Dave, Development team - Wherry Housing Association (WHA)

When I met Dave, a senior figure in the Development team of Wherry Housing Association (WHA), the developer of Trinity Close, he showed me into the boardroom and proudly explained how WHA was considered as a “fairly significant local player” in the housing market of Broadland district. Owning thirty properties in Rackheath, partly due to inherited Local Authority housing stock, he explained that this meant “… [WHA] has an interest in [the] community…because we sometimes own ten, twenty, or thirty percent of properties. [Our role is] not just providing properties, it’s about providing services for our tenants and to a degree for the wider community…”. Dave clearly felt responsibility for providing affordable properties of quality for WHA tenants and for enhancing community amenities.

Dave described how his remit spanned the entire development process. This included;

identifying potential social housing development sites, appointing architects and obtaining planning permission, facilitating the tendering process, appointing a housing contractor and overseeing housing construction. It extended through taking possession

to oversee the tenant rental process. As such, Dave considered that he had an enviable position that gave him control throughout the project; “I’m lucky in that I tend to see [the development process] from cradle to grave… You have to take responsibility, you can’t blame something on it happening before you got involved…”.

When we began to discuss WHA’s reasons for involvement with the Trinity Close scheme, Dave described how housing associations, as part publicly funded bodies, are uniquely positioned as forerunners in the uptake of national housing performance standards. He described how, “Governments tend to use housing associations as a sort of tester of new technology… Historically it’s been stuff like…using modern methods of construction… It’s [the same for] the Code as well…[Housing Association properties] have to achieve Code three under Part L [of the Building Regulations]” ⁸. With some frustration, he explained how, when the Code was first introduced, it was “not mandatory for private house builders”. Consequently, Dave described how when BDC first approached WHA with the proposal to upgrade from the initial approved plan for a CSH level three affordable housing development to be built at Trinity Close, to developing twelve CSH level six units, he felt some trepidation as to the project’s value given the extra investment that it would involve (P24). In addition, the development had to work within constraints presented by the physical site, which was not connected to mains gas supply. Despite this, WHA recognised the potential merits of involvement in the scheme. As Dave explained, there is a national shortage in social housing properties,

“We don’t build enough social housing, so the more we build, the better”. Dave was also keen for Trinity Close to inform WHA’s future housing strategy; “looking at these schemes obviously helps us… work out what we want to do in terms of going forward”.

Dave described how the principal aspiration for the exemplar scheme was to gain accreditation to CSH level six, and how whilst there was some manoeuvrability in how the technical Code requirements could be met, WHA felt very much “…

bound by the Code… Certainly meeting Code [level six] was… the main driving force in this development”. Influenced by previous retrofit experiences, Dave was sceptical of what he felt to be the prescriptive nature of CSH and frustrated by having to pursue a standardised vision of low-energy housing and definition of carbon neutrality. He described how “We’ve been pushed down the Code route as a way of

⁸ The energy efficiency requirements of the UK Building Regulations are set out in Part L of Schedule 1 to the

defining sustainability… because that’s… the way the Government is going and certainly the way the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) is going”. At the same time, he questioned the feasibility of obtaining accreditation to Code level six, suggesting,

“you have this magical idea of creating homes which are carbon free, carbon neutral”.

Exacerbating this conflict, Dave explained how BDC had specified a particular design brief that aimed “to produce a Code six scheme in a suburban village environment which involved fairly traditional construction and layout”. He explained how this approach was intended to provide a locally acceptable aesthetic and enable learning from the ‘one-off experiment’ that could be applied by mainstream industry;

“[The Council] wanted [Trinity Close] to be suburban village housing rather than sort of mounds of earth buried in the ground with people living in them and having a very large glass frontage… they’re fantastic, but they don’t necessarily fit into commercial mass-scale housing”.

Whilst WHA had previously been involved with a CSH level five development, Trinity Close provided Dave’s first opportunity to manage a carbon-neutral housing scheme.

As such, given a deficiency of in-house technical expertise, WHA worked closely with DJH and relied on external advisers to determine the build specification. Dave described this process as fluid, whilst ultimately dictated by Code requirements; “We’d never done a Code six, and the contractor had never done a Code six, we were both, to be honest, learning… It was a case of saying ‘we’ve looked at the options… and actually the best combination to achieve Code six, to get those credits, [is] to select this [technical specification]”.

Whilst contemplating various technological options, WHA’s options were ultimately restricted to a particular technical route. As Dave explained, “[o]bviously

super-insulation, so the fabric-first approach is there, and that gets you to Code four. But to then get [Trinity Close] to a Code five or six, you’re looking at photo-voltaic panels and grey-water recycling”. In addition to meeting Code requirements, Dave described how WHA were also faced with the challenge of ensuring cost-effective long-term maintenance and repair of the development; “After year two, if it’s a private house, the developer walks away, he says ‘I’m done’. But for… housing associations, you have to maintain those properties for 20, 40, 60 years… For us the dream development is one that has no maintenance costs.”

As such, he intimated how even prior to Trinity Close being commissioned, WHA

“Renewable add-ons have a shelf-life of 15, 20 years and then they have to be replaced. Concentrating on… the u-values of the building [gives] a 90 year life of the property… So for us, you know, renewable add-ons were needed in this case to get to Code six, but… our preference is to focus on a ‘fabric-first’ approach to new build as a way of creating sustainable housing for the future”.

A further requirement, stipulated by the funder DCLG, was that real-time building electricity performance monitoring should occur to measure electricity generation and consumption, appraise technological performance, and take forward learning to future builds. Dave stated that; “quite rightly you don’t just build a Code six and walk away. The idea was to monitor [technical performance] and…[householders’] use [of the properties] to get results… Hopefully we’ll learn… about how we [can] build sustainable housing in the future”.

Whilst Dave was adamant that the project “was about creating a Code six carbon neutral [housing development], it wasn’t about giving people free or cheap electricity”, he was aware that some tenants experienced fuel poverty⁹ in their previous homes and he did not want this to continue at Trinity Close. Indeed he explained how WHA was keen for tenants to save on their electricity bills where possible. This meant objectively appraising the low-energy technologies proposed by the housing contractor DJH;

“Some of the renewable technology [wouldn’t] benefit tenants…as much as we’d like or where it would actually matter to residents, which is in their pockets”. Dave also wanted to ensure that potentially vulnerable tenants were not overwhelmed by the technologies installed in their homes. He stated, “what’s good for tenants…obviously not all low carbon technologies are… their principle aim is not always to [work at a] cheaper cost…[and] some low-energy technologies are extremely complicated to use”. To this end, Dave felt there was a case for not actively involving residents in the running of their low-energy homes and designing properties so that householders’ everyday lives proceeded in a familiar and non-disruptive manner; “It was also about designing [the scheme] in a way that had least impact on residents… trying to make [the design] fairly simple and [providing] a fairly traditional looking system”. As such, he downplayed the technical specification of the scheme, suggesting, “The technology in there isn’t particularly mind-blowing is it? It’s maybe slightly quirky having to deal with the thermostats and the under-floor heating, but it’s not particularly… innovative”.

⁹ Fuel poverty: Being unable to afford to adequate heating. A household is fuel poor if a) income is below the poverty

Dave described how residents were provided with an induction to their new homes in accordance with the discrete nature of the low-energy technologies (for example, residents were told that the mechanical ventilation and heat recovery (MVHR) system would operate automatically, but could be manually boosted using a pull switch in the bathroom and kitchen). He explained that WHA situated themselves as a trusted external advisor acting at distance, rather than a micro-manager of every households’

daily energy budget, “[w]e’re not Big Brother, we don’t tell people how to live their lives.

As social landlords we provide people with a home and they can live in it and consume it as they wish really”. This position manifested itself in the brief question and answer session provided by the TCSG for prospective residents prior to handover. Similarly, upon moving-in, key advice was provided to the tenants in relation to any demanding aspects of the house. As Dave explained, “[w]e left sheets with people, explaining how to use [the thermostatic controls of the heating system], but we don’t want to interfere in peoples’

lives too much…”.

Ultimately, the adopted tenant engagement approach was attentive to the needs of particular householders, “It’s a case of see how it goes for that individual in that property…

If it’s too hot, yes open windows”. Whilst adopting a fairly hands-off management approach, WHA provided energy-efficiency advice to householders upon their moving in, which was followed up by an introduction to the IHD monitor delivered by

Adapt. In addition, WHA encouraged residents to shift the timings of their demand for energy services to capitalise on ‘free’ solar generated electricity. As explained by a WHA neighbourhood officer, “When I was in the properties with Dave, he was advising people that if it’s a nice sunny day, you’re making lots of electricity… You can’t do everything at once, but you would be able to run your washing machine and when that was finished, use your cooker, to make best use of [the generated electricity]” (PR.12).

Dave described how he anticipated residents would differ in their willingness to engage with the low-energy credentials of their new properties and to use the installed technologies as intended, restating how the main hook for tenant involvement would be reducing their fuel bills. He explained how Adapt was commissioned by BDC to use the electricity monitoring data to feedback to residents after the first twelve months of tenancy; “[t]he point is really that we can, hopefully [by providing feedback], help some people to reduce their electricity consumption because they want to save money”. Summing up, the interview concluded with Dave describing what he considered success at Trinity

production as well as the energy consumption targets over a three year period… But really success is if people want to live there, and enjoy living there, and [there is] a stable community”.

As a senior figure in WHA, working in accordance with original planning consent for a CSH level three development, Dave had to balance BDC’s aspirations for a traditional-looking low-energy housing scheme against national targets for developing more

affordable homes, and the physical and infrastructural constraints of the site. In managing the development he also had to weigh up issues of quality, cost, longevity and tenant comfort. As WHA’s first CSH level six scheme Dave saw the initiative as a potential learning opportunity, for which partnership working and building electricity performance monitoring were essential. From an early stage of the build process however, Dave was sceptical with the prescriptive nature of the CSH and questioned the feasibility of meeting carbon neutrality stipulations without disrupting tenants’ everyday lives.