct mailing, local authority channels and the local Energy Saving Scotland advice centres (ESSacs), now the Home Energy Scotland Advice Centres. In addition, the initiative offered loan and other support to households which were part of local authority and Universal Home Insulation Scheme (UHIS) programmes in Orkney and to owner-occupied dwellings in CESP areas in Fife.

Overall interest in the solid wall insulation offer was low, even in the carefully selected pilot areas and most of those initially interested dropped out even during the very highly supported customer journey which was provided; mostly because of costs. Even though the cost of solid wall insulation is an obvious barrier to its take-up, the pilot indicated that loans as a mechanism for overcoming this do not seem to have strong traction, being taken up by only a minority of those installing measures. Households are reluctant to take on debt even with the prospect of significant savings on fuel bills and prefer to spend their own money or ideally receive grant rather than loan support. Grant levels will be an important factor in determining rates of installation of solid wall insulation.

Capacity will be another important factor, at least in the more remote and rural areas, as even the relatively low numbers of installations in this pilot revealed some capacity issues.

Solid wall insulation pilot page 2 of 23

There is some limited evidence that focusing a specific offer on smaller areas with community involvement produces better results. The rate of uptake through the pilot was markedly higher in phases covering tightly focused communities such as Westray and Oakley, where community activists and community networks could play a part in endorsing and promoting the scheme

EST undertook an evaluation which obtained feedback from householders and stakeholders involved in the pilot. The key findings were:

Home advice visits are a useful way of engaging with householders and informing them of the benefits of solid wall insulation and do stimulate uptake. Satisfaction with advice and information provided was very high and 85% of householders participating in the pilot stated that the EST advice and contractor support was important or very important in securing their participation.

Support from contractors, local authority building control staff and other council sections in organising planning and building warrant applications and in addressing any post-installation remedial issues is also important in securing participation of property owners.

Cost and availability of grant has a significant impact on whether households proceeded with installations. 64% of those dropping out before having a contractor survey and 43% of those dropping out following a survey did so because of the cost of measures. Two-thirds of those that had measures installed and were eligible for CERT or CESP grant funding said that they would not have gone ahead with the installation without grants or discounts.


2. IntroductionThe solid wall insulation pilot was a programme delivered by the Energy Saving Trust for the Scottish Government between 2011 and 2013. It was designed to assess if loan funding was effective in supporting and incentivising the installation of solid wall insulation. The programme also looked at householder attitudes to carrying out solid wall insulation and at factors affecting their ability to install measures and their experience of the process, when supported by a package of assistance including grants, loan funding and advice and technical assistance.

Take-up of solid wall insulation by owner-occupiers has been low in comparison to other measures. The capital costs are quite high and although such installations will usually more than pay for themselves over the lifetime of the insulation, payback on unsubsidised measures can take well over a decade. This has led to the suggestion that loans which reduce or remove the upfront cost could provide a stimulus to this market. However, experience with the Scottish Government’s domestic loan pilot showed that whilst uptake of loan funding for boiler replacement and renewables was significant, only a small proportion of loans were for solid wall insulation in hard to treat properties, although it should be noted that the domestic loan scheme was not actively promoted to homes needing solid wall insulation.

As solid wall insulation on a large scale has to be part of the low-carbon solution mix for hard to treat properties, particularly those off the gas grid, the Scottish Government wanted to test incentives which will stimulate uptake of this technology and decided to pilot a loan scheme specifically for solid wall insulation, targeted on areas with a concentration of appropriate dwellings. Target areas were chosen through the use of the Homes Energy Efficiency Database (HEED) and other data to identify areas with both a concentration of homes suitable for solid wall insulation and of households likely to be interested in installing this measure. The pilot also attempted to maximise other incentives to uptake, and evaluate their impact, by:

Reducing the price of installation to the customer as much as possible by: Using the area-based approach to produce geographically clustered leads to attract

discounted prices from installers for householders taking up the loan offer. Using Carbon Emissions Reduction Target (CERT) and Community Energy Saving

Programme (CESP) grant funding to subsidise the overall cost to the householder. Providing comprehensive information, advice and hand-holding for potential clients combined

with quality assurance measures; the aim being to give potential customers confidence in undertaking a fairly major piece of building work and financing it through debt.

The pilot aimed to establish if such a combined approach contributes to increased uptake of this type of measure through an evaluation exercise assessing the experience and attitudes of householders and contractors who participated in the pilot.


3. Project methodology3.1 The solid wall pilot offerThe scheme was promoted by the EST through a number of routes to owner-occupier householders and the scheme offer contained the following elements:

Discounted prices from installers. CERT or CESP and UHIS subsidy where available. Access to interest free loan finance from the EST of up to £15,000 to be repaid over ten years

(subject to credit check). Loans could cover the costs of both solid wall insulation itself and any measures required to enable the installation of insulation.

Advice visits and technical support, including clerk of works support. Support from contractors in preparing building warrants and planning applications. Suitable guarantees from installers and manufacturers.

Households that participated in the scheme and accepted loans had to agree to participate in the evaluation of the project carried out by the EST.

CERT/CESP funding CERT grant funding was available to contribute to the cost of insulation installation and at the beginning of the project it was anticipated that this would be around £1000 per property, with higher funding levels anticipated in CESP areas. EST secured CERT funding for internal and external wall insulation for most participating properties and Fife Council secured CESP grant funding for that phase of the project in Fife. CERT funding levels were in fact boosted beyond initial expectation for low income households as a result of the securing of CERT priority group flexibility funding, with CERT funding levels being in the range of £1000-12000 per property, depending on the property type and householder circumstances. CESP funding rates secured in Fife were in the range of £3000-5000 per property.

3.2 Target areasThe EST assessed the suitability of all local authority wards in Scotland for an initiative of this type. This involved ranking all wards according to:

The proportion of suitable solid-walled properties. The proportion of owner-occupiers. The demographics of house owners, which are influential in determining likelihood of take up.

In addition, following preliminary discussions with the Scottish Government, it was agreed that the selected area or areas should include rural off-gas grid properties and former social housing properties in CESP areas. This provided the opportunity to support low income households on the margins of fuel poverty in CESP areas and also hard to treat homes in rural areas, where the scattered nature of dwellings and resultant higher installation costs mean that rural properties are in need of additional support.


Based on these various criteria, a dual approach was decided on:

“Piggy-backing” on existing local authority projects, including both UHIS and CESP projects

Where local authorities were undertaking solid wall insulation and associated measures in properties they own, which are located amongst a block or area of similar properties, this offered an opportunity to extend the work of the appointed contractor to offer loans for similar measures to owner-occupiers in the remaining properties at the price offered through the pilot. Similarly, where a local authority was managing a UHIS-funded programme of offers for solid wall insulation, loans could be offered for costs not covered by the UHIS offer, i.e. for client contributions

In both cases the advantage of this approach was that the specification, quality control and other arrangements were all in place and these projects could be set up more rapidly. In addition, given that the majority of public sector housing is in relatively low-income areas, this approach targeted lower income homeowners, including those living in properties previously purchased under the right to buy, who are known to be a group more likely to need financial assistance to install energy efficiency measures.

The area-based offer – the classic “hot-spot” approach

Making a discounted solid wall insulation offer, with associated loan finance, available to all homeowners within a particular ward or sub-ward, selected on the basis of the analytical work described above. This approach was less targeted on low-income homeowners. However, it piloted a model which could have wider application, as there will be a bigger potential market amongst the generality of owner occupiers than in the smaller number of houses adjacent to dwellings receiving solid wall insulation through local authority initiatives. This hot-spot approach had already been successfully undertaken through the Energy Saving Scotland advice centre (ESSac) network for loft and cavity wall insulation and for certain renewables.

Areas chosen

Orkney and parts of Fife were chosen as the areas for the programme. Orkney wards scored highly in the analysis of suitability referred to above and there were also a number of solid wall insulation initiatives that Orkney Islands Council was facilitating on the islands. The approach undertaken in Orkney thus involved both piggy-backing and the wider offer approach and included:

Supporting internal and external wall insulation for households participating in Orkney Islands Council’s UHIS scheme.

Supporting internal wall insulation on the island of Westray through a local community project, Westray Development Trust, which had already assessed options for delivery of insulation.

Offering external wall insulation to owner occupiers within the area covered by Orkney Islands Council’s external wall insulation programme for its own stock.

In addition to these specific areas/households through an Orkney-wide promotion of an offer for internal and external wall insulation.


Fife also scored highly due to a large number of suitable properties and households in semi-rural areas and active CESP projects. The approach in Fife involved:

Supporting external wall insulation, piggybacking onto Fife Council’s CESP projects delivered in Methil, Kelty and Oakley.

Supporting external and internal wall insulation in solid wall properties through blanket promotion in three rural wards in Fife, which scored highly in terms of potential in the ward rankings:

Cupar, North Howe East Neuk and Landward

3.3 PromotionSolid wall offers based on the levels of grant and loans described above were promoted in the selected areas through direct mailing, local authority channels and the local ESSacs. There was also work with community groups, including CCF initiatives, wherever possible as this sort of local endorsement is very useful in maximising participation. This multi-channel approach built on extensive experience gained by the EST during work with previous or existing programmes such as the Home Insulation Scheme (HIS), UHIS and renewable hot-spot campaigns.

3.4 Local authority involvementThe local authorities for the pilot areas were key stakeholders and the EST worked closely with them in publicising the pilot projects, in “piggy-backing” on local authority work and in liaising with appropriate officers in addressing any building warrant and planning issues.

3.5 Customer support and quality controlIn addition to loans and CERT/CESP grants, customer support was a crucial part of the pilot; installing solid wall insulation is a significant piece of building work and few householders know much about it or its benefits. One of the key roles of the pilot was to establish if, over and above the availability of financial support, comprehensive information, advice and hand-holding, where necessary, contributes to increased uptake of this type of measure. Customer support was of three types, although these should be thought of as an integrated system of support for the full customer journey:

Informing and supporting the customer in deciding to participate; provided through the ESSac and participating local authorities with input from the central EST team as needed. This included home visits by trained advisors who could confirm property suitability and inform the householder of participating contractors and what was involved in carrying out measures. This information was summarised in a solid wall insulation advice report for those visited.

Measures to provide quality assurance and to minimise the amount of time the customer had to devote to organising the installation. These were intended to aid take-up and ensure that participants had a good customer experience. The project could fund technical support including clerk of works support for householders that proceeded with measures. Support was made


available through local authority building control in Orkney and Fife Council clerk of works services in Fife.

There was also post-installation support to cover any issues that might arise, for example new settings for heating system controls, post-installation snagging etc. provided through the ESSac with back-up from the EST central team.

3.6 Evaluation An important output from the pilot was a record of the perceptions and experiences of householders and other stakeholders that engaged with the scheme and a comprehensive evaluation exercise was planned and undertaken to capture these. The results of this evaluation are described in section 5.


4. Project delivery4.1 Materials and resourcesThe EST produced materials to support the pilot, including loan forms and promotional materials. An advice specification and a template for the solid wall advice report were developed and used in the delivery of home advice visits to households.

In order to have the option at a later date of assessing fuel bill savings, advisers collected meter readings during visits and participating householders were asked to sign a declaration on the loan application form giving their permission for the EST to obtain fuel bill information. Participating householders were also asked to answer questions on their motivation for wanting solid wall insulation measures and were asked about their experience of the installation or why they decided not to proceed.

CERT and CESP grant funding for householders varied depending on the phase of the scheme, and whether internal or external wall insulation was to be installed. CERT funding was secured from British Gas for external wall insulation measures in Orkney and the Fife rural wards. This included funding through the CERT priority group flexibility option, which was made available by British Gas late in 2011, and provided high rates of funding for external wall insulation where households were in receipt of benefits. CESP funding was available for external wall insulation in the Oakley, Kelty and Methil phase of the pilot in Fife. Scottish Power allocated funding for internal wall insulation works in Orkney and Fife, with Scottish and Southern Energy allocating funding for internal wall insulation on Westray.

4.2 OrkneyOrkney Islands Council and ESSac advisors delivered advice to households on energy efficiency and the solid wall pilot process. The council provided technical advice and support to households on assessing quotes and the quality of completed work. The pilot took place in three phases as described below.

Westray internal wall insulationIn the week beginning 31 October 2011, a mailing was sent by the Highlands and Islands ESSac to 55 Westray owner occupiers with suitable solid walls and this was followed up with other marketing, including an article in the local Westray newsletter distributed on 25 November 2011 and other publicity through Westray Development Trust, a community group on the island promoting energy efficiency. 10 householders responded to the marketing and eventually 9 internal wall installations were carried out for households offered assistance through the pilot. None of the participants took out loans, due to having sufficient resources to finance the work themselves and, in some cases, concerns about taking on debt.

Orkney UHISThe council’s 2011/12 UHIS initiative focused on the promotion of internal wall insulation to 435 households known to EST as meeting eligibility criteria for stage 4 of the Scottish Government’s Energy Assistance Package. The council identified nine local contractors able to carry out internal wall insulation work and these households were sent a letter at the end of October 2011 detailing the UHIS offer and the availability of loans, there were 125 responses. 103 advice visits were then carried out by council energy advisors supported by the ESSac for responders to the UHIS letter.


Following the advice visits a significant proportion of UHIS clients indicated that they would opt to have external wall insulation instead of the internal wall insulation. This can be attributed to two factors, the Orkney-wide promotion, which publicised external wall insulation in addition to internal wall insulation, and the fact that in late 2011 higher levels of CERT funding for external wall insulation became available from British Gas through the CERT priority group flexibility option, drastically reducing the cost to the household. Furthermore the Scottish Government agreed with Orkney Islands Council that up to £6,000 UHIS funding could be extended to stage 4 eligible households that opted to install external wall insulation as well as for those installing internal insulation, resulting in the majority of UHIS clients having little or nothing to pay for external or internal insulation. Where a householder contribution was required, householders generally decided that they would fund this low contribution without taking out a loan.

There were 31 completed internal wall insulation installations for UHIS eligible householders of which only one received a loan through the pilot (13 households received UHIS support for external wall insulation delivered through contractors participating in the area-wide phase of the pilot).

Orkney-wide promotion of external and internal wall insulationThere were discussions with a number of external wall contractors on their participation in the Orkney area-wide scheme and eventually three contractors agreed to participate, including two Orkney based and one off-island. Householders enquiring about internal insulation were signposted to the UHIS contractor network for internal wall insulation.

5,500 letters were sent to all owner-occupiers of pre-1995 properties in Orkney at the end of November 2011; accompanied by publicity through a press release and interviews with EST and council staff on Radio Orkney; a number of local organisations also incorporated a web link to the pilot on their websites. There were 151 responses to this Orkney-wide promotion, a response rate of 2.8%; 125 households received advice visits with the remainder cancelling or uncontactable after the initial enquiry.

Of the external wall contractors participating in Orkney, the largest island contractor had 39 requests for external wall surveys and quotes, the second island contractor surveyed 12 properties and the off-island contractor received only one request for a survey and quote. A high proportion of those contacting contractors for quotes were UHIS eligible households as indicated above. 12 households contacted in this phase of the initiative received external wall insulation and one mixed internal and external, of these two took out loans. Ten households that received external wall insulation through this phase received UHIS support.

External wall insulation in properties adjoining the Orkney Islands Council capital programmeOrkney Islands Council carried out an external wall insulation programme in some of its properties in Kirkwall in mid-2011. There are 60 owner-occupied properties in these streets that have similar house types. CERT funding was secured by EST for these properties, including for timber frame properties which fell outside Ofgem’s usual qualifying criteria for external wall insulation, and the main contractor that delivered external wall insulation in the council properties offered the Council’s design specification to owner occupied households. The Council wrote to these households on 5 December 2011 and there were five responses to the mailing, two asked for quotes from local contractors and one made a loan application and installed the measure but then elected not to take out the loan funding. The fact that there had been an earlier programme covering these property types appeared not to stimulate increased


interest amongst householders. This lower than expected interest may have been due in part to attitudes of residents to the change in appearance of the timber clad properties in the street, which had been opposed by some residents. Furthermore, the overall cost of the measure was likely to be in the region of £9-13,000 depending on house type and CERT funding for households who were not on benefits was likely to be less than £2,000, meaning substantial contributions from clients were required..

4.3 Fife Home advice visits in Fife were carried out by Changeworks, the organisation that managed the South East ESSac. The Fife pilot took place through two phases as described below:

Fife CESP projectsThere were 88 owner-occupiers in the village of Oakley, three in Methil and three in Kelty who were able to receive CESP- supported external wall insulation measures. Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE) made £5,000 CESP funding available to owners in the Fife Oakley CESP areas and other amounts in Kelty and Methil, with householder contributions required for measures varying depending on house type and which insulation system was being installed (some properties required structurally supporting insulation systems). Fife Council’s contractors extended council contract rates, with a further 2% discount, to the owners in Oakley, Kelty and Methil.

Letters were sent to the owner-occupiers in Oakley on 5 December 2011 and an open day was held for owners on 13 December. 30 owner occupiers in Oakley responded to the promotion as well as all three owners in Methil and one of the three households in Kelty.

The three households in Methil all installed insulation and decided to pay their contributions of c £2500 outright without taking out a loan; CESP fully funded external insulation for the one household in Kelty. Fourteen Oakley households requested quotes and following structural tests organised and funded by the EST, which determined what kind of insulation system could be installed in these properties and the cost of works, eight decided to progress to install, of whom three required the more expensive structurally supporting systems. Seven applied for loans, with five eventually receiving them.

Fife wards promotionLetters were sent to 12,000 private sector households in the target wards in the week commencing 12 December 2011. An open day event was held in Cupar on 19 January 2012 and the ESSac also engaged through various events with community and climate challenge groups in each ward to help promote the initiative. 140 householders responded to the mailing and other promotions, a response rate of 1.2%. Discussions were held with Fife Council on setting up a contractor framework, however this proved challenging and in the end it was decided to make referrals to three contractors that that had worked with the council.

The ESSac contacted responding households to discuss whether solid wall insulation was appropriate for their homes and subsequently 74 received advice visits. Of these 52 asked to be referred to the participating contractors for an insulation survey and quote as follows:

External – 16.


Internal- 19. Either external or internal- 9. Both measures in the same property- 8.

Two householders eventually installed internal wall measures in the Fife wards, both of whom took out loans.

4.4 Overall summary of project deliveryTable 1 below highlights the number of households engaged in each element of the process:

Number of households receiving a advice home visit

Number of households receiving survey/quotes from contractors

Number of houses solid wall where insulation installed

Loans applied for (loans paid)

Orkney 228 71 55 * 11 (6)Fife 108 68 14 ** 10 (6)

* 40 internal, 14 external and one mixed internal and external wall insulation.** 12 external and 2 internal wall insulation.

All told, twelve loans were taken out by householders across the Orkney and Fife areas. The total value of the loans was £96,677 of which six were in the £1 to £5,000 band, one was £5,000 to £10,000 and five were £10,000 to £15,000. A high proportion of installations were at no or low cost to householders because of CERT, CESP and/or UHIS funding, significantly, most of those that paid a contribution did not take out loans.


5. Evaluation5.1 MethodologyIn order to understand the impact of the pilot it was important to obtain feedback from both the participating householders and the other stakeholders involved. This was done through an evaluation study which consisted of two phases:

An independent evaluation of householders – 139 of the participating householders were interviewed by telephone to assess their experience of and satisfaction with the pilot.

Stakeholder interviews – telephone interviews were conducted with local authority, advice centre and contractor contacts to explore their experiences of engaging with the pilot.

5.2 Householder feedbackInterest in the schemeIn both Orkney and Fife, customers who signed up to the service were mainly interested in receiving solid wall insulation in order to reduce their fuel bills and to improve the warmth and comfort of their homes: very few were interested because of environmental concerns or because they were already undertaking other works on their home.

Customers in both the areas targeted seemed to be positive about solid wall insulation. In the North Fife area, households had already contacted the council about receiving solid wall insulation as a result of Climate Challenge Fund activity in the area and were positive about solid wall insulation. In Oakley, door knocking to inform and try to persuade people to participate in the offer was carried out and householders seemed positive about solid wall insulation measures.

The most important factors to customers taking part in the pilot included the availability of grant support and overall cost. Availability of interest-free loans was also of importance to some people, but less so than level of grant funding and overall cost. Local authority and EST endorsement and the availability of contractors were also important factors in householders participating in the initiative.

Householders did not specifically highlight the availability of technical support in preparing building warrant and planning applications and clerk of works support as being important factors that made them interested in the scheme. However, support in organising works and the advice and assistance provided by building control departments and local authority capital programme teams was important to householders that progressed to install.

SatisfactionWhere an EST home advice visit was undertaken, satisfaction with this activity was high (84% satisfied or very satisfied). Furthermore, where respondents received an insulation report (62%), they found this useful (72% stated it was useful or very useful). 85% of pilot participants said that the package of advice made available through the EST and contractors was important or very important in securing their participation.


Of those interviewed for the evaluation, 55 customers received a contractor survey and satisfaction with this part of the service was slightly lower than for the EST provided advice (68% satisfied or very satisfied). Reasons for the lower level of satisfaction appear to be mainly due to logistical issues in working with the contractors and in some cases respondents receiving what they viewed as poor quality information, advice or service from contractors. Specific comments highlight issues with timeliness in carrying out surveys and perceived willingness on the part of the contractors to actually carry out works (usually related to technical issues with the property).

Of the 139 respondents contacted in the evaluation survey, only 18 proceeded to installation, which means that insights from this part of the survey should be viewed with significant caution due to the small sample size. Of those that completed installation:

72% were either satisfied or very satisfied with the installation process. The remaining respondents were still in the process of installation and so stated that it was too early to comment on satisfaction.

Positive comments were provided with regards to improved comfort and warmth of the home, reduced damp issues and of the performance of the contractors carrying out the jobs.

Two-thirds said they would not have gone ahead without the support offered through the pilot.

Reasons for not progressingSubsequent to the advice visit, there was a significant drop off in respondents going ahead with the contractor survey. Client questionnaires indicated that reasons for not proceeding to survey were largely based on costs indicated during the advice visit (64%) and concerns about disruption to the household (24%).

The advice visit informed respondents of the likely costs and potential financial assistance in the form of loans or grants. However, less than half (41%) of respondents recalled the offer of the interest-free loan and fewer recall other forms of potential support offered (the evaluation was carried out at least six months after the advice visits, which might contribute to the lack of recollection on the offer).

For respondents who did not proceed past the advice stage, the most important factors which would have encouraged them to do so were: higher grant funding, funding for consequential works (e.g. repairs), and more information about the installation process from contractors.

Following the technical survey and quote provided by the contractors, 37 respondents to the survey decided not to proceed with the installation. Of these, the highest reported barrier was cost (43%), with other important barriers reported including a belief that the benefits did not outweigh the costs (22%) and concerns about contractors (19%), which related to timescales and the perceived willingness of contractors to carry out works that were more complex than usual and were at an isolated location. Others did not proceed because of concerns about visual impact on the property (14%) and potential disruption to the household.

Factors which would have encouraged action amongst this group included:


Reassurance through case studies of other similar properties that have had measures fitted. Higher grant funding support. Funding to rectify technical/repair issues, such as existing dampness problems in walls prior to

installation of measures.

5.3 Stakeholder feedbackSemi-structured interviews were carried out with stakeholders in the initiative including contractors, participating local authorities and the ESSacs.

The stakeholders interviewed were:

South East and Highlands and Islands ESSacs. Orkney Islands Council staff from the housing capital programme and strategy, building control

and energy unit teams. Fife Council staff from the building and works, technical services and housing strategy teams. Contractors:

o Alfred Flett Ltd (Orkney)o WRC Ltd (Orkney)o AJ Mathers Ltd (Orkney)o R Clouston Ltd (Orkney)o Westray Development Trust (Orkney)o Ailsa Building Contractors (Fife)o Everwarm Services Ltd (Fife)o BCA Group (Fife)

The feedback from stakeholder interviews focussed on two main themes:

Customer engagement: how they felt the promotion of the offer worked, their experience of the delivery of the offer including the home advice visits and their views of householders’ appetite for the offer.

Level of uptake; issues that they felt limited uptake and ways that future offers could be improved.

Customer engagementAll stakeholders across Fife and Orkney felt that the promotion was handled well. The local authority in Fife felt that efforts had been made during the open day and other events to ensure that a wide range of advisors from manufacturers, installers and the council were on hand to discuss options with households. An event held in North Fife was held in conjunction with a promotion of support for renewables installation and the advice centre and council felt that this combination had worked well in terms of getting a good turnout and engaging residents. Whilst another event held in the CESP area didn’t have as large a turnout as hoped due to bad weather, some key community representatives did


attend and this helped to spread information on the solid wall offer amongst the community following the event.

Fife Council representatives commented that at the start there was no clear customer journey, including set timescales for survey after the initial signposting to the participating contractors. This was a result of the challenges in setting up a contractor framework for the Fife part of the initiative and the fact that householders were able to receive quotes from more than one contractor. Uncertainty over contacts with contractors may have contributed to some households dropping out along the way.

Stakeholders on Orkney felt that the package of funding and the comprehensive promotion of the initiative encouraged households to engage with the pilot.

Both local authorities felt that the home advice visits were useful in promoting solid wall measures and helping households decide whether or not to proceed. They also thought it helped to have locally based advisors doing home visits. The local authority in Orkney felt that, as there were a number of different scenarios with different costs, this made it slightly more difficult to communicate to householders how much internal and external wall insulation might cost them and the level of grant funding available. However, once the offer had been explained to householders via advice visits and reports, the local authorities felt that households had a good understanding of what was on offer.

The contractors commented that the advice visits had been useful in informing households about the offer. However, they felt that most households were interested in finding out about the cost of measures but were ultimately unwilling to put up with disruption or were scared off by the cost or level of debt which would be taken on. This was particularly the case in the Fife wards and for Orkney-wide phases where households tended to qualify for standard CERT funding rates as opposed to others in the pilot who could receive higher level CESP or CERT priority group flexibility funding.

The contractors felt that householders contacted through the pilot were more concerned about the cost of installations than their usual customers. This is possibly because solid wall insulation is something that their normal customers have thought about and researched more than customers from the pilot. Contractors felt in some cases that the pilot participants were requesting surveys out of interest and to back up the general information provided in the advice report rather than because they were seriously considering solid wall insulation.

The remoteness and accessibility of properties was an issue for larger contractors, particularly in the area-wide promotions. Contractors indicated that more geographically focused promotions and greater clustering of leads would have been preferable for them.

Increasing uptakeStakeholders mentioned a number of issues that may have had an impact on the uptake of the offer:

Costs Property type Capacity of contractors


Costs

Stakeholders stated that the cost to householders of installing measures had a major impact on whether they proceeded with measures despite the availability of interest-free loans. Value for money in terms or payback and sometimes cost of works relative to neighbouring properties was also an important consideration for householders.

Stakeholders stated that any measures to help bring down installation costs would boost uptake. Orkney Islands Council felt that if high levels of grant support through UHIS and CERT priority group flexibility funding hadn’t existed, it would have been very difficult to have attained the level of installations that were delivered. The Council thought that this was reflected in the low response rates to the Orkney-wide promotion where was a lot of work involved to get a relatively small number of installations in this group and they felt that this was partly due to generally lower grant funding levels available.

Stakeholders noted that questions of value for money came in a number of guises. Householders were interested in the pay-back period for their investment and whether fuel bill savings would repay investment, particularly where levels of grant funding were relatively low compared to the overall cost. Contractors and advisors reported that in the Oakley CESP area in Fife the cost of insulating end terraced houses was more than for mid-terraces and this was seen as unfair by some end terrace householders, even though they could potentially see larger savings.

In Oakley, repair and design issues came to light during the survey and installation process which affected the cost of installations. The resulting uncertainty in the installation price may have dissuaded some householders from progressing with the installation and this is likely to be a factor affecting uptake during solid wall insulation programmes, when potential issues identified at survey may mean that contractors are not necessarily able to definitively state installation costs at the outset.

The contractors anticipated that many of the properties served through the pilot would be difficult to fund within the Green Deal “Golden Rule”, due to the fact that they required more expensive insulation systems and ancillary works thus requiring higher client contributions.

The local authorities felt there did seem to be an appetite for the loans but that this was dependent on individual circumstances. A household’s location might impact on their attitudes towards taking loans; those in lower income areas may be less willing to take on debt, particularly higher levels of debt and of the five loans provided in CESP areas none exceeded £5,500, despite some of these households having to pay client contributions greater than the value of the loan. Those in more affluent areas may be more comfortable with taking out larger loans. In addition, elderly householders often didn’t want to take out a loan even if it is interest-free, as this would complicate inheritance arrangements. Some elderly households with savings in the bank felt that financing the measures themselves from these saving would give a better rate of return from their investment than keeping money tied up in low interest savings accounts.


Property type

Stakeholders stated that property type and the impact this has on the difficulty and hence cost of insulating properties would affect uptake of solid wall measures. The delivery of measures in older stone built properties is expensive. In Fife, the presence of conservation areas and listed buildings limited options for carrying out solid wall insulation and in particular external wall insulation, as a result of planning considerations and householder attitudes to altering the appearance of their properties, appearance was less of an issue for Orkney properties. The pilot thus identified a potential tension for future solid wall insulation programmes, in that areas with older and hard to treat stone-built properties of high value, which are probably suitable for solid wall insulation and whose owners are likely to be able to afford it, are also more likely to be covered by regulatory restrictions which will limit the potential for solid wall insulation.

Another factor affecting uptake was the type of external wall insulation system required to insulate a property and whether this was a cheaper standard system or a more expensive structurally supporting system. In the Fife CESP areas, there had been strengthening work carried out to the council’s steel frame properties a number of years before. Those properties purchased under the right to buy before the strengthening was carried out had to pay almost twice that of those that had been strengthened, due to the need for higher-cost structurally supporting systems. This dissuaded a number of households in these properties from proceeding with works.

Another reported issue with property type concerned instances where customers had extensions or there were issues with access (including the presence of outbuildings). This added to the cost of measures and in some cases made it nearly impossible to insulate particular elevations of properties.

The starting U- value of particular wall types had an impact on grant funding, properties with lower initial U-values will achieve lower fuel carbon savings and consequently attract lower levels of CERT and CESP grant funding. If there had been some flexibility in the qualifying U-values applied under CERT rules for insulating solid walls in older buildings, i.e. designating all stone built properties as having U-values of 2.1, this might have boosted grant funding and therefore uptake. Going forward, this may be an issue for some solid wall types under the Energy Company Obligation and Green Deal, where grant funding will be proportionate to assessed lifetime carbon dioxide savings.

Capacity of contractors

Stakeholders agreed that contractor capacity was an issue in Orkney and to an extent in Fife.

In Orkney, island-based contractors had limited capacity to deliver external wall measures, and contractors that undertook internal insulation often preferred to use insulation systems that were not certified and fundable under CERT. EST wanted to set up a full, formal contractor framework for external wall insulation on Orkney but there were only two contractors on the island willing to participate


and one off-island contractor (in the event the latter only received one request for a quote showing the preference of potential customers to use locally based installers). Due to the level of demand, the availability of labour and the limited capacity of these contractors, it was difficult to get the leads in Orkney surveyed, quoted and installed in a suitable timeframe, although all those that wanted measures did eventually receive them. Stakeholders felt that there would have to be attention to building the capacity of local installers to deliver measures through the Energy Company Obligation (ECO) and Green Deal in Orkney, particularly as islanders appeared to have a preference for island based contractors and local installers would have to invest to participate in the scheme. This may be an issue for other islands and remote areas.

Fife Council stated that they were easily able to identify contractors for their CESP areas through their procurement process and that the appointed contractor had sufficient capacity and proper management systems for delivering large scale programmes based in social housing areas. They were also able to give good information on installation costs for owners as a result of their experience and knowledge of house types targeted in the areas. However, in North Fife wards the council thought that the contractors had difficulties servicing enquiries due to the varied house types and sometimes remote locations. The local authority and ESSac reported that if the contractors felt that it was too difficult to install solid wall insulation, due to location and difficulties with the house type or repair, they would inform the householder that the works were not possible or indicate a high price for works to discourage further interest. In some cases contractors required a degree of chasing by householders and EST before quotes were provided. Installers in Fife stated that they felt that householders often asked for quotes for their general information even when they were not committed to the significant financial outlay required for the measures; this was in contrast to their usual client group.

Stakeholders, including installers that participated in the Fife pilot, generally agreed that, because the larger contractors are set up to do installations in one tight geographical area, one-off installations over wide areas, which are more expensive to carry out, are less attractive to them. The ESSac felt that in Fife it would have helped to have had frameworks with a few smaller contractors who would have found scattered jobs more attractive.

Stakeholders agreed that in order to work under ECO and Green Deal, many smaller internal wall contractors would have to scale up their operations. All of the external wall contractors that took part in the pilot were planning to participate in the Green Deal or ECO although for smaller internal wall insulation contractors on Orkney there was uncertainty on whether the scale of demand arising from the Green Deal and ECO on the island would justify the additional investment needed to scale up their capacity.

Stakeholders also provided feedback on areas where action could increase uptake of solid wall insulation in future projects:

Getting the customer journey right is important. Stakeholders agreed that the free impartial advice and the home visits together with the backing of the local authority were all good and useful parts of the customer journey. The ESSacs stated that improving the customer journey after referral, including communicating fixed timescales for survey and quotations and making the


cost as transparent as possible, was important. However, contractors felt that this improvement would not be possible, particularly where householders were offered quotes from more than one contractor and work involved dispersed properties.

Provide full information to householders. Stakeholders agreed that the face to face advice provided through the pilot helped to ensure that customers were fully aware of the solid wall pilot offer and installation process. Contractors agreed that it is best to get as much information as possible to customers prior to the survey so that they go into it with their eyes open and have an idea of costs, what materials can be used and the level of disruption they may expect; leads would then be more likely to convert to installations. Fife Council reported that it had been useful to have a demonstration home in its Oakley CESP area to show people what solid wall insulation looked like and to indicate what disruption there was likely to be. The advice on installation cost and cost-benefits was of the most interest to households and therefore the most useful element of the advice delivered by the advisors. Advice from building control sections and contractors was also of use to those that had gone ahead with installations.

The support provided on the island of Westray by an existing energy efficiency community initiative on the island may have stimulated the relatively high rate of uptake of measures on the island. Some households that had participated in the Fife wards promotion had also engaged with earlier promotions of renewables in the area. The ESSacs stated that this indicated the benefit of targeting measures where there are identified communities with an interest in receiving them.

Assisting with design and build work. Stakeholders also felt that signing off external wall system designs by structural engineers in more problematic solid wall types and funding support for the cost of building warrants would help encourage more solid wall insulation. Planning timescales can affect delivery of programmes and so improving the process for determining planning applications, where these are required, could help increase numbers of installations. There was no real interest from householders that participated in the pilot in receiving clerk of works support during installation. This sort of function tended to be covered by the building warrant process as well as industry practice associated with compliance, with manufacturers requiring monitoring of installation works using their products.


6. Conclusions

The overall conclusions from this pilot are:

That levels of interest in solid wall insulation amongst the general population are quite low, even in areas carefully selected as most suitable and containing those most likely to install this measure.

Most of those interested nevertheless drop out even during a very highly supported customer journey; mostly because of costs (see below).

Even though the high cost of solid wall insulation is an obvious barrier to its take-up, loans as a mechanism for overcoming this do not seem to have strong traction being taken up by only a minority of those installing measures. Households are reluctant to take on debt even with the prospect of significant savings on fuel bills and prefer to spend their own money or ideally receive grant rather than loan support.

The pilot produced some important insights into some of the issues that will confront any attempts at large scale solid wall insulation programmes under the ECO or the Green Deal. Experience from the pilot indicates that installer capacity is likely to be a problem particularly in remote and rural areas and also provided some understanding on the motivators and barriers to householders installing solid wall insulation, as set out below:

Home advice visits serve as a useful way of engaging with householders and informing them of the benefits of solid wall insulation and does stimulate uptake. Satisfaction with advice and information provided was very high and 85% of householders participating in the pilot stated that the EST advice and contractor support was important or very important in securing their participation. Satisfaction was high among householders that had received a visit and stakeholders all agreed that this was useful in securing the interest of households and aiding the customer journey. However, where households then received a contractor survey visit, some contractors felt that many householders were getting a quote out of interest rather than because they intended to actually install the measure. Householders were less satisfied by the advice given by contractors than the advice given by the EST, although this may reflect the more technical nature of the contractor visit and the identification of specific issues impacting on the complexity of works.

Support from contractors, local authority building control staff and other council sections in organising planning and building warrant applications and in sorting any post-installation remedial issues is important in securing participation of property owners. However, householders outside the CESP areas did not take up offers of direct clerk of works support during the install process. This was due to the availability of other local authority support, existing industry monitoring arrangements and the additional input required of householders to co-operate in organising clerk of works visits from the local authority. Support from the EST in carrying out expensive structural engineering surveys for problematic house types in the Fife CESP areas was vital for ensuring that installations were carried out in these areas.

Larger contractors participating in the pilot indicated a preference for working on larger cost-effective projects focused on tight geographical areas. However, smaller local


contractors in both Orkney and Fife tended to undertake more widely distributed one-off installations. Going forward, this may indicate a tendency for the bulk of the insulation industry to focus on larger scale projects, possibly based on present and former social housing, rather than serving the market for one-off installations. However, smaller installers may tend to focus on this niche of the market, if they can access ECO and other grant funding. Most of the external wall installers participating in the pilot intended to participate in the Green Deal, although many of the smaller internal wall installers were small builders and were waiting to see how the market developed before scaling up to participate.

There is less householder resistance to internal wall insulation than might be expected. The majority of households that received measures through the pilot received internal wall insulation (42 internal compared to 26 external and one mixed). The majority of those that received internal wall insulation were on lower incomes and received the measure free or at low cost. However, a significant proportion, mostly those on Westray and in the area-wide promotions, were on higher incomes and paid contributions. This indicates that with the right package and targeting, significant numbers of households are willing to put up with the additional disruption involved in installing internal wall insulation even if they have to pay some of the costs themselves. Interest in internal insulation may be partly due to the lower cost of the measure relative to external wall insulation and the impact of external wall insulation on the appearance of buildings. This is suggested by the fact that impact on appearance of external wall insulation was a significant factor in some pilot participants not proceeding with measures.

Cost matters and availability of grant has a significant impact on whether households proceeded with installations. 64% of those dropping out before having a contractor survey and 43% of those dropping out following the survey did so because of the cost of measures. Two-thirds of those that had measures installed and were eligible for CERT or CESP grant funding said that they would not have gone ahead with the installation without grants or discounts. Householders were often reluctant to take out loans either because of the amounts involved or, for the elderly, perceived difficulties with inheritance in the event of their death.

The level of ECO and other grant funding will be important factors in uptake of solid wall insulation. The levels of grant funding provided through the pilot varied depending on location, which measure was being installed and personal circumstances. Around two thirds of households that installed solid wall insulation measures paid nothing or less than £1,000 for solid wall insulation (mostly those on Orkney receiving UHIS-supported internal wall insulation and CERT priority group flexibility funding for external wall insulation). These areas were off-gas and would probably now attract high levels of ECO funding consistent with the funding that was available through the pilot. Many pilot participants in other phases paid contributions of between £1,000 and £5,000, a level more consistent with what might be expected through the Green Deal. These were mostly those that received external wall insulation in the Fife CESP areas and those that received internal wall insulation on Westray. Significant numbers of of households did not proceed with measures when required to pay higher contributions in excess of £5,000. This suggests that bringing cost to the householder below £5000 is likely to boost uptake and this may require very significant subsidy through ECO and other grants, particularly for some of the more challenging house construction types and those with repair issues.

It is important that loans are interest-free. Where householders did take up the loan offer, three-quarters said they would not have taken out the loan if it had not been interest free.


Focusing on smaller areas with a specific offer and community involvement produces better results. The rate of uptake through the pilot was markedly higher in phases covering tightly focused communities such as Westray and Oakley, where community activists and community networks could play a part in endorsing and promoting the scheme.

There is a potential tension for future solid wall insulation programmes between regulatory and carbon saving policies, in that areas with older and hard to treat stone-built properties of high value, which are probably suitable for solid wall insulation and whose owners are likely to be able to afford it, are also more likely to be covered by regulatory restrictions which will limit the potential for solid wall insulation.


Documents

Document template - Energy Saving Trust Recommended · Web viewBCA Group (Fife) The feedback from stakeholder interviews focussed on two main themes: Customer engagement: how they