Can we really put retrofit first in social housing supply?

Should retrofit over redevelopment be the default approach for social housing? Given both the climate crisis and the need to improve and increase social housing, the case for estate retrofit over demolition and newbuild seems compelling. But what can be done to overcome the many technical and financial barriers to estate renewal? 
Industry experts tackled this pressing subject at a panel discussion at the Building Centre, organised by ECD Architects, ASH (Architects for Social Housing) and AAB Architects in tandem with the Retrofitting Social Housing: Alternatives to Demolition exhibition (now closed). 

With pertinent timing, the event took place in the same week that the government announced both a new wave of the Warm Homes: Social Housing Fund (formerly the Social Housing Decarbonisation Fund), and a consultation on energy efficiency standards for the social rented sector. With funding over three-plus years, this would give much needed long-term certainty for social housing providers, said Guy Woodroffe, the fund’s head of policy, who talked of a ‘shifting focus’ precipitated by the change of government and a commitment to significant scale-up of social housing activity – whether retrofit or new, additional homes: ‘It’s not either or, it’s both’.

Notwithstanding this potentially positive backdrop, no-one was underestimating the many complex challenges to making this happen. There was broad consensus of the benefits of a retrofit approach over newbuild, except in cases where buildings were structurally unsafe or there was zero housing need. Advantages ranged from cost, carbon and community benefits, including the need to avoid the loss of social housing so often precipitated by redevelopment.

Anne Power, professor of social policy at the London School of Economics, said there was ‘almost never’ a justification for demolition, and talked about the ‘blight’ and ‘excruciating agony’ of the redevelopment process on residents. The community impact was also raised by Jack Ostrofsky, Retrofit London programme director at London Councils, who mentioned that while architects were sometimes ‘very enthused’ about the ‘place-making’ potential of redevelopment, residents might well feel it already was their place. 

Portsmouth City Council’s head of building maintenance, Steve Groves, explained the strategy behind the decision to carry out an EnerPHit deep retrofit of the 11-storey Wilmcote House instead of the initially-considered demolition, which was explored in detail in the accompanying exhibition. Completed in 2018 by ECD Architects, this large panel system (LPS) block had multiple problems including inadequate heating and damp and mould in most properties, but residents didn’t want to move. Despite its complexity, retrofit came in at £166,000 per unit compared with £485,000 for newbuild, after associated costs such as demolition, loss of rent and homes loss payments were factored in. 

However since the start of that project, rent caps, and the impact of increased focus on building safety following Grenfell, means that, said Groves, ‘we’re in a completely different environment financially to what we were in 2012’.

Allan Dunsmore, director of engineer Conisbee, made the case for the embodied carbon-saving benefits of retrofit, pointing out that while the embodied carbon of building materials traditionally accounted for one third of a building’s carbon, this was now nearer half following recent reductions in operational emissions. Therefore by re-using existing buildings, or at the very least the structure, the savings ‘can be massive’. 

Asked about the technical barriers to retrofit, especially for LPS blocks rather than ‘more robust’ in-situ structures, he said that while a lot of upfront investigation was required, engineers could usually find a way to enable their safe retrofit.

On the question of whether estate retrofits are chasing the right energy targets, Woodroffe talked about the forthcoming consultation on energy efficiency standards and the possibility of EPC targets for social housing on the horizon. 

‘The simpler and the more understandable we can make it, the better,’ he said, advocating a ‘no regrets’ approach to ensure that whatever is being done today is going to be fit for the future.

London Councils’ Ostrofsky talked about the need to identify the right pathways to net zero for a variety of different building types via ‘an innovative, data-driven approach’.

Innovation in everything, from financing to design, management and tenant liaison, is needed, according to Woodroffe, to enable retrofit to be done at pace and scale. ‘It’s not just about materials and the heating system, but how you deliver it on the ground, how you engage with tenants, how you finance things... a whole suite of things that are needed to really scale this up,’ he said.

Panellists had plenty of ideas for how the new government could help drive retrofit over newbuild.

‘Part Z please,’ said Dunsmore of the proposed amendment to Building Regulations that would mandate whole-life carbon emissions. ‘If we could regulate embodied carbon, it would make everyone think about retrofit over demolition,’ he said.

Power suggested there should be requirements for the replacement of any social housing that is demolished on a one-for-one basis, and for any newbuild to have a social housing element of at least 20% as a driver for retrofit. She also advocated the need for those doing retrofits to ‘bite the bullet’ and aim high in terms of carbon reduction, rather than just doing the minimum.

But it was the need for greater long-term certainty on funding that came up again and again, rather than a lack of will to do retrofit.

‘I do see local authorities and social providers struggling on their knees in terms of funding, said Portsmouth City Council’s Groves. ‘I think there needs to be a whole different look at how we are going to do this…  all we’re feeling at the moment is more regulations and no more money, and that’s a big issue for us.’

This was reinforced by London Councils’ Ostrofsky, who talked about an ‘arterial bleed’ in terms of social housing provision. ‘Rents have been capped but costs have sky-rocketed and we can’t deliver.’  

Panellists

Chair: Loreana Padron associate director/regional head of sustainability ECD Architects
Allan Dunsmore director, Conisbee
Steve Groves head of building maintenance, Portsmouth City Council
Jack Ostrofsky Retrofit London programme director, London Councils
Anne Power professor of social policy, London School of Economics
Guy Woodroffe head of policy social housing for the Social Housing Decarbonisation Fund, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero