1

2

3

Acknowledgements

NEA gratefully acknowledges the support of Riverside Housing, Starfish Group and SIG in

delivering this evaluation, with special thanks to Emily Hoyle, Julie Riseborough, Laura

Bostock, Dr Jon Kirby and Martin Gerelli. Particular thanks are also extended to E.ON for

funding this evaluation.

NEA would like to extend the warmest of thanks to those who took part in the study, by

attending discussion groups and inviting us into their homes and by providing valuable

insight into their individual experiences.

Prepared by National Energy Action for E.ON July 2013 Authors: Joanna Allan, Michael Hamer, Deborah Harrison, David Lynch, Peter Smith NEA Level 6 (Elswick) West One Forth Banks Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 3PA www.nea.org.uk

4

5

Table of Contents

Page

Executive Summary

1 Introduction 10

2 Research methods 19

3 Case study site 22

4 Research findings 25

5 Discussions and recommendations 65

Appendices 75

6

7

Executive Summary

This report sets out findings from an evaluation of the North Bransholme Community Energy

Saving Programme (CESP), funded by E.ON and carried out by national fuel poverty charity

National Energy Action (NEA) over twelve months from July 2012 to July 2013.

Our research highlighted some very positive experiences and positive household outcomes,

including reduced bills and improved comfort, increased room use, and improved health,

particularly where warm air systems removed. This research also highlighted the potential

for community-level benefits; with strong evidence of improved community cohesion and

pride where the scheme was perceived to have worked well.

In relation to delivery of this programme, this report identifies a vast number of operational

challenges faced by those delivering energy efficiency schemes to vulnerable groups. It also

provides insight into the perceptions and experiences of residents before, during and after

delivery of the scheme. NEAs research team identified persistent quality assurance issues,

particularly around cladding and ‘finishing off’ works; and some key issues around

communication/co-ordination between households and the different stakeholders involved in

installation. Where possible and with the consent of householders, NEA worked with project

partners to resolve these issues.

Providing residents with long term reassurance was paramount to maximising take up of

measures. Residents placed high value on the long-term aspects of the programme,

aftercare, future home improvement guarantees etc. These aspects should not be

overlooked in the delivery of future schemes as they have proven to be potential ‘deal-

breakers’.

Householders could have benefited from increased follow-up to ensure they could fully

realise benefits of the measures installed. This was particularly the case where new heating

systems were installed. Increased guidance and follow-up with regards to controlling their

new heating systems would have instilled longer term benefits.

8

Background and Research Aims

Fuel poverty, whereby a household is required to spend more than 10% of its income

to meet its energy needs including sufficient warmth, is fast becoming a major public

health issue in the UK. Over the last 30 years Government energy policy has

attempted to address fuel poverty through a range of interventions, including the

Warm Front scheme, the Priority Group and Super Priority Group elements of the

Carbon Emissions Reduction Target (CERT) and the Community Energy Saving

Programme (CESP).1 The latter of these, CESP, which adopted a community-level

approach to energy efficiency improvement, is the focus of this report.

The broad aims of the evaluation study were to:

Explore household satisfaction and experience related to the CESP installation

process.

Undertake formal monitoring and evaluation of the individual, household and wider

impacts of having CESP measures installed.

1 Warm Homes for Older People: A resource for Age Action Alliance members, 2012, National Energy Action (NEA): Newcastle

UK.

9

Research Methods

In order to effectively address the study aims, a three-stage approach was undertaken which

included:

1. Initial community discussion groups

2. In-home monitoring and household interviews

3. Community discussion & reflection

This final report presents findings from across the three stages of evaluation.

Key Emerging Findings

Recommendations

Increased communication between providers and householders prior to the work

being carried out.

Transparency, with regards to the exact terms of the CESP programme, including

accurate details of measures available and eligibility criteria.

A single point of contact for householders – A designated household engagement

worker(s) is/are invaluable is aiding the delivery of large scale energy efficiency

programmes.

Continued waves of marketing – continued marketing of the programme encourages

those who have opted out in the early stages to re consider their circumstance.

Additional support / signposting for vulnerable, low income households who aren’t

eligible for CESP measures could have been directed to other forms of assistance.

NEA plugged this gap in provision.

A need for accompanying advice and follow-up support – particularly where new

heating systems had been installed. Residents needed more support to fully realise

the benefits of their new heating systems and domestic heating regimes.

10

1. Introduction

1.1 The Extent and Consequences of Fuel Poverty

1.1.1 Defining fuel poverty

In July 2013, the definition of fuel poverty was redefined based on an independent

review by Prof John Hills. This definition will now be used by Government as the

primary method for defining fuel poverty in England. This new approach consists of

two parts; the number of households that have both low incomes and high fuel costs

and the depth of fuel poverty amongst these households. Whilst NEA has significant

reservations about the threshold that will be used to determine whether a

householder is considered to have high or reasonable energy costs, the second

measure may prove more useful.

The ‘fuel poverty gap’, which represents the difference between the modelled fuel

bill for each household, and the reasonable cost threshold for the household can be

summed up for all households that have both low income and high costs to give an

aggregate fuel poverty gap. Whilst the overall headcount of fuel poverty is unlikely

to be largely affected by changes in energy prices, the aggregate and individual

fuel poverty gap does increase and largely captures the impact of increasing

energy prices. For example, updated figures released by DECC2 in August 2013

illustrate that the aggregate and average fuel poverty gap is projected to increase

in 2012 and 2013. The aggregate gap is projected to increase from £1 billion in

2011, to £1.2 billion in 2013, and the average gap is projected to increase from

£438 in 2011 to £494 in 2013.

Other headline results include the following previously unknown information:

Households living in dwellings with a SAP rating of E or below are much more

likely to be fuel poor than those in better SAP rated dwellings, and have higher

fuel poverty gaps.

2https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/199833/Fuel_Poverty_Report_2013_FINALv2.pdf

11

1.5 million of the c.2.3m fuel poor households in England live in E, F or G-rated

properties and are responsible for over 75% of the aggregated fuel gap. There are

over 1m households in band E alone.

Only 7 per cent of households with a condensing boiler are fuel poor, making

them less likely to be fuel poor than households with other types, particularly back

boilers. Fuel poor households that heat their properties with oil, solid fuel, LPG or

electricity typically have individual fuel poverty gaps double the average, typically

over £1000.

Households with other non-cavity wall types (usually solid) are much more likely

to be fuel poor than those with insulated cavity walls, and have much higher

average fuel poverty gaps.

Lone parents are the group most likely to be fuel poor, with nearly one in five

being so in 2011. However, they tend to have smaller fuel poverty gaps, on

average, than most other household types.

Households where the youngest person in the household was under 24 are much

more likely to be fuel poor than those containing only older people.

Households containing larger numbers of people (5 or more) tend to both be more

likely to be fuel poor, and be more deeply in fuel poverty (with larger fuel poverty

gaps).

Unemployed households only make up 11% of fuel poor households but tend to

be much more likely to be fuel poor (nearly a third are) than those containing

working people, but have smaller average fuel poverty gaps.

Households paying for their electricity or gas by pre-payment meter are more

likely to be fuel poor than those paying by other methods, with direct debit

customers being least likely to be fuel poor.

Households in the West Midlands and East Midlands are most likely to be fuel

poor, whilst those in the North West have the largest average fuel poverty gaps.

Households in dwellings built before 1964 are more likely to be fuel poor than

those in more modern dwellings, and also tend to have the largest average fuel

poverty gaps.

Following the release, the Energy Minister Michael Fallon commented: “This new,

better targeted definition will help get support to the most vulnerable in society.” NEA

would note that this implies that the new definition is, in itself, resulting in better

targeting of policies. Currently, fuel poverty policies use a range of proxies to deliver

assistance to households. The Government have yet to confirm how these may be

12

adjusted in light of their new definition. Currently, the figures that were released

actually seem to reveal that fewer fuel poor households (as now defined) can benefit

from current fuel poverty programmes (affordable warmth element of ECO) compared

to the 10% indicator. It also shows that the ‘fuel poverty gap’ for those fuel poor

households that don’t benefit from this part of the ECO programme is staggeringly

large, at £890m a year.

In addition, whilst the Government have restated fuel poverty levels for 2011 in

England under the 10% indicator, NEA notes that the Government has not produced

equivalent fuel poverty levels in England for 2012 and 2013 under the 10% indicator;

it was anticipated that figures using the 10% indicator would continue to be produced

up to 2016. In the absence of actual Government statistics, fuel poverty researchers

are reliant on modelling assumptions from other parties which extrapolates the

incidence of fuel poverty from a combination of official statistics and subsequent

movements in energy prices. NEA notes figures from CSE which compare fuel

poverty levels under the Hills definition and 10%. The results are quite striking; their

projections for 2013 show that under the 10% indicator there would be 5,109,312

householders in England that are fuel poor (23.7% of all households) compared to

their figure of 2,799,729 householders in England that are fuel poor using the new

definition (13.0% of all households).

1.1.2 The causes and consequences of fuel poverty

The consequences of fuel poverty range from psychological stress, worry and social

isolation to causing or exacerbating serious illnesses such as respiratory and

circulatory conditions. In the most extreme cases cold homes can pose a fatal risk;

the most recent data for winter 2010-2011 highlighted 23,700 excess winter deaths in

England alone.34

Fuel poverty is determined by three key factors: energy prices, household income

and energy efficiency of the dwelling. Programmes to alleviate fuel poverty in the UK

have primarily focused on the latter two causes, through attempts to both enhance

the income of vulnerable consumers and improve the energy efficiency of their

3 Excess winter deaths are calculated by comparing the average winter mortality figures for the periods April-July and August-

November with mortality data for the winter period (December-March). 4 ONS (2011) Excess Winter Mortality in England and Wales - 2010/11, November 2011, Office for National Statistics: UK

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/subnational-health2/excess-winter-mortality-in-england-and-wales/2010-11--provisional--and-2009-10--final-/stb-ewm-2010-11.html Accessed 26th July 2012

13

homes. Increasing the energy efficiency of the UK housing stock is a key priority in

alleviating fuel poverty, as it is generally considered the aspect upon which

Government policy can have the greatest impact.5

1.2 Tackling Fuel Poverty: A National Approach

1.2.1 A Government approach to addressing fuel poverty

The 2001 UK Fuel Poverty Strategy set Government a target to eliminate fuel poverty

for vulnerable households by 2010 and in all households by 2016.6 Until 2013, over

the last decade there have been three main programmes focused on delivering

energy efficiency improvements on behalf of fuel-poor households: the Warm Front

scheme, the Priority Group and Super Priority Group elements of the Carbon

Emissions Reduction Target (CERT) and the Community Energy Saving Programme

(CESP).7 The latter of these, CESP, which takes a community-level approach to

energy efficiency improvement, forms the focus of this evaluation study.

1.2.2 The Community Energy Saving Programme (CESP)

The Community Energy Saving Programme (CESP) was created as part of the

Government’s wider home energy savings programme in 2009, running until 31

December 2012. The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) was

responsible for setting the targets for the programme, whilst the Office of Gas and

Electricity Markets (Ofgem) was responsible for administering it.

CESP required gas and electricity suppliers8 and electricity generators9 to deliver

energy saving measures to domestic consumers in specific low-income areas of

Britain. Geographical areas were selected using the Income Domain of the Indices

of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) in England, Scotland and Wales. In England, the lowest

10 per cent of areas ranked in IMD qualified whilst in Scotland and Wales the lowest

15 per cent of areas qualified. CESP was a separate programme to the Carbon

5 2012 Fuel poverty briefing, July 2012, Parliamentary Research Unit, House of Commons: UK. Standard note SN/SG/5115.

6 DECC (2001) The UK Fuel Poverty Strategy, Department of Energy and Climate Change: UK.

7 Warm Homes for Older People: A resource for Age Action Alliance members, 2012, National Energy Action (NEA): Newcastle

UK. 8 British Gas, EDF Energy, E.ON, RWE npower, SSE and Scottish Power

9 Drax Power, Eggborough Power, GDF Suez/IPM and Intergen

14

Emissions Reduction Target (CERT) which made energy efficiency measures

available to all consumers, not just those on a low income.

Suppliers and generators were also required to achieve an overall target of 19.25

million lifetime tonnes of carbon dioxide (Mt CO2). Energy companies achieved 16.31

Mt CO2, almost 85% of the overall target.10 In total, almost 500 schemes were

completed resulting in a total of 293,922 measures being installed in 154,364

households.11 CESP was particularly effective in incentivising the treatment of

properties of solid and non-traditional wall construction, but many other eligible

measures were also installed.12

Almost all CESP measures were delivered through partnerships with social housing

providers or by direct promotion to private households. CESP was structured to

incentivise the energy companies to install particular measures (e.g. solid wall

insulation), and to undertake as much activity as possible in each house treated and

in each area targeted. Activity carried out in partnership with SHPs was the most

popular delivery route but many schemes covered both delivery routes, often

including the private householders that were located within predominantly social

housing areas, as was the case in North Bransholme. CESP was designed with a

whole-house, intensive approach in mind. It was hoped that innovative approaches to

energy efficiency in homes would be developed using a whole-house approach

through intensive action in specific areas (house-by-house and street-by-street).

Both CESP and the accompanying CERT programme were supplier-led and funded

by consumers through a universal levy on energy bills.

The current study forms part of a series of evaluation projects undertaken by NEA

across the life of the CESP programme. As Bradley and Smith (2009: 14) have

highlighted, ‘[b]efore and after evaluation of project management and household

experience is critical for driving further improvements in the delivery and cost

effectiveness of the scheme.’ In line with this advice, key findings from previous NEA

10

Ofgem, The Final Report of the Community Energy Savings Programme (CESP) 2009-2012, available at http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainability/Environment/EnergyEff/cesp/Documents1/CESP%20Final%20Report%202013_FINAL%20300413.pdf. May 2013, p.4. Last accessed 29 May 2013. 11

Ofgem, May 2013, p.12. 12

Eligible measures included: loft insulation, cavity wall insulation, solid wall insulation (external and internal), draught proofing, double glazing, flat-roof insulation, under-floor insulation, replacement boiler, heating controls, fuel switching, connection to a district heating scheme, upgrade of a district heating scheme, district heating meter for individual house billing, home energy advice package, heat pump, biomass boiler, solar hot water, other microgeneration (heat), solar PV, wind turbine, micro-hydro, other microgeneration (electricity), micro-CHP.

15

evaluations were discussed with Riverside Housing during our initial meetings, so that

lessons could be taken into account for the latter programme, with E.ON.

Over a period of two years, NEA monitored a large-scale housing redevelopment

(Riverside Dene13, formerly known as Cruddas Park pre-intervention) programme

located in the west end of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. NEA found that, before

interventions, there was a much greater degree of recorded temperature variation in

participants’ living and sleeping areas. This was largely a consequence of adoption of

heating regimes driven by perceptions of ‘affordability’ and ‘health’. Interventions

which included external wall insulation and high‐specification double glazing

effectively regulated the internal temperatures in both areas, creating far more

consistency in both temperature and relative humidity. NEA also found that the

carbon emission reductions were huge. Every year Riverside Dene will produce

approximately 1,000 fewer tonnes of CO2 than Cruddas Park.

In January 2010, NEA, alongside think thank DEMOS, was commissioned by British

Gas to undertake an independent evaluation of the company’s CESP schemes in

Walsall and Stafford.14 These were the country’s first live CESP schemes. Our

investigation showed that the residents who received energy efficiency measures in

Walsall and Stafford were largely satisfied with the delivery of the schemes and the

final outcomes. Furthermore, there is evidence that homes are now warmer and

cheaper to heat. However, our research identified the limited success of the ‘street-

by-street’ approach, which CESP aimed to deliver. While the uptake by the private

rented sector was better in Walsall than in Stafford, across both schemes, the visual

impact of some houses not receiving the measures was widely considered a

disappointment. A wider uptake was achieved in Walsall through a better-planned

financial offer to the private residents. It became clear, through the evaluation, that

ensuring a tenant liaison officer is in place for the duration of CESP work is hugely

important in managing the day-to-day issues that emerge. In Walsall, the tenant

liaison officer was able to resolve problems quickly, whereas in Stafford, the lack of a

tenant liaison officer meant that issues were not dealt with effectively, with many

persisting beyond the completion of the project.

1.2.3 The movement to Green Deal and the Energy Company Obligation (ECO)

13

Final report is available at http://www.nea.org.uk/policy-and-research/recent-research/carbon-footprint-of-the-fuel-poor.pdf. 14

Final report is available at http://www.demos.co.uk/files/The_Warm-Up_-_web.pdf?1332860609.

16

In 2010 the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) reported that more

than £25 billion had been spent since 2000 on programmes designed to alleviate fuel

poverty through cold weather-related payments and energy efficiency improvement

programmes;15 however rapidly rising fuel prices had served to counteract progress

and the 2010 target was not reached.16

Despite the compelling case for increased funding for fuel poverty programmes, by

2013 Warm Front, CERT and CESP had drawn to a close; the end of Warm Front

marking the first time since 1978 that there is no Government-funded domestic

energy efficiency programme in England, despite similar programmes continuing in

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. 1718

At the time of writing (August 2013), pre-existing programmes have been replaced by

two new schemes: the Green Deal and the Energy Company Obligation (ECO). The

Energy Company Obligation (ECO) now replaces CERT, CESP and Warm Front as

the primary means of addressing fuel poverty in England. The proposed ‘obligation’ to

energy suppliers is to provide support to low-income vulnerable households, as well

as those in hard-to-treat homes, and is funded by the consumer through a levy on

energy bills. The Affordable Warmth element of ECO will focus exclusively on

providing energy efficiency measures to financially disadvantaged private sector

households.

1.2.4 Carbon Saving Communities

Of particular interest in the context of the current evaluation study is an additional

element of ECO, referred to as the Carbon Saving Communities (CSCo) element,

which was introduced following initial consultation in 2012. Sharing similarities with

the current CESP programme, it will focus domestic energy efficiency improvements

on particular geographical areas where high levels of deprivation exist. Areas of low

income within the lowest 15% ranked in the Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD)

across England, Scotland and Wales will be eligible for inclusion in the Carbon

15

NEA (2012) Warm Homes for Older People: A resource for Age Action Alliance members, 2012, National Energy Action: Newcastle UK. 16

Energy and Climate Change Committee Inquiry into Fuel Poverty: Fifth Report 2009-2010, March 2010, UK Parliament . 17

Department of Energy and Climate Change: HMT Spending Review Press Release, 20 October 2010 18

Fuel Poverty Advisory Group Ninth Annual Report (2010), http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/funding-support/fuel-poverty/3623-fpag-9-annual-report-2010.pdf Accessed 27th July 2012

17

Saving Communities element of ECO. A minimum of 15% of energy suppliers’ CSCo

obligation must be delivered to low income households in rural areas, to help tackle

lower-than-average levels of energy efficiency in rural dwellings.19

Given the reduction in funding to fuel-poor households that these new schemes

represent, from around £1.1 billion in 2010-2011 to £540 million per year from 2013,20

it is becoming ever more crucial that what support does exist is delivered effectively

and targeted to those in most need.

In addition, given the similarities between CESP and the CSCo element of ECO,

continued learning from existing CESP schemes are crucial to the development and

success of future CSCo programmes.

1.3 The Current Study

Adding to the evidence base related to the impact of community-level fuel poverty

reduction programmes on vulnerable households is crucial to the continuing

development and success of future schemes. In 2011 the national fuel poverty charity

National Energy Action (NEA) was commissioned by Riverside Housing Group and

E.ON to undertake an evaluation of a CESP scheme in North Bransholme, Kingston-

upon-Hull. This research was funded by E.ON and carried out in partnership with the

Riverside Housing Group.

The broad aims of the evaluation study were as follows:

To explore household satisfaction and experience related to the CESP

installation process

To undertake formal monitoring and evaluation of the individual, household

and wider impacts of having CESP measures installed

This final report outlines key findings of the commissioned evaluation study, based on

qualitative and quantitative data drawn from each of the three stages.

19

DECC (2012) Energy Company Obligation: Carbon Saving Community Obligation Rural and Low Income areas, June 2012, Department of Energy and Climate Change: London UK. http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/tackling-climate-change/green-deal/5536-carbon-saving-community-obligation-rural-and-low-.pdf Accessed 30th July 2012 20

NEA (2011) Green Deal and ECO principle concerns and recommendations, National Energy Action, Newcastle: UK http://www.nea.org.uk/Resources/NEA/Media/Documents/GD%20and%20ECO%20concerns%20and%20recommendations.pdf Accessed 27

th July 2012

18

1.4 NEA’s Background and Campaigning Activities

National Energy Action (NEA) is a national campaigning charity. NEA’s mission is to

ensure that all households can meet their energy needs for health and comfort at an

affordable cost. In addition, NEA campaigns to ensure that the needs of vulnerable

energy consumers are central to policy decisions made by national, regional and local

governments and the fuel utilities.

To achieve this, NEA undertakes a range of activities including strategic campaigning

and lobbying; research into the causes, extent and consequences of fuel poverty;

evaluation of programmes designed to address the issue; local demonstration

projects; and the development of national qualifications to improve the quality of

energy advice provided to vulnerable consumers. These activities enable NEA to

shape policy thinking and strategic initiatives.

19

2. Research Methods

In order to effectively address the study aims a three-stage, mixed methods approach

was proposed to include: pre-installation community discussion groups; in-home

monitoring of individual households across the course of the project; and a final

community discussion event to provide further insight and reflection at the end of the

programme.

A brief overview of the various methods undertaken can be found below.

2.1 Overview of Research Methods

Phase 1: Initial community discussion groups

In July 2012, the NEA research team held three focus groups with residents from

North Bransholme. In total, 27 participants from 18 households took part in the

discussions. Participants included a range of ages and backgrounds, and were at

various stages of the installation process. Some had already had energy efficiency

measures installed, such as cladding, cavity wall insulation or new heating systems.

Others were due to have work carried out within the next few weeks. A small number

had taken part in an initial assessment visit and were awaiting further information

about their involvement.

Discussion topics included individual motivations to take part in the CESP project,

experience of the process so far (including assessment and installation) and

expectations for how the CESP programme may impact on individual households and

on the North Bransholme community more widely.

Phase 2: In-home monitoring and household interviews

The in-home monitoring phase took place from October 2012 to March 2013, to

further explore the experiences of a small sub-set of households (13). The approach

involved two in-home household interviews, 5 months apart, to explore household

experience of the programme. In addition, two dataloggers were installed in each

property to measure temperature and humidity during the 5-month interim period

20

between visits. Where possible, meter readings were also taken to allow the research

team to consider household energy consumption.

Participants were drawn from a range of household types including retired couples,

single-person households and families with teenage children. 12 of the 13

households involved had received energy efficiency measures through the North

Bransholme Community Energy Saving Programme (CESP).

Household interviews were conducted using a semi-structured topic guide developed

based on key themes and understanding drawn from earlier stages of the study. An

example topic guide can be found in Appendix A. Interviews lasted around 1 hour in

most cases and involved an informal discussion related to a number of topics

including: experience of installation; experience post-installation; energy use and any

behaviour change; and any expected or actual impact on an individual, household or

wider community level.

While it was originally intended that the two visits would occur pre- and post-

installation, thus allowing the data loggers to record data either side of the

intervention, shifting timescales and time-lags between different aspects of the

programme (between heating and cladding installations for example) meant that in

reality the majority of households had already received at least one aspect of their

intervention before their first in-home visit. The majority of eligible homes had already

received new central heating systems, loft and/or cavity wall insulation where

applicable. External cladding of properties was ongoing at the time of the first wave of

interviews; of the eligible households some had already received this measure while

others were due to have the works carried out over the few weeks post-initial

interview. By the follow-up interviews in March 2013, all measures had been installed;

although some households were awaiting finishing-off or remedial works.

Phase 3: Community discussion and reflection event

The final phase of the project took place in August 2013 (feedback to be provided to

E.ON and Riverside Housing in due course). The NEA research team presented

emerging findings from the first two phases of the study, providing an opportunity for

reflection and further discussion related to experience and impact, as well as overall

opinions of CESP, E.ON and Riverside Housing.

21

At each stage of the study, effective recruitment was considered crucial to the

inclusion of a wide range of household views. A number of methods were utilised

including tailored letters to households; research updates and recruitment adverts

featured in Riverside Housing’s local newsletter; posters and reply slips displayed in

the local community centre and local Riverside Housing office; NEA staff attendance

at community engagement events; distribution of leaflets and information sheets by a

local Community Energy Advisor; and word-of-mouth recruitment by encouraging

households to inform their neighbours, friends and families about the study.

2.2 Data Analysis and Reporting

All of the focus groups and household interviews were audio-recorded with consent

from the individuals involved. Audio files and extensive researcher notes were then

coded and analysed thematically by the NEA research team. Data loggers were also

installed in a sample of twelve properties to capture temperature and relative humidity

(RH) data from households. These were analysed using standard Microsoft Excel

software.

In addition, following each phase of the project any individual queries and issues

were passed on in writing to the co-ordinating organisation Sheffield Insulation Group

(SIG), where requested by the individual households. NEA liaised with households

and SIG representatives across the course of the study, to track progress related to

how these issues were dealt with.

2.3 Research Timeline

The fieldwork period took place over 12 months from July 2012 to July 2013. This

provided a rare opportunity to take a longitudinal approach to exploring household

experience, enabling each phase of the study to inform future stages, and the

research team to build effective relationships with the households involved.

This final report was submitted to E.ON in August 2013.

22

3. Case Study Site

3.1 The Bransholme Estate

The Bransholme Estate is situated north of Kingston-upon-Hull. It was built between

1965 and 1983 as part of Hull City Council’s programme of slum clearance and re-

housing. North Bransholme was built between 1983 and 1990. By the early nineties,

the estate was classified as an area of social deprivation with high unemployment

rates, problems with anti-social behaviour and had a large number of council-owned

properties standing empty for long periods of time. In 2010, following a ballot, the

stock was transferred from Hull City Council to Riverside Group, which took over the

ownership and management of the estate. Riverside currently owns a total of 1,190

properties on North Bransholme.

In April 2012, Riverside Housing prepared a baseline to give an accurate impression

of North Bransholme at the outset of regeneration. The rationale behind the baseline

was that it could serve as a benchmark against which any future changes on the

estate may be measured and give context and meaning to any improvements or

problems that occur.21

According to the baseline study, demographically North Bransholme is a White-British

area (98%) with a young population (57% of tenants were aged 45 or under and 49%

of households had children present), with a relatively large number of single-parent

led families (20% of households) and with just under half of families reporting a long

term illness, health problem or disability which limits their activities.

With regards to the deprivation on the estate, according to the baseline study, 64% of

tenants were workless, 36% were in receipt of Child Benefit and 34% of tax credits.

North Bransholme sits within Kingston-upon-Hull, a local authority that is significantly

deprived according to the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD). 43% of the district’s

LSOAs are amongst the top 10% most deprived areas in the UK making the local

authority the 5th most deprived district nationally.

21

As far as NEA are aware, this baseline study is unpublished, but was kindly made available to NEA by Riverside staff.

23

The baseline also provides useful information on the housing stock. Over three

quarters (77%) of properties in North Bransholme are houses, over half of which are

three-bedroom properties. Given this prevalence of three-bedroom properties

(coupled with a lack of one and two-bed households), an estimated 21% of

households in the estate will be affected by the under occupancy penalty, also known

as the “bedroom tax”, and re-housing could take a significant amount of time.

Finally, the baseline points out that Riverside made significant improvements to the

energy efficiency of dwellings even before initiating the CESP programme. According

to the baseline, energy efficiency levels on the estate at the point of transfer were

fairly poor due to lack of recent improvements by Hull City Council. For example:

Almost half the properties had Warm Air Systems rather than boiler systems with

radiators and 60% had no secondary heating system

77% of properties had no form of wall insulation

As part of works carried out by Riverside (before embarking on the CESP programme

with E.ON):

205 properties had had external or cavity insulation installed

498 properties had had loft insulation installed

558 boilers had been installed and 217 households have been switched from

electricity to gas

These improvements had:

Increased the average SAP rating from 60.3 to 75.19, well above the national

average for social housing (67.9)

Reduced the carbon output of the average property from 4.35 tonnes per year to

2.90 tonnes per year

Reduced tenant energy bills from an estimated average of £790 per year to £441

per year, an estimated saving of £348 per household per year/£26.76 per month

/£6.69 each per week.

Poor standards of energy efficiency of the area’s housing stock created a number of

challenges to alleviating fuel poverty. Dealing with these properties was very time-

consuming and required expensive energy efficiency measures, incurring higher

24

levels of disruption which - whether expected or actual - can serve as a key barrier to

uptake particularly amongst vulnerable households. High levels of community

engagement were required to alleviate these barriers and this is discussed below.

3.2 Background to set-up of CESP in the area

In response to these challenges Starfish Communities were commissioned by

Riverside to undertake a customer engagement project for tenants living in the North

Bransholme estate in Hull. The purpose of this process was to educate tenants to

help them change their behaviour in order to reduce energy consumption and fuel

bills. The engagement ran alongside a physical programme of energy saving

measures introduced into properties on the North Bransholme estate by Riverside.

During this process, it was recognised by CESP and similar programmes, such as the

Carbon Reduction Emissions Target (CERT), that physical measures are not

sufficient for this task. Tenants also require assistance on how to take full advantage

of their homes, retrofitted with energy saving measures, in order that they can

achieve optimum energy savings and reduced bills.

25

4. Research Findings

The following section outlines the key findings from our fieldwork presenting initial

opinions and perceptions of the programme, the installation process and post

installation experiences. As part of our data capture, there were a number of

reported issues captured from residents highlighting potential barriers to involvement;

these are explored in more depth throughout this section. These include:

communication and co-ordination of the works; access, eligibility and fairness; and

long term considerations.

4.1 Pre-Intervention: Early Opinions and Initial Household Experience

4.1.2 Awareness and community engagement

The majority of participants had initially heard about the community energy

saving project (CESP) by receiving a postal leaflet which invited them to a

meeting at the local community centre. A small number of participants

received information via a telephone call, or saw a poster at the community

centre. Opinions of the initial community meeting were mostly positive, with

participants describing it as an informative and helpful session.

The level of community engagement involved in the initial phases of the

project, and community events in particular, was praised by households for

allowing a face-to-face opportunity to discuss the project with the various

organisations/stakeholders involved. This may well have played a part in the

programme’s high level of uptake by providing encouragement to undecided

households, as can be seen in the example below:

“We hadn’t decided until we actually went to the community event properly

and [name of partner] asked a lot of questions, so that was the point where we

thought yeah we’ll definitely have it done.”

(H12, family with young children)

Word-of-mouth information sharing such as talking to neighbours/family who

already had measures installed, or visiting finished properties as facilitated by

installers, appeared crucial to reducing some of the early barriers to

26

involvement described at the initial focus groups22. In addition, the visibility of

the programme at a community level was also suggested to aid household

engagement, by raising awareness of the works and reflection on the wider

community benefits.

The value of these factors in engaging households is visible in the examples

below:

“My parents next door, they’re both getting old and my dad is

disabled… he was unsure cos of my mum, and the mess… she

doesn’t like anything like that… but then she came round when they

were still here and realised that there was only two of them… and

she said, “Oh aren’t they good?” and when they’d gone she came

round the house with me and I said “Look how warm it is”… so that

persuaded her - that was it. So it was good that she could see it.”

(H3, middle-aged couple)

“We asked the neighbours what they were doing, and… everybody

else was getting it done so… people have said it is making their

homes warmer…”

(H12, family with young children)

“We’d heard that many good reports about it…”

(H13, middle-aged couple)

The interviews did however identify some gaps in household understanding/

awareness; particularly in relation to the origins of CESP, how it is funded,

timescales of implementation etc. There were also some inconsistencies in

household understanding of the measures available under CESP and the

scheme’s eligibility criteria, and how this compares to other schemes.

22

Also raised in the wider academic literature, these barriers include suspicion around costs, understanding of the level of disruption/upheaval involved, and pre-existing beliefs about the effectiveness of energy efficiency measures.

27

4.1.3 Early opinions on CESP

In general, attendees - all of whom had opted to take part in CESP - were

highly appreciative of the help being offered by the project. It was described

as an “absolutely wonderful opportunity” to improve homes in the area.

Participants commented that they couldn’t believe that people would opt out of

taking part in something so positive.

Household motivation to take part in the project was linked primarily to

expected financial benefits as well as improved household warmth, potential

health benefits, increased property value and improved attractiveness of the

area. Hopes for financial benefit were reported most strongly, and were linked

to the wider issue of high bills and difficulties budgeting for this which was

experienced by many, particularly by those on fixed incomes such as a state

pension.

There were however some initial questions and concerns, particularly around

financial aspects of the project. Suspicion about the lack of cost to households

was highlighted as a key potential barrier to uptake, with participants

describing concerns around “What’s the catch?” and “You don’t get something

for nothing these days”. Such concerns were suggested to be central to the

decision making of residents who had chosen not to take part in the project,

as there were a lot of rumours about hidden costs. Some people suggested

that even after installation they still felt that they were waiting to find out what

‘the catch’ is. Additional information prior to installation, including a written

breakdown of costs, may help to address this issue.

4.1.1 Shifting perceptions of CESP over time

Household interviews phase 1 findings

Early in the evaluation study, with a small number of exceptions, overall

household opinions of having works carried out as part of the Community

Energy Saving Programme (CESP) were overwhelmingly positive.

Households reported that the programme had exceeded expectations in terms

of the lack of disruption/upheaval involved, and the resulting benefits to

28

individual households and to the wider community. This can be seen in the

examples below when participants were asked for any feedback on how the

programme could be improved:

“I’m pretty impressed with it all, pretty pleased with it all.”

(H10, family with two children)

“I can’t believe anyone would say no.”

(H8, family with teenage son)

“Like I said, it’s for our benefit and we’re just really pleased that they

knocked on our door.”

(H4, middle-aged couple)

The analysis highlighted some clear advantages of community-level energy

efficiency schemes, including the visible nature of the works and use of word-

of- mouth information sharing to build momentum and engage those who may

otherwise not have sought out interventions. The scheme’s positive impact at

a community level was also frequently raised by participants, for example by

improving the area’s appearance and increasing community cohesion.

Household Interview phase 2 findings

In terms of householders’ overall views of the project, responses were far

more mixed than the overwhelmingly positive perceptions of the programme

expressed at phase 1. This was mainly due to issues around cladding

installed towards the end of the programme, which is further discussed below.

Householders who had had a generally positive experience at an individual

level tended to praise the achievements of the programme as a whole whilst,

understandably, those who had had a negative experience (mostly those who

had cladding installed during winter months) focused on the unsatisfying

impact of the project on a personal level when questioned as to their views of

the programme in general terms. The following quotes capture the range of

views:

29

“Everybody seems happy that you speak to […] Everybody involved has been

really helpful […] Starfish, Warm Zones, you lot […] I’ve had no problems […]

everything went fine” (H1, single person household)

“To me it was fantastic because when you think of the scale of what they were

doing, there’s going to be a few blips as far as I’m concerned, you know, even

just for walking, I mean, there were lots of vans around you know […] but

that’s a thing you’ve just got to put up with. As far as I am concerned, no

complaints” (H2, single person household)

“Basically, what we’ve had done we are happy with […] apart from the mess

they left behind […] but we are gradually getting on top of that now” (H5,

middle-aged couple)

“I think it’s been a brilliant success” (H8, family with teenage son)

“If I knew all the pitfalls and all that’s gone on and all the stress it has caused

me then no, I wouldn’t have had it done” (H9, single-person household)

“It’s given us hope for the future” (H11, single-person household)

“We think we’ve made a mistake […] To sum it up: what we thought we was

going to get, we haven’t got […] and we’re not ungrateful, we’re disappointed

[…] with the money that we have spent and are continuing to spend internally,

it’s such as shame that the outside has turned out like this […] I just want it

back like it was” (H13, middle-aged couple)

4.1.3 Access, eligibility and fairness

There were a number of specific examples encountered which illustrate wider

issues around access, eligibility and fairness in relation to the CESP eligibility

criteria. These included for example households being unable to access

heating system improvements, despite their current system being inadequate

or in disrepair, because their existing boiler was less than 12 years old. This

was reportedly the case for both H7 and for H9’s son who lived nearby:

“He could have done with it more than me actually, but this is the way the

funding works.” (H9, single person household)

30

Another household had been unable to access cavity wall insulation because

they had a conservatory. As a gable end property, this was considered to be

unfair by the family, particularly as the reasons behind the decision were

unclear:

“They wouldn’t even consider it… whether it was just too much hassle I don’t

know… I felt a bit robbed in a way.” (H8, family with teenage son)

Elsewhere, H13 described their neighbour’s disappointment after being

refused external cladding for seemingly unknown reasons, despite it

previously having been agreed. At the time of interview, the rest of the street

were reportedly considering withdrawal from the CESP programme in order to

show solidarity with their neighbour, highlighting the negative potential impact

of such situations on wider perceptions of the programme:

“So him and his wife are panicking now, they’re really panicking that they’re

not gonna be able to have it. His wife’s been on the phone this afternoon…

she’s devastated.” (H13, middle-aged couple)

In each of these situations, a recurring theme was a lack of household

understanding about the reasons behind their inability to access EE

improvement as well as a lack of signposting to other schemes that may be

able to provide assistance, such as supplier-led insulation schemes or Warm

Front.23

At the time of the phase two interviews, H7 (older middle-aged couple) were

still unclear as to why they had not been eligible for a new boiler. H10 also

highlighted the initial lack of clarity over who was eligible, but added that this

was resolved when they attended a community meeting:

“There was a lot of umming and ahing with people. People saying ‘you’ve got

to pay this amount’ and ‘you’ve got to pay that amount.’ But we went to the

meeting and that and you find out properly what’s going on.” (H10 family with

two children).

23

H7 was subsequently provided with a new boiler through Warm Front, following assistance from the NEA research team.

31

4.2 Experience of Installation

4.2.1 The assessment process and follow-up communication

Experiences of the in-home assessment visit prior to having measures

installed were described positively, with the assessor considered to be

“friendly” and “a nice bloke”.

Participants did however report some perceived communication issues

following the initial assessment. In particular, discussions suggested a

possible lapse in communication between the initial visit and subsequently

having the measures installed, during which time a number of residents

reported feeling “in limbo”, unaware of whether they were still eligible. A

courtesy call or letter following the initial visit - outlining whether the grant had

been approved, what would be installed, estimated timescales and any

additional costs - was recommended by participants in order to address this.

4.2.1 Experience on the day: Heating installations

A large majority of those who had already received measures under CESP

described the installation itself very positively. This was particularly the case

for central heating installation, with the workmen generally reported to be tidy,

polite and hard-working, with a high quality finished product. The majority of

households reported a lack of disruption compared to their initial expectations.

The level of praise from participants can be seen in the quotes below:

“Absolutely spot on, really. The lads who came… they were so tidy, everything

was really nice, pleasant… They really did do a top-class job.” (H13, middle-

aged couple)

“I thought it would all be a complicated process but it wasn’t, it was really

easy… whenever there’s any work to be done I usually prefer to do it myself

and keep everyone away, but it’s been really good.” (H2, single female

household)

32

“Ten out of ten for the people who fitted the radiators… I can honestly say

they did it and no mess. They even had a little hoover.” (H4, middle aged

couple)

“I was very surprised, they were clean, tidy… everything was good, they did

their job, I left them to it.” (H3, middle-aged couple)

“Oh they were brilliant, really good. I mean, a couple of days and it was all

done… I was really impressed with them, they worked really hard.” (H8, family

with teenage son)

“I wasn’t in a lot of the time… so they were very trustworthy because like I say

I just handed keys over and left, and no problems there…” (H11, older female

household)

There was however one isolated case of a very negative experience of

heating installation24, which raises potential issues around consistency and

quality assurance when using a large number of installers employed through

different companies. Even when isolated incidents, these risk both distress to

the individual households concerned and potential damage to the wider

programme’s reputation.

4.2.2 Experience on the day: External cladding

For those who received external cladding early in the CESP programme, this

was discussed in generally positive terms although there were some

perceived issues around length of time the scaffolding was in place and also

the mess left behind in people’s gardens. Four of the 13 households reported

damage to their property; in one case chipped windows because they were

not covered by the workmen, and in two cases (although suggested to be

reflective of the wider experience) fences had been cut away with a saw rather

than being unscrewed.

24

This was raised with SIG immediately following the interviews.

33

“They didn’t even knock on the door or anything to tell us they were doing it,

they just got a reciprocating saw and chopped the fence down… they left it in

next door’s garden.” (H12, family with young children)

Views on the installation process for the external wall insulation later in the

CESP programme were generally negative. Indeed, in the phase 2 interviews,

there was a clear difference in attitudes between those who had their cladding

installed in the summer, and those for whom work began in the winter (the

latter having a wholly more negative perspective). This indicates that perhaps

the bad winter weather coupled with the tight timelines have impacted

negatively upon the experience of householders whose homes were cladded

during the winter months. For example, out of householders whom we

interviewed, H8’s (family with teenage son) home was cladded before the bad

weather. She

commented, on her own

experience, “it’s been

brilliant”, but added that,

for neighbours whose

homes were treated later

in the year, “it’s been a

bit of a disaster really

because all of the paint

work has run onto the

bricks.”

Indeed, this issue of paint work running onto bricks was raised by several

interviewees. It appears that lime within the white pebbledash mixture had run

down the brickwork of cladded houses (Pictured left) during a period of bad

weather. This was the case for H12’s (family with young children) house, who

commented, “it doesn’t look too

bad, but it’s not great.” Other

householders had a similar

sentiment regarding the white

stains, but had noticed that the

finish on some neighbours’ houses

was significantly worse than their

34

own. H5 commented that “they look a mess” whilst H13 described their

neighbour’s house as “atrocious”, adding that said neighbour has requested

that his cladding be redone from scratch. H11 commented:

“I don’t think mine is so badly affected but if you look along the row you will

see some that have really got a lot of white on them” (H11, single person

household)

H13 (middle-aged couple) were extremely disappointed with the finish on their

home. Having been to a community event where brick-effect board was used

as an example of the finished product that householders could expect, they

did not understand why their finish was brick-effect plaster. They felt that they

had received “a totally different product” to what they had been promised.

Several householders complained that the process used by workmen to

achieve the pebbledash finish had caused damage to their windows, and

mess elsewhere. The process employed was reportedly to trowel on the

rendering, then throw handfuls of pebbles at the wall. In H4’s house, this

resulted in cracked windows and stains all over the decking and pavements in

the garden. H13 was unhappy that the render had dried solid on their new

patio doors. H4 complained to the workmen, who subsequently covered the

windows with boards. The supervisor of the workman also, reportedly, insisted

that workmen use an alternative approach to throwing pebbles in order to

complete the job. In H5’s case, this throwing process caused chipped

windows. They have telephoned SIG twice to complain, but say, “they have

never got back to us about that […] They haven’t taken any notice at all” (H5,

older couple).

Several householders raised access problems in relation to their ability to

open windows and doors, or access external aerials and alarms, since having

external wall insulation installed. H4, for example, now has difficultly with their

patio doors:

“We have had a problem with the doors, haven’t we? The patio doors. We

couldn’t shut them properly. We had to really slam them. And then I had to

sellotape the bottom because we’re getting a draft” (H4, middle-aged couple)

35

H4 have contacted the workmen regarding this problem but “no one’s been

back.” Similarly, H10 had a problem with their bathroom window, which has

since been resolved:

“I had a problem with that when we opened it and we couldn’t shut it and they

sent somebody to come and have a look at it and they said ‘can you see that

ridge there? That’s where you’ve been opening and shutting it. He said ‘it’s

been like this for a long time’ I said ‘no, it was difficult but’ I said, ‘since the

claddings been on we can’t shut it at all.’ […] The sent someone out to adjust

it […] they’ve sorted it for me” (H10 family, with two children)

H4 (middle-aged couple) were concerned about access to their external

wiring, given that the rendering for the cladding was applied on top of their

aerial and alarm wires. This resulted in problems with their telephone line,

which they had to pay an engineer to fix, “The landline just went dead, and we

were without a telephone for about 3 days” (H4, middle-aged couple)

They have already had problems with their alarm, which they have now

disabled, since the installation. H4’s view is that it would be much better to

take it all off [wiring etc.] and put it back on since, “in the future, if something

went wrong and we need to get to that cable, we can’t get to it can we?”

Some householders raised complaints about the mess left by the workmen

that installed the cladding. H4 complained of “the mess in the garden” (family

with children) whilst H13 exclaimed “I think we’ll have to re-turf the whole back

garden to be honest.” Indeed, the mess left in H13’s garden resulted in what

they perceive as a health and safety risk which prevents them from allowing

their grandchildren to play in it. They explained that workmen had, “chopped

[a concrete fence post] away at an angle and left a big chunk of it sticking out

of the ground with a sharp point […] Can’t understand why they’ve cut it […] it

wasn’t interfering with the fence” (H13, middle-aged couple).

Also with regards to their fencing, H13 explained that workmen had drilled

fence posts back onto their cladded wall. This has caused great confusion,

since workmen had also informed the householders that they must not drill

36

anything into the wall, as this would void the fifteen-year warranty. H13 was

therefore unsure of the status of his warranty at the time of the in-home

interview.

Some householders complained of unsatisfactory or unfinished jobs. None

were aware of when (or indeed, if) anyone would be returning to complete or

revise the work. Many householders were unhappy that their porches had not

been cladded on the basis that these had previously been outbuildings.

Householders said that this resulted in a cold-bridging effect. H13 (middle-

aged couple) mentioned that the window sills on the back of their house were

removed to install the external wall insulation but had never been replaced.

Several aspects of the work at H12’s home were left at a standard which they

regarded as unsatisfactory, as is illustrated by the following quotes:

“There’s another thing I’m not happy about as well. It’s the electric box.

They’ve just put a frame around it […] it looks absolutely awful” (H12, family

with children)

“I’d put a brand new downpipe on [the house]. They just lobbed it straight in

half without even consulting us […] Then they’d put a second-hand piece on it

and screws straight through it, but what they’d done is they put it on upside

down” (H12, family with children)

“The sill on the window upstairs […] that was backing into the window, so it

was just gathering water” [workmen had put window sill on backwards after re-

installing it post-cladding] (H12, family with children)

The attitude and behaviour of the workmen was raised as an issue by three of

the householders interviewed. H13 (middle-aged couple) was unimpressed to

find “three beer cans up there [on the scaffolding] when we went up” whilst

H12 (family with children) begrudged the language used (swearing and highly

derogatory comments about women’s bodies) by the workmen in earshot of

their children and the tendency to address the woman of the house as

“darling”. H4 felt that installers had an inappropriate attitude:

37

“There was one or two of them in charge who used to say, ‘well you ain’t got a

choice’, what do you mean ‘you ain’t got a choice?’, he said ‘it’s either that or

nowt,’ so I said, ‘well we’ll see about that.’ […]We chose the colour of the

bricks and something had gone wrong you know like for them, so they brought

these bricks and I was trying them and I looked. So […] I said look I want the

same colour as them bricks over there. So he said, ‘well you ain’t got a choice,

you’ll get the colour we bring” (H4, middle-aged couple).

Some householders, at the time of the in-home interviews, still had their

scaffolding up and were unsure when it would be taken down. Many

householders mentioned that scaffolding had been taken down for Christmas,

which some saw as a positive thing for aesthetic reasons and others as an

expensive and unnecessary job. There was understanding for some that this

may have been a safety precaution, but perhaps more effective

communications could have resolved doubts.

It is interesting that, whilst some householders were aware that although they

were receiving free or subsidised measures for their homes, someone (E.ON)

was paying for it and therefore they were entitled to voice concerns about

dissatisfactory jobs, others felt it ungrateful or unnecessary to complain given

that they weren’t themselves paying:

“We’re really grateful for what we’ve received and that. And then like, if you

start complaining, it’s kind of like throwing car dust in somebody else’s face

cos they’ve tried to help you. So we’re kind of like hold back and don’t

complain you know what I mean because we feel a bit guilty don’t we really”

(H4, middle-aged couple)

“They were supposed to be jet-washing it all but that never happened. I did it

myself anyway. But I’m not bothered – you got the cladding free.” (H2, single

person household)

4.2.3 Remedial works

The need for repairs prior to having work carried out under CESP (of which

the costs are not covered by CESP), appeared in the data as a potential

38

barrier to involvement. One particularly vulnerable household (on age, health

and financial grounds) had not accessed CESP because the property had

broken windows and a leaking roof that the family could not afford to repair.

Additional practical difficulties were visible in other interviews, including the

requirement for loft and/or room clearance prior to installation which was not

always feasible within the timescale required.

4.2.4 Consistency and household choice

A number of households raised disappointment that their porches were

excluded from eligibility for cladding, because they had formerly been an

outbuilding before being incorporated in to the property. This was perceived to

create a cold spot which could be detrimental to the effectiveness of the CESP

measures:

“They’re not doing the porch, that’s gonna be the biggest cold spot there is.

You see he called it a shed, but it’s not a shed it’s our porch. That’s part of our

hallway… and that is the coldest spot in our house and they’re not doing

them.” (H13, middle-aged couple)

“If we leave the inside porch door open you may as well stand outside,

because the cold that comes through… is horrendous. The draft, you can feel

it right round your legs.” (H10, family with two children)

The research team also noted a level of inconsistency around household

choice, in terms of what they were offered under CESP and any additional

costs incurred as a result. For example, some households were given the

option to position radiators wherever they preferred without incurring

additional charges.

Elsewhere, other households were not given this option, or given the option

but at an additional cost. This is likely to be linked to the large number of

contractors involved in delivering the works, and the understanding and

attitudes of each individual contractor.

39

The initial focus groups also highlighted some isolated instances of a potential

need to manage expectations associated with the work. One participant for

example reported that he felt dubious about the quality of his cavity wall

insulation, because it had taken so little time and disruption to complete.

Increased information to households related to how the different measures

work and how they are installed may help to address this issue.

4.2.5 Communication and co-ordination of the works

Pre-installation communication and co-ordination of the works with individual

households was perceived far less positively than the installations themselves,

and attracted a substantial amount of criticism from the households

interviewed.25 Criticisms included a lack of information about the measures,

timescales and additional costs; long time lapses without any contact;

difficulties contacting programme co-ordinators; and missed household

appointments. Attempting to find out information was likened by one

household to ‘banging your head against a brick wall’.

25

NB. This was also key area of discussion at the initial focus groups

40

“They’re a bit dilatory information-wise aren’t they?” (H5, older retired couple)

“I can’t fault anything at the moment apart from trying to find things out and

getting feedback from them… you’ve got to go chasing them.” (H13, middle-

aged couple)

“I had a lot of other things going on in my life as well and what I needed, even

if they said we can’t do it until 26th October, I just wanted to know what I was

working towards, and it was all, oh it’ll be done it’ll be done… but when, you

know?’… 9 months hanging, waiting…” (H9, single person household)

The lack of breakdown of additional costs was a particular issue where

households needed to budget for this or where the costs were higher than

expected. In one extreme example, H9 was provided with a verbal estimate

that the costs would be £1,200 for works to be carried out. The client also

tried in vain to get an itemised quote beforehand to find out what the costs

covered. At the time of the interview 8 weeks later, she had still not received a

breakdown of what these costs were for:

“I wasn’t given a price and I kept pushing and asking for a price, how much,

and he said oh don’t worry about it… Well of course I’m worrying, I’m worried

about money and the plans I’ll have to make for my financial situation. I just

wanted straight answers… I mean normally you get a quote for something and

it’s itemised, and then you discuss it…” (H9, single person household)

Consistency was a common theme in the interviews, particularly in relation to

timescales. Shifting timescales and uncertainty around this - while not

considered a major issue by all households - for some created a negative

experience due to the resulting lack of control over the situation and inability to

plan preparation works (such as lifting decking or moving furniture). This was

particularly an issue for those who worked full-time or required help from

friends/family to carry out the required preparation. The lack of information

related to timescales led to the programme being likened to a ‘covert’

operation by one householder. For some others, the short timescales of CESP

were raised as a source of anxiety due to concerns that it might impact on

quality of the finished work:

41

“They’ve got to get this up quite quick now haven’t they, cos they’ve only got

until the end of December to get it finished, so that’s scary a bit because I

think are they just rush rush rush you know?” (H12, family with young children)

“It’s all come a bit offside really, it’s all come out of the blue, a flash in the

pan… people were finding out by word of mouth, and there was nothing overt

about what’s going on and why, and the positive stuff that’s going on. So it’s

all been a little bit, a bit rushed and a little bit - rushed and a little bit covert

really… There seems to be this really long run-in and then a massive rush at

the end.” (R8, family with teenage son)

Other householders, at the time of the phase 2 interviews, were waiting for

issues with their new measures (mostly in association with cladding) to be

resolved, and were completely uninformed of the timescale for resolving said

problems. One such household was H12, who had questions at the outset of

the project that were left unaddressed. Rather than wait for answers to their

concerns, they went ahead and signed up for cladding, stating that they felt a

certain “pressure” to do so as they were made very aware that, due to the

Christmas deadline for spending the funding, it was a case of choosing there

and then, with or without resolving outstanding questions:

“I had this question before they actually did it, but we had the choice whether

to do it or not […] my question was how the hell am I going to get the windows

out?” (H12, family with young children)

H2 had a similar worry. Realising that it would be much harder to replace

windows post cladding, she requested that her bathroom window be replaced

before the external wall insulation was installed, but received no response to

this request (H2, single person household). H13 found themselves in a similar

situation to H12, with outstanding problems and no indication of when these

would be addressed. Their feeling was such issues could have been avoided,

at least to some extent, if communications throughout the project had been

better managed:

“To be truthful, the main thing is lack of communication […] I think there

should have been more meetings […] once a month or something because

42

the complaints […] Everybody is up in arms. Especially the homeowners […]

You’re hearing that many different rumours.” (H13, middle-aged couple)

H9, who had experienced problems with the functionality of her new heating

system post installation, was unclear as to whom she should contact when

facing problems with the system:

“I want to know with whom I’m dealing. Ideal Boilers for the boiler. It’s the

Heating Renewables who are not very easy to get hold of. Then there’s E.ON

who’ve funded it. Then there’s yourselves that have come round and I just

want to know who I’m supposed to deal with.” (H9, single person household)

H12 faced similar confusion with regards to who to turn to with problems,

stating that “everyone’s accountable for different things” (H12, family with

young children).

A few householders highlighted that they received little publicity at the outset

of the project. H3, for example, indicated that they would have liked to have

received a written advertisement about the programme through the letterbox.

The household was aware that an individual was making door-to-door visits to

raise awareness of the programme, but they were never in when he called. H3

commented:

“The only real improvement there is maybe a bit more leafleting…” (H3,

middle-aged couple)

H2 raised concerns about what would happen should something go wrong

with their cladding, as they had not been informed of what to do in such a

situation and had no written documents to refer back to:

“I’d have liked to have had a little bit more information or a number or

something, in case anything went wrong […] we didn’t get a guarantee or

anything […] I think that should have been in paper […] I think that’s poor.”

(H2, single person household)

43

4.2.6 Aftercare

In relation to the central heating installations, some households were generally

happy with the level of information provided by installers (usually including

instruction manuals, contact details, guarantees etc.)

“They left me a lovely pack with everything in it… All the information you need.

I mean you can’t go wrong can you with paperwork like that. I’d recommend

them to anybody…” (H1, single female household)

In cases where the household had needed to contact the installer due to a

fault, experiences of this were usually positive and resolved fairly quickly. For

example, H3 (middle-aged couple) commented that their relative who lived

next door had a system which leaked, but, after telephoning several times, an

installer visited and made the necessary repairs. There appeared to be just

one unresolved issue with regards to the heating systems. H5’s warm air

system had not been removed at the time of the in-home interview:

“…they were going to come back and take it out, but they never did” (H5, older

couple).

Some householders felt that, although the heating installers were very

professional, they seemed a little short of time when it came to instructing

householders on how to use the new systems. H4 (middle-aged couple)

commented, with reference to the installer of their heating system, that

although “he was good at his job: everything was nice and clean when he did

it” he seemed rushed off his feet and didn’t have time to explain how the

heating system worked in any detail:

“It was like a crash course when he told us how to work it, really. He just went

woof, he said it that fast […] So I thought I’ll just have to read up in the booklet

[…] I was happy with it really because, like, if he’d have stayed a bit longer

and, you know, told me a bit more about it I don’t think it would have sunk in at

the time anyhow” (H4, middle-aged couple).

44

Many householders shared the opinion of H4: they were pleased to have a

booklet to refer back to, and were not too bothered that installers did not

spend time instructing them on heating system use in detail since it takes a

while to “absorb” such information. However, when asked, H4 and other

householders said that they would appreciate some follow-up support on how

to make the most of the functionalities of their heating systems.

Households reported receiving far less information about the external

cladding. Questions were raised around long-term upkeep and any costs

involved in this, implications for future property development such as

conservatories or replacement windows, and whether the cladding could

potentially hide property faults such as subsidence in the future. Participants

suggested that no written information had so far been received on these

issues.

A number of households mentioned issues around getting used to their new

central heating systems, particularly given the move from the ‘immediate’

nature of warm air systems. Only one household reported using the system on

a timer, and awareness seemed fairly low around the most economical way to

use the new system. Complexity of the digital programmers was also

mentioned by a small number of households, raising questions around the

suitability of these for all household types.

“I’m either not very warm or, well really cold or else I’m passing out, I haven’t

quite got it yet.” (H9, single person household)

“I know you can programme it to come on but I haven’t looked into that

really… we just put it on when we need it.” (H10, family with two children)

Other wider issues related to aftercare were also raised which may be a useful

focus for accompanying advice, including the credibility of the vast numbers of

‘door knockers’ reported to be offering additional improvement works since

CESP started in the area, and the process and importance of switching from

the Economy 7 tariff for those who moved to gas central heating from electric

storage heaters.

45

Lack of sign-off or follow-up appeared to be an issue for several

householders, with many stating that they had yet to have sign-off or any

follow-up calls or visits, which they might have expected. H2 (single person

household) had received a bill for the works six weeks before the phase two

in-home interview, but had been told by the installers of her cladding to wait

until someone came to sign-off the works before paying it. At the time of the

interview, she had not heard anything more and had not paid. Several other

householders were still awaiting sign-off. These were mainly those

householders whose works had been completed to an unsatisfactory standard

at the time of the interviews, so it is possible that installers plan to re-visit

these homes to revise their work. If this is the case, we recommended that

plans be communicated to the affected householders.

“I was expecting someone to come round and see if we had had any

problems. We’ve not had nothing like that” (H12, family with children)

4.2.7 Long-term considerations

Some questions were raised around the long-term implications of having

works carried out under CESP, in particular in relation to feelings of the

individuality and identity of residents’ homes. One participant for example

mentioned that they were required to sign a contract to say that they would not

paint their house. For some owner-occupiers, a key reason for buying their

own home was the freedom it allowed to bring individuality to the property.

“We don’t want our house to look like a council house.” (Focus group

participant)

Additional questions were raised around what the measures might mean for

future essential works, for example if a window needs replacing after external

cladding has been installed. It was felt that this type of long-term information

should be made available to households before the works take place.

“We need to know where we stand in the future.” (Focus group participant)

46

As is highlighted in the section on experience of having cladding installed,

there were concerns amongst a minority of householders about the guarantee

for their cladding having been voided by workmen drilling into it when

attempting to re-attach fences.

4.3 Impact of the Measures: Individual and Household-Level - Heating

The in-home interviews identified a range of reported benefits of the CESP

measures installed so far at the individual household level. These included

increased warmth, improved air quality following the removal of warm air

systems, and more efficient energy use by removing the need for additional,

expensive heating sources such as convector or electric fan heaters. In

addition, there were cases of increased use of household space and reduced

anxiety/worry over old, inefficient systems.

4.3.1 Household warmth and thermal comfort

Increased warmth appeared to be the most notable and immediate benefit of

the newly installed central heating systems, as illustrated in the quotes below.

Some families reported that this resulted in a more effective use of household

space, for example through increased use of previously colder bedrooms. H5,

who at the time of interview had already received both heating and cladding,

noted that the property now kept the heat in more effectively. This had led to

the couple turning down their thermostat and putting the heating on less often,

but still finding the home warmer as a result. They compared this to the

previous warm air system, where the bathroom was so cold that it would

sometimes be necessary to wear a coat while getting washed:

“We have noticed a difference haven’t we?… Before we used to have the

heating on fairly high… we’ve been able to put it down two or three notches,

and turn it off early… because it does actually hold the heat… We’re actually

saving about 4 hours a day aren’t we, so that should make quite a difference

[to the bills].” (H5, older couple)

47

“Well we’re certainly finding it at the moment a lot warmer, all round the

house… it was cold before, we wouldn’t have been sitting with that door open

and that curtain open for a start, you’d be shivering.” (H3, middle-aged couple)

“Sometimes, when I go out I come in, you walk in and you think is the heating

on? …It just feels warmer.” (H4, middle-aged couple)

Likewise, when asked whether the new system had made a difference, H10’s

teenage daughter replied:

“Definitely… When I was little I used to come downstairs with the blow heating

and sit next to it [the vent] to get warm.” (H10, family with two children)

At the time of the phase two interviews, householders had had an extended

period of time during which to reflect on the impact of their new heating

systems in terms of thermal comfort. The vast majority of householders that

had received a new heating system were very satisfied with the results. H1,

who lived in the house that had once been home to her late father who used

several extra heaters to try to keep warm, commented:

“I was really pleased with the price […] if [my father] had been alive he would

have been really pleased that we’ve managed to do this. [It’s] been a lot, lot

better, a lot warmer.” (H1 Single person household)

H3 (middle-aged couple) commented that their house “used to get really cold”

but that now when they turn their heating off at bedtime, it stayed warm all

night. They added:

“It’s a good thing that they’ve given us the chance to have this done because it

does, it makes your property a hell of a lot warmer […] look at the heating side

of it because it’s so much warmer, especially in the bathroom.” (H3, middle-

aged couple)

A number of householders had changed the way they used energy at home

thanks to their new heating systems. H1, for example, said that she no longer

used her extra heaters:

48

“I don’t need them!” (H1 Single person household)

Similarly, H10 (family with children) was particularly pleased with their new

heating system since, unlike the old one, they were able to use radiator valves

in each room to control the temperature. They commented that the old warm

air system had a burning smell and that the heating “was on full all the time

and we couldn’t turn it down.” As such, their new system was seen as

beneficial in several ways. H13 (middle-class couple) had noticed a “big

difference” since having the new heating system installed, finding that “every

room in the house was warm” whilst their former system was “so inefficient

and rubbish.”

There was just one interviewee who was dissatisfied with her heating system

in terms of thermal comfort in her home. H9 (single person household)

explained that she was still cold in her home and using an extra heater. NES

suggested that her house might be particularly cold because it was a gable

end, which she agreed with.

4.3.2 Health and air quality

Households who had moved from a warm air system to gas central heating

also reported a difference in air quality. H2 for example had initially been

unsure about radiators because of their appearance and pre-existing beliefs

about gas being potentially dangerous:

“So I was put off but… it was unbelievable when we got them in. The air was

cleaner, it was - oh completely different. Completely different… because the

warm air, it does sort of blow dust out, you don’t realise but it was really

dusty… you could see it… I must admit at first I thought oh, gas - we could

have been blown to kingdom come, but as it turns out it was alright.” (H2,

single female household)

“When we used to turn the blower heater on, you could see the dust flying in

the air. You don’t see that no more now […] the air’s not dry.” (H4, middle-

aged couple)

49

For H10, both mother and daughter suffer chest problems that were perceived

to have been exacerbated by the warm air system. They compared this to the

new system:

“It doesn’t seem so dry, the blow heating was really dry and was quite noisy…

and when you hadn’t had it on a while you could tell the dust in the air vents

when you put it on, it smelt like burning. So I think it’s a lot cleaner, a LOT

cleaner…” (H10, family with two children)

4.3.3 Financial impact

At initial household interviews, most households suggested that it was too

early to measure any financial impact, as the weather had been fairly mild

since installation. However there were some promising signs for those who

paid weekly for their energy, or had measures installed some time ago. H11

for example had central heating installed 12 months before the in-home

interview, and saw a corresponding reduction from £40 to £26 per month for

gas, while electricity remained relatively stable. The householder expected an

even greater saving following the cladding, which was ongoing at the time of

interview. Elsewhere H10, who paid weekly for gas, noted that costs had

remained the same but the family were using the system much more, ‘so it

must be more economical.’

For H10 an additional benefit was found in terms of reduced anxiety over their

previous system, which was an old and faulty system but that they did not

have the money to replace:

“It’s a big weight off our minds really.” (H10, family with two children)

At the time of the second household interviews, most residents felt unable to

say with certainty whether or not their bills had decreased thanks to the works

they had had installed. This was because most residents had yet to

experience having had their works installed for a full winter at the time of the

interviews. Nevertheless, with very few exceptions, the general consensus

was that energy bills had most likely decreased thanks to the works. For

example, H1, H2 and H10 commented:

50

“I can’t really judge them yet because I haven’t had, like I say, a full winter.

The last bill was estimated […] I’m sure the gas will work out cheaper.” (H1

Single person household)

“…I don’t know if the bills have gone down or not. But they’re certainly not

excessive.” (H2 Single person household)

“We have the heating on a hell of a lot more than what we did and I’m not

putting any more in than what we used before.” (H10 family with two children)

H5 were confident that they had saved money on their energy bills thanks to

the measures. Indeed, they had saved £60 on their bill over the three months

preceding the interview despite having been “keeping the heating on a bit

higher than what [they] normally do.” They commented that this saving had

been a “good surprise” (H5 older couple). Similarly, H8, H13 and H10 noted

significant differences in their bills:

“I actually got a £300 rebate from E.ON” (H8 family with teenage son)

“I must say I think it’s the only time we’ve been in credit on a winter period.”

(H13 family)

“Before we had the radiators (my mum) used to say ‘it costs [us] a fortune, put

a jumper on if you’re cold.” (H10, family with children)

There was just one interviewee who felt certain of an increase in her bills

since the installation. H9 had a new heating system installed through the

CESP programme. She had had cavity wall and loft insulation installed

previously. H9 explained:

“I’ve just got my gas and electricity bills, and my consumption on my gas and

electricity bills is well up on my usage for this quarter last year […] I would

say, on the whole, my house was warmer than it was. But the problem is my

consumption is up because I’m heating rooms that I didn’t previously heat.”

(H9, single person household)

51

Noise

On a less positive note, a number of households commented on how noisy the

new systems were, particularly when warming up and cooling down. Some

householders were not bothered by this noise, whilst others perceived it as a

nuisance:

“It was a bit noisy to begin with. You get used to that though […] That don’t

bother me at all” (H8, family with teenage son)

“It is so noisy […] what can’t be cured must be endured […] it still wakes me”

(H11, single person household)

Impact of the Measures: Individual and Household-Level – Cladding

Views on the impact of cladding largely focused on the visual finish. Whilst two

householders were unhappy with the finish on their homes, (H12, family with

children, said this house “looked worse” post cladding whilst H13, middle-aged

couple felt that they had “made a mistake” signing up for the project since the

finish had been so bad), most felt that the cladding made a visual

improvement to their homes:

“We like it” (H4, middle-aged couple)

“I think it looks nice” (H7, older middle-aged couple, referring to neighbours’

cladding)

“I think it looks posh. I’m actually proud to bring people to my house […]

Basically it looks tidy” (H10, family with two children)

H2 (single person household) in particular was very happy about the cladding

as it improved the external appearance of her house, which is the principal

reason she was interested in the opportunity at the outset. She was also

pleased to see a reduction in her bill when she told workmen that she didn’t

want the security lights etc. re-putup: they removed the charge.

52

There were a few householders that had opinions regarding the lack of

uniformity of colours of the finish, but none had serious complaints about this.

Some examples of opinions follow:

“I thought the idea of this estate was going to be so we all look the same” (H1,

single person household)

“They came and ask if we wanted the shed doing. And we said ah no, you

know, we’ve painted it that cream […] They did next-door’s like the rusty

coloured. But they left this side of it, her side, bare brick. Every time I walked

passed I thought ‘they must be going to do that another day.’ But no. Because

it’s my shed, even though it’s facing, it’s her garden. They just left it. It looks a

bit odd” (H2, single person household).

“I think the thing that lets it down are those that won’t have it done. You get

the really nice houses that have just been done then you get one in the middle

where someone’s said ‘no, I won’t have it done’ and I think that’s what spoils

it” (H10, family with children)

“Well I don’t like the blue […] all my neighbours that I’ve spoken to around

here have said that they prefer mine to theirs. I just think blue is a bit of an odd

colour for a house. I think white looks better. They said if they’d had a choice

they would have chosen the white” (H10, family with children).

4.3.3 Changes to energy use

Most households use their new heating systems in the same way as they had

used their warm air systems. The vast majority of householders manually

used the thermostat to turn their heating on and off (up and down) as and

when they needed it. Even by the phase 2 interviews, only one householder

had attempted to use their timer and considered the functionality of the digital

programmer:

“[I] think it’s better, you know, going out and about, and I just put it on as and

when I need it” (H1, single person household)

53

“When I go out, I turn it right down to 10, so that it goes off […] it works for us”

(H3, middle-aged couple)

“Get up, turn it on, turn it off […] We seem to get on with [the heating system]

better [than the last one]” (H4, middle-aged couple)

This indicates that householders may not have been aware of the advantages

of radiators as opposed to the warm air systems.

54

4.4 Impact of the Measures: Community-Level

Benefits of the CESP project were also discussed at the wider neighbourhood

level.

4.4.1 Attractiveness and pride

Apart from one householder, it was generally felt that CESP measures were

improving the attractiveness of the estate, and that the investment was hoped

to increase residents’ sense of pride in North Bransholme and its reputation to

those outside the area. Participants were unanimously, for the most part,

happy with North Bransholme as a place to live, given its strong sense of

community and picturesque location; however it was felt that these positive

views were not necessarily shared by those outside of the area. Pride was

raised as a particular issue for young people.

Investment in the area was reported to have increased feelings of

security/stability that more homes won’t be demolished, and to have provided

a turning point following a number of years of neglect. Residents unanimously

felt that investment would be good for the area, as it used to be seen as an

undesirable place to live.

“I like it here, it’s getting better.” (Focus group participant)

“After ten years of no investment, things are cracking on”. (Focus group

participant)

“Properties are starting to sell now”. (Focus group participant)

55

“Now that the estate is being improved, it’s about being proud about where

you live and being happy - people want to stay here now.” (Focus group

participant)

“In five or six years’ time this estate is going to look good, once it’s finished,

because it’s starting to look better now than it ever did. It was a dump” (H5,

older couple)

“It looks brilliant. It’s so different” (H8, family with teenage son)

“I think it’s going to look really nice when they’re all finished” (H10, family with

two children) One householder commented:

“…more people are looking after their properties, definitely […] So I think it’s

definitely had a good improvement on the estate. And it looks better doesn’t

it? Without a doubt” (H5, older couple)

This indicates that the aesthetic improvements to the estate brought about by

the CESP programme have encouraged some householders to make a

greater effort on a personal level to look after their homes and gardens.

4.4.2 Community cohesion

A key area of discussion in the in-home interviews related to the perceived

impact of the programme at a wider community level. One household

suggested that the project may have increased community cohesion, by

encouraging neighbours to talk to each other:

56

“I think it certainly has [brought the community together], yeah… because

we’ve lived here how many years and we’d never spoken to them neighbours,

or them neighbours (gestures)… Everybody used to kind of keep themselves

to themselves but there is a lot more talking between people now… they’ll

come across and - obviously most of it’s gossip (laughs)… but yeah there’s

definitely been a lot more communication between people.” (H31, family)

“It builds social capital, doesn’t it? It’s great to see everything that’s going on,

as a whole community… if individual homes were getting things done that can

divide communities can’t it… the people who’ve got the money can have the

stuff done and those who haven’t can’t… And the cladding, that’s great to see.

The whole estate looks a lot brighter.” (H8, family with teenage son)

“It has improved the estate… it’s tidied it up a lot.” (H4, middle-aged couple)

57

4.4.3 Local employment opportunities

Whilst some householders suggested a positive impact upon local

employment opportunities through the use of local contractors to do aspects of

the work, two households raised queries about the sub-contracting processes

for the work, particularly with regards to remedial jobs. H13, who were

unhappy with several aspects of the installation of their cladding, felt that the

unsatisfactory jobs were a symptom of the unskilled labour working on the

project, who, he said, had been employed by “…a local resident” I think he’s

got a little crew who are coming around and doing these small jobs […] I think

it’s them.” He added that:

“90% of the people working [on the scheme], they’re not even qualified […] the

three lads […] doing the finishing, one of them was [qualified]. The other two

weren’t” (H13, middle-aged couple)

Whether or not the views above are fair, in future projects, communicating the

criteria and process for subcontracting may ease the concerns and suspicions

of householders.

4.4.4 Future hope and plans

Interview discussions painted a picture of North Bransholme as an area

undergoing vast, community-wide improvement through a combination of the

E.ON-funded CESP programme, property developments carried out by

Riverside Housing and the praised role of local councillors in pushing for

continued community development.

Opinions of E.ON

Funding the CESP programme seems, to some extent, to have had a positive

impact on E.ON’s reputation in North Bransholme. Thanks to their support of

the project, H3 commented that “I’d maybe consider in the future going with

them” adding that she was particularly impressed that E.ON didn’t require

householders to switch to their service in order to be eligible for support. She

said, “I like that idea. You’ve got your freedom of choice haven’t you” (H3,

58

middle-aged couple). H11, who had previously been involved with the

Residents’ panel, commented:

“We’re pleased that E.ON have come on board and have been able to offer

such a deal especially to our owner-occupiers […] we’d seen other estates

where they’d got improved, then the owner-occupiers begin to look shabby

because they can’t afford to buy into the improvements” (H11, single-person

household)

H8 were especially pleased that E.ON had put part of its CESP funding

towards an evaluation of the programme to engage residents on their views.

The households’ estimations of E.ON had improved as a result:

“…E.ON are a good company in that respect, because they must have put

more money into it to have you guys involved” (H8, family with teenage son)

Some householders had not changed their opinion of E.ON during the course

of the project. In one case, the householder did not know E.ON was the

funder. With regards to H2 (single-person household), in hindsight, looking

back at the paperwork she had received over the course of the project, she

could see E.ON’s logo, but until we asked her about how her views on E.ON

had changed thanks to the project it was apparent that she hadn’t realised it

was E.ON-funded. One participant who had decided to move to E.ON as

energy supplier following their investment in the area commented that projects

such as this seem to be a missed opportunity for positive PR and marketing:

“I think E.ON are missing a trick aren’t they, and the other suppliers, because

society’s view of energy companies is pretty dim isn’t it… they seem to be

missing out on a lot of positive PR that they could be doing… they don’t seem

to see that it will raise their profile within society that they’re actually putting

something back.” (H8, family with teenage son)

Opinions of Riverside Housing

As can be seen in the examples below, opinions of Riverside Housing as the

area’s new social housing provider (having taken over from Hull City Council)

59

were generally very positive. However for some households concerns did

remain about property upkeep and the ‘policing’ of tenants, particularly given

the level of investment put into improving the properties. One household

commented that they hadn’t seen much change on the estate since Riverside

Housing took over from Hull City Council (H3, middle-aged couple, owner-

occupier), and another that they had heard several tenants complaining at

delays in organising domestic repairs (H5, older couple, owner-occupier).

Nevertheless, the vast majority of views were positive:

“I said, let’s hope they turn the estate around - and they have… [before

Riverside] it was going right down. There were a lot of empty properties, the

kids were vandalising them… it was a mess… and they’ve done them all up,

they’ve done kitchens, fences, bathrooms the lot… They’ve done wonderful…

I use the buses a lot and you hear people talking and they all say what a good

thing it is.” (H1, single female household)

“These people [Riverside] seem to be, instead of knocking them down they’re

spending money inside the property and doing them up, and yeah that’s what

it needs. I mean it might not have a had a roof on for, you know or all the tiles

missing for two and a half years, but by Christ there’s some good reports

coming back from how they’ve turned some of those houses round.” (H13,

family)

“They do look a lot better, it’s really since Riverside’s taken over - you’ve

noticed that they are getting more work done… some of the houses before,

nearly all of the town was just untidy.” (H7, middle-aged couple)

“Well it’s great you know, they haven’t messed about, they’ve got on and done

stuff… Things are moving and yeah I’m impressed with Riverside.” (H8, family

with teenage son)

“They’ve done a good job […] they’d improved it” (H4, middle-aged couple)

“We’ve seen that Riverside are doing a decent job” (H11, single person

household)

60

“I think it definitely improved, I mean, without a doubt” (H12, family with young

children)

In general, discussions pointed to a strong sense of community and North

Bransholme as a good place to live, but with a lot of uncertainty over future

development of the estate. Concerns raised included uncertainty around what

will become of previous demolition sites, and the need for better amenities for

local residents including shops, parking and activities for young people. A few

householders raised concerns regarding plans to build on green spaces, and

the perceived lack of consultation with residents on this issue on Riverside’s

part. Novel ideas were put forward for how to further improve the area,

including community allotments and a tenant points scheme whereby

Riverside tenants who looked after their properties, paid rent on time etc.

could trade ‘good tenant points’ for further home improvements.

Opinions of energy companies more generally

A small number of interviewees highlighted issues associated with energy

companies during the discussions. Although the points raised are not directly

relevant to the CESP evaluation, they may well be very relevant to Riverside

Housing’s new Affordable Warmth Officer and may also be of interest to

E.ON. We have therefore included the points raised in this report.

One interviewee highlighted a customer service issue. H1 (single person

household) wished to be removed from the Economy 7 tariff by her energy

provider (E.ON) since she had a new heating system installed through the

CESP programme. She was very frustrated that it took five telephone calls in

order to sort this out. The delay in removing H1 from the Economy 7 tariff may

well have caused her bill to be significantly more expensive than it should

have been.

H2 also brought up the case of a neighbour who had recently become a

mother for the first time. The issue appeared to be linked to the disparity

between estimated and actual readings. The neighbour became very worried

and upset after receiving a £1000 bill from her provider (E.ON) “because

they’d not changed her direct debit so she’d used an excess.”

61

One household voiced their negative perception of energy companies due to

the perceived large profits that the latter make. There was a lack of

understanding as to why the companies must raise the price of energy when

they are making what are perceived to be very healthy profits. H4 commented:

“I do, I feel annoyed when they say they’re putting [the price] up, and then at

the end of the year they say they’ve made so many millions profit, and you

think, well why put it up? You know, how much profit do you want to make?”

(H4, middle-aged couple)

In terms of switching, most householders did not regard it as an activity they

would pursue, largely due to the perception that all the energy companies “are

all the same” in any case. The one householder that had switched had done

so in the hope that her new supplier would offer better customer service than

the previous one (H2, single person household).

4.5 Quantitative Analysis: Temperature and humidity data logging

Two data loggers similar to that pictured below were installed in thirteen

properties. One data logger was positioned in the main living room area and

another in the main bedroom area.

Data loggers were installed in two batches:

Period 1

24th October 2012 until 31st March 2013. This covered a monitoring period of

158 days (or 5 months 7 days) from the start to the end date, but not including

62

the end date. Data recording were taken in half hour intervals. This period

generated 7,584 recordings for our analysis.

Period 2

Tuesday 13th November 2012 until 31st March 2013. This covered a

monitoring period of 138 days (or 4 months 18 days.) As with period one,

data recordings were taken in half hour intervals and this resulted in 6,624

data recordings for our analysis.

Monitors were calibrated to take readings of temperature (OC) and relative

humidity (RH) every half hour during the monitoring period.

Outdoor ambient temperatures during the monitoring period

The following section represents an assessment of the weather experienced

across the UK during our monitoring period (Winter of 2012 to 2013 –

December 2012 to February 2013.) To help us understand the trends, data

from the Met Office has been sourced. It is important for us to consider the

trends in temperatures during our monitoring period as this helps us to

correlate weather conditions with the use of domestic heating. The results of

this exercise are presented below.

The mean temperature over the UK for the winter was 3.3 OC which is 0.4 OC

below the long term average. December was equal to the long term average

for the month, January was 0.4 OC below, February was 0.9 OC below and at

2.8 OC was the coldest month of the season. Spells of notably mild weather

occurred in late December and early January, and notably cold weather in

early December, mid to late January, and the latter part of February.

During the winter of 2012-2013, conditions overall for the UK were marginally

wetter than the long term average. It was provisionally the wettest December

since 1999 with 105% of long term average rain; considerable disruption from

flooding events occurred in the run-up to Christmas. January was slightly drier

than average for the UK as a whole with a few localised exceptions in some

coastal areas and Northern Ireland. February was also dry. There was a

period of widespread snowfall across much of the country from mid-to-late

63

January as frontal systems hit colder air, causing considerable disruption.

This was followed by a rapid thaw in the last few days of the month; snow melt

and further rain resulting in some further localised flooding. Further snow

events in February were generally short lived. December and February were

generally sunny months for the UK as a whole. January was generally dull

across most of the country.

Mean temperature

The mean temperature for the winter of 2012/2013 was 3.3 OC, which is 0.4

OC below the 1987-2010 average.

Rainfall

The total rainfall for winter of 2012/2013 was 347 mm, which is 105% of the

1981-2010 average.

Sunshine

The provisional total for the winter of 2012 to 2013 is 165 hours, which is

104% of the 1981-2010 average. The chart below illustrates the longitudinal

temperatures captured by the Met Office during the winter of 2012-2013. As

the circled area in this chart illustrates, there was a particularly sharp cold

spell between 15th January 2013 and 25th January 2013.

Using this evidence from the Met Office, NEA has focused the analysis of our

data loggers during this particularly cold period to measure average

temperature and relative humidity (RH) levels.

Chart 1: Mean Temperature – Winter 2012/2013 – UK (Source: Met Office 2013)

64

Data recorder 1a and 1b represent a household where no energy efficiency

measures were installed. This was due to the household refusing to engage

with the CESP programme.

Data recorder 1a and 1b represent a household where no energy efficiency

measures were installed. This was due to the household refusing to engage

with the CESP programme, despite this, the household agreed to take part in

our monitoring exercise. Chart (2) below illustrates how this household

compares against households who engaged with the programme. As the

chart illustrates, the temperatures recorded in the household without

interventions are significantly lower. For example, the average living room

temperature in household 1 (1a) was 12.3 oC compared to the average living

room temperature recorded in households with interventions (2a-12a) 19.0 oC

this is a difference of 6.7 oC. In addition, the average bedroom temperature

recorded in household 1 (1b) was 14 oC compared to households with

interventions 19.5 oC, this is a difference of 5.5 oC. These results illustrate

significant improvement in living room and bedroom temperatures amongst

households with interventions.

Chart 2 also illustrates those households in receipt of interventions had

relatively consistent average temperatures. For example, the difference

between the lowest average temperature 16.4 oC recorded (2a-12a and 2b-

12b) and highest average temperature 21.3 oC recorded was 4.9 oC. This

provides evidence that, to some extent, the external wall insulation and

replacement boilers work to align internal temperatures. Based on previous

research by NEA26 we can be confident that without interventions, the

temperatures and relative humidity (%rh) levels recorded in these properties

would have been dispersed.

26 Newcastle City Council, Riverside Dene tower block analysis 2010.

65

Chart 2:

Average temperature recordings living room and bedroom areas (NEA data loggers 15th

January to 25th

January 2013)

Chart 3:

Relative Humidity Levels (%rh) Bedroom Areas during cold period

66

Chart 3 above illustrates the average level of relative humidity monitored in

the bedroom of properties during the cold snap (15th January 2013 to 25th

January 2013). As the chart illustrates, there was relatively low rates of

variance in the levels of relative humidity (rh%) monitored. However, relative

humidity levels between 40 and 60 per cent are ideal and it was pleasing to

find all within or very close to this band. This illustrates there was ideal levels

of moisture circulating within all properties. It was assuring to find the levels of

relative humidity monitored in the bedroom area of the property without

intervention (1b) were comparable to those with interventions. This illustrates

the bedroom area within this property did not have any issues with damp or

ventilation.

Chart 4:

Relative Humidity Levels (%rh) Living Room Areas during cold period

Chart 4 above illustrates the average level of relative humidity (rh%) monitored in the living

room areas of properties during the cold snap (15th January 2013 to 25th January 2013). As

the chart above illustrates, there was quite a lot of variance in the levels of relative humidity

(rh %) monitored. As outlined above, relative humidity levels between 40 and 60 per cent

67

are ideal and it was pleasing to find all households in receipt of interventions within or

relatively close to this band. This illustrates there was relatively good levels of moisture

circulating within the properties monitored. However, the chart above illustrates the levels of

relative humidity monitored in the living room of the property without interventions (1) were

significantly higher at 71.50% rh. This illustrates the air within the living room of this property

was too wet, 11.5 per cent higher than the ideal level. The living room of this property is too

try and requires better ventilation. Further investigation of this property found that it was still

using an electric ducted air heating system, which may be a contributory factor as to why the

air was so damp. The living room of this property clearly has ventilation issues, if left

untreated; this may have a detrimental impact on the occupants’ health.

68

5. Discussions and Recommendations

5.1 Overview of Key Findings and Issues Raised

Our research highlighted some very positive experiences and positive

household outcomes, including reduced bills and improved comfort, increased

room use, and improved health where warm air systems removed.

Over the duration of the project there were some persistent quality assurance

issues, particularly around cladding and ‘finishing off’ works; and some key

issues around communication/co-ordination between households and the

different stakeholders involved in installation. Where possible and with the

consent of householders, NEA worked with project partners to resolve these

issues.

This scheme highlighted the potential for community-level benefits, our study

found strong evidence of improved community cohesion and pride where the

scheme was perceived to have worked well.

Providing residents with long term reassurance was paramount to maximising

take up of measures. Residents placed high value on the long-term aspects

of the programme, aftercare, future home improvement guarantees etc.

These aspects should not be overlooked as they have proven to be potential

‘deal-breakers’.

Householders could have benefited from increased follow-up to ensure they

could fully realise benefits of the measures installed. This was particularly the

case where new heating systems were installed. Increased guidance and

follow-up with regards to controlling their new heating systems would have

instilled longer term benefits.

It is important to identify the specific elements of the programme NEA believes

were particularly strong in contrast to other evaluations we have undertaken to

date. These are outlined below:

69

1. Marketing and high profile engagement amongst residents: This was

particularly strong amongst owner-occupiers. The successful approach

adopted by Starfish should be commended. A range of different methods

(including door-to-door, stakeholder community engagement events,

telephone, leaflets etc.) and was generally perceived to have been a

success. While the appearance of houses who did not receive measures

was considered a disappointment, overall a higher level of take-up was

achieved amongst owner-occupiers compared to previous CESP projects

examined by NEA.

2. Level of ownership also positive in most cases: For example,

providing residents with the opportunity to vote for which colour brick slip

and going with majority. Effective way of maximising choice while retaining

a level of consistency to create an aesthetically pleasing finish which

joined together rather than divided different parts of the neighbourhood.

This demonstrated a balanced level of community engagement which

wasn’t detrimental to the operational delivery of the programme.

3. Community cohesion and wider community-level benefits seen more

strongly here than other evaluations: The evidence gathered during our

focus groups and in-house interviews found strong evidence of increased

community cohesion and pride in the North Bransholme estate. This

should be taken as one of the main legacies of the programme.

However, it is also important to clearly outline some of the more negative

issues identified during our evaluation. It was no surprise to find all of these

issues resembled those found in previous CESP evaluations undertaken by

NEA.

1. It was evident the rush to finish the scheme within government-

specified timescales led to ‘missed opportunities’. This was

particularly the case for vulnerable consumers who found they weren’t

eligible for CESP measures, but were eligible for other schemes such as

the Government’s Warm Front Scheme, which was approaching the end

of its lifecycle at the time of our fieldwork. Mechanisms weren’t in place to

ensure they were referred on. Where necessary NEA responded to this

70

gap and referred on.

2. Importance of ensuring a trusted party as household liaison officer

for the duration of the project to manage day-to-day issues – This

issue was found during a previous evaluation and also re-surfaced in

North Bransholme.

There were substantial communication problems between household and

installers, including lack of information about timescales and what to

expect etc. In Stafford, ‘the lack of a tenant liaison officer meant that

issues were not dealt with effectively, with many persisting beyond the

completion of the project.’ (Bradley and Smith, 2012: 12) This resonates

strongly with what we found in North Bransholme, reasserting the

importance of household liaison to generate positive perceptions of the

scheme. In other schemes evaluated by NEA one of the main messages

to extract was that, ‘The ‘how’ is just as important as the ‘what’ when it

comes to CESP.’ It was evident the scheme could have benefited from

higher profile engagement with residents and recruitment of a liaison

officer would have provided useful ‘eyes and ears on the ground’.

3. Improved level of information to households, particularly around

level of disruption. The level of information provided to some owner-

occupier residents was, in some cases, not sufficient. There was a need

for written breakdowns - of costs, of timescales, more than anything to

reassure households and allay any fears that there may be hidden costs

further down the line. This was a particularly weak area for the programme

during the early stages and in some cases acted as a barrier to uptake.

4. Accompanying advice and follow up. Increased advice and follow-up is

needed, not just in relation to the physical energy efficiency measures, but

how to get the most out of them, including wider energy-related advice.

This is essential to ensure longer term successful outcomes for

households. At times, it seemed the energy efficiency measures installed

provided increased comfort and warmth but advice to instil longer term

behaviour change was lacking. The responses gained in this study

suggested that householders would welcome a follow-up visit to do this. It

is recommended this takes place with a slight delay – (couple of weeks) to

71

allow households time to digest the information already received and time

to ‘play about’ with the new system and think about any questions that

they may have.

5.2 Wider Implications

To ensure future programmes such as Green Deal, ECO and in particular

CSCo can benefit it is important to make clear recommendations in light of the

findings from this report. The findings here highlight potential value of

community-level schemes; that they provide ‘added value’ on a number of

fronts that is not found for household-level targeted schemes. Community-

level aids cohesion rather than division.

Recommendations for CSCo and Future Programmes

Recommendations based on NEA’s focus groups and in-home interviews:

Transparency - residents would have benefited from greater information

in relation to the exact terms of the project including the background to

CESP, the measures available and eligibility criteria.

Increased communication between providers and households prior to

the work being carried out, including written confirmation of household

eligibility, estimated timescales, details of the measures being installed

and a written breakdown of any additional costs.

A single point of contact for households, such as a designated

household engagement worker, would be valuable in dealing with issues

on the ground.

A need for accompanying advice to ensure that households are able to

gain maximum value from their new systems, including how to use new

systems most efficiently, how to set the system programmers, and wider

energy efficiency advice.

72

Additional support/signposting for vulnerable, low-income households

who are not eligible for measures under CESP but who may be able to

benefit from other schemes, such as energy supplier trusts, Warm Front or

the Priority Service Register.

Continued marketing of the project at a local level, the programme

could have benefited from a second wave of marketing. This would be to

allow those who may have initially opted out to take part now that they

have heard more about the measures from neighbours or family members.

5.3 Conclusion

In terms of initial communications, the community events were commended

whilst word-of-mouth appeared crucial to reducing some of the early barriers

to involvement. Visibility of the programme at community level was also

suggested to have built momentum and engaged those who may otherwise

not have sought out interventions. Nevertheless, there were some gaps in

household understanding/awareness; particularly in relation to the origins of

CESP, how it was funded, timescale of implementation and so on. Also,

suspicion about the lack of costs was raised as a key potential barrier to

uptake. Additional information prior to installation, including a written

breakdown of costs, may have helped to address this issue. Where

householders were deemed ineligible for measures, there appeared to be a

lack of understanding amongst the affected parties as to why they could not

access benefits of the scheme, as well as a lack of signposting to other

schemes.

It seems there were issues surrounding follow-up communications after

initial assessments and during the installation process. Participants

recommended a letter or courtesy call following the initial visit in order to allay

doubts surrounding whether the grant had been approved, what would be

installed, estimated timescales and any additional costs. Communications

surrounding the wider co-ordination of the works was an area for

improvement. Participants reported a lack of breakdown of additional costs,

lack of information with regards to the timescales of works for individual

73

households, and no responses to enquiries regarding unfinished works or

problems, mainly in relation to the latter external cladding installations.

Heating installations were described by the vast majority of householders in

very positive terms whilst views of the cladding intervention were dependent

on timeframes. Those householders who received installations during summer

months were largely positive, but those from winter months, when installations

appeared to be rushed due to the pending government closure of the

programme, were largely negative. The latter negative views included issues

with lime from the white pebbledash mixture running down the walls, several

householders complained that the process used by workmen to achieve the

pebbledash finish had caused damage to their windows, and mess elsewhere.

Many householders raised access problems in relation to their ability to open

windows and doors, or access external aerials, wiring and alarms, following

the installation of external wall insulation. Issues concerning the removal of

fencing seemed to be a particularly common complaint. A few householders

complained about the attitude and behaviour of the workmen. Some felt that

the sub-contracting processes were a large factor in causing the

aforementioned problems, mentioning that local residents who were

unqualified were undertaking certain jobs after having been contracted in a

non-transparent fashion. This raises questions about consistency and quality

assurance when using a larger number of installers employed through

different companies. Similarly, there were issues of consistency around

household choice. For example, some households could choose where

radiators were positioned whilst other were charged for this flexibility. A

number of households raised disappointment that their porches were excluded

from eligibility for cladding, because they had formerly been an outbuilding

before being incorporated into the property. This was perceived to create a

cold spot which could be detrimental to the effectiveness of the CESP

measures.

Feedback from participants with regards to aftercare following the heating

system installations was generally positive. Participants did however add that

follow-up advice and support on how to make the most of their heating

systems would have been appreciated. Aftercare with regards to cladding had

proved to be poor for many participants, with several householders left unsure

74

if problems with their cladding would ever be resolved at the time of the final

household issues. With regards to long term issues, there were worries about

warranties being voided by careless installers drilling into the cladding, and

other potential future issues such as what to do if a window needs replacing

following installation.

On an individual level, the heating systems had a very beneficial impact,

according to residents, in terms of thermal comfort, health, air quality and

financially. Some residents found the new systems noisy, but this was a minor

problem. In terms of the cladding, views on the impacts and benefits were

mixed. Again, views seem time-dependent with those receiving later

installations during the winter feeling less positive about the experience as a

whole and the results of the cladding installations. In terms of wider

community-level benefits, many participants felt that the area looked more

attractive thanks to the works, and their pride in their home was therefore

raised. Others felt that community cohesion had increased thanks to the

programme. Some householders felt that the programme had a positive

impact on local employment opportunities.

Overall, despite issues with on-going communications and with the latter

external cladding installations, the E.ON/Riverside Housing CESP programme

resulted in tangible benefits for individual householders in terms of thermal

comfort, health, air quality and reduced energy bills, whilst wider benefits

extended to an increased sense of pride in the local community. Continued

advice and follow-up on how householders can take full advantage of their

new heating systems is advised, and NEA therefore commends the

recruitment of an Energy and Affordable Warmth Officer. It is also worth

highlighting that resident opinion of Riverside Housing and E.ON improved

thanks to the programme.

75

Appendices

North Bransholme Community Energy Saving Project

Focus Group Topic Guide (Post-Installation)

March 2013 (date TBC) North Bransholme Community Centre

Group 1: 12.30-3pm Group 2: 5.30-8pm

12:30: Arrival & lunch

13:00: Hello and welcome (15mins)

Background to the Research

Thank you for coming along to today’s session. My name is _____ and I work for National

Energy Action. We are a national charity whose main concern is ensuring that everyone can

keep warm and healthy at home and can afford to pay their energy bills.

The aim of today’s event is to find out about your experience of the Community Energy

Saving Project (CESP) in North Bransholme - what your views are on the project what kinds

of impact you think the project might have had - on you, your family or the North Bransholme

community.

As those of you who have been involved in earlier stages of the study may remember, our

research team at NEA have been asked to undertake an evaluation of CESP in your area by

Eon. We aimed to talk to North Bransholme residents before the measures were installed

(i.e. the first session we held last July), then again as a group after the measures had been

installed (today’s session). We have also involved a small number of households in more

depth, by taking temperature and humidity readings in the home before and after installation,

and talking to these households on a one-to-one basis.

The aim of doing the research in these different stages is to look at whether your

expectations have been met and how the measures may have impacted on you and on the

community.

Following today’s session we will write a report outlining our key findings, based on your

opinions and recommendations and the data we have collected. This report will be

anonymous and no one’s names will be included. We hope that the report will be used to

inform and make recommendations about how programmes like this might operate in the

future, to ensure that more neighbourhoods like North Bransholme can benefit from

improved energy efficiency - so your input is very valuable.

The discussions we have today are confidential and no names or personal details will be

included in the report, or passed on to anyone outside our research team. If you are

concerned about any aspect of this we would be happy to talk to you in more depth about it.

76

Role of Participation

Your participation today is completely voluntary and you are free to contribute as much or as

little as you like, and are free to leave at any time if you aren’t enjoying it – but we hope you

do! If you don’t feel happy answering some of the questions then please don’t feel as though

you have to; taking part is fully up to you.

The discussions will be recorded only for the purposes of note taking. You will not be

personally identified in any report.

Domestics

1. Toilets

2. Fire escape (any planned drill?)

3. Mobile phones – please turn them off or to silent

4. We will have a break half way through, feel free to top up drinks etc. No problem if need

to pop out during the group.

5. So that we can ALL make a valuable contribution we ask that you please allow everyone

to have their say and to listen to everyone’s view. As everyone’s views are equally

important and valuable. Everything you say will remain confidential.

Format of the session

Two main parts to the discussion - 40 minutes each, with a 10-15 minute break in between

for tea and coffee. In the first session we will talk about your experience of having the

measures installed, then in the second session we will look at any impact that you feel the

programme may have had on your household and on the community more widely.

Split into two groups (if necessary) - we would like to have a mix of couples together and

couples separated. Any volunteers to go in separate groups?

77

Switch on Recorder

Icebreaker

Who we are - I am _______ and my favourite book/TV programme is…

Please say who you are and if you want to your favourite book or TV programme.

13:15 Discussion Part 1 - Having the measures installed (40 mins)

For the first part of the discussion, we would like to find out about your experience of

having measures installed as part of the North Bransholme Community Energy

Saving Project - so what happened on the day, any information you received etc.

Please remember there are no wrong or right answers – we just want to know your

thoughts and experiences.

Recap from stages 1 and 2

[First 10 minutes: Research team to give broad overview of findings from Stages 1

and 2. Initial communication, level of information received, measures that were going

to be installed, any issues at the initial stages etc.]

Reflections - does anyone’s experience differ from what we have mentioned here?

Recap discussion on initial communication, information received etc

Experience before the installation

First of all, we’d like to hear about what happened before you had the measures

installed.

Did you receive any information before the measures were installed? [What was

it (telephone call, letter)? Opinions on level/type of info/any differences amongst

the group]

Did you feel that you received all the information you needed before you had the

measures installed? [Anything else you would have liked to know/ information

liked to receive?]

Experience of installation: On the day

We’d also like to find out about what happened when you had the measures

installed. Could you please describe briefly about what happened on the day?

What was actually installed on the day?

78

How many people came to your home? Were they on time? Were you offered a

password?

Was the installer helpful, did you have any questions? [If yes, were they

answered?]

How did you feel having the installer in your home? [any difficulties e.g. language,

mobility, etc.? Did they leave the place tidy? Were they professional/friendly?]

Did the installer show you how to use any new system/gadgets/appliances? [Was

this helpful, do you recall what they said?]

Did they leave you any information/guidance? [If yes, what was it, have you

referred to it, was it helpful –opinions]

How did the installation compare to your expectations? [E.g. time taken, level of

upheaval etc.]

Were there any issues on the day? [E.g. delays to installation, access issues for

delivery trucks etc.] If yes, were they resolved?

Do you feel as though you have received all the information and support you

need about using the measures now that they have been installed?

Have you had to contact anyone since the installation? If yes, who, why, was it

resolved?

Is there any additional information that you feel you need/concerns that have not

yet been addressed?

13:55: Tea/coffee break (15 mins)

14:10: Discussion Part 2 - Impact of the project (40 mins)

For the second part of the discussion we would like to focus on any impact that being

involved in the programme may have had, both to you on an individual level and also

in terms of the wider neighbourhood or community.

Recap from stages 1 and 2

[First 10 minutes - Research team to give broad overview of findings from Stage 1

and 2. Reasons for taking part, expectations - what people hoped to gain from their

involvement, both on an individual and a community level.

Reflections - have these expectations been met? Did expectations change with time?

79

Individual/household impact

First of all, we would like to know about any impact that the measures may have had

- on your property, you and your family. How do you think having the new measures

installed has impacted on you/your household?

Prompts if needed:

Property-related:

Increased warmth and comfort? Temperature changes?

Change in the levels of ventilation/internal air quality?

Financial savings/ change to energy bills?

Health/wellbeing - [Prompt - any specific impact on older household members,

young children, those with disabilities etc.?]

Have there been any changes to how you use energy within the home as a result

of having the measures installed?

Have you made any changes to the way you heat your home? Turn on

the heating less often/more often? (Ask about cooling in summer also!)

Would you say you are being more or less conscious about the way you

use energy within the home?

Any changes to socialising? [e.g. spending more time at home, having friends

over more etc.]?

Community impact

We would also like to hear about any impact on the wider neighbourhood. Thinking

back to your expectations at a neighbourhood/community level, how do you think the

project has impacted on North Bransholme more widely?

What about the perceptions of where you live - do you think the measures have

changed the way you - or others - see the area?

Do you think the measures have made the area more (or less) appealing?

[Prompts: attractiveness of the area, general tidiness of the area, litter, gardens?]

Do you feel there has been any impact on other social aspects outside of your

home? [Crime/anti-social behaviour, pride, community cohesion?]

80

Do you believe neighbours are socialising more since the measures have been

installed? [Has anyone discussed their installation with neighbours?]

Would anyone currently like to move from the area? [If yes, why? If not, why not?

Has the regeneration changed anyone’s views?]

General opinions/recommendations

Overall, do you think the measures installed represent a good investment from the

Riverside Housing Group?

Would you recommend CESP to a family member or friend?

Have your perceptions of Eon as an energy provider changed at all?

Have your perceptions of Riverside Housing Group changed at all? If so, how?

Do you feel that CESP has been a success?

Thinking about the experience out of ten where ten is excellent and 1 is very poor.

How would you rate CESP?

Is there anything else you believe the council or Riverside Housing Group could do to

improve the area?

How do you think the CESP programme could be improved? What advice can you

give to the CESP team?

Is there anything we have not discussed that you feel is important?

SWITCH OFF RECORDER

81

14:50: Summary, thank you and close

Thank you very much for you contributions, they have been very valuable.

[Give brief summary of discussions - mention a few key points that were particularly useful/ main issues

to be taken forward.]

So what next?

The report

Your thoughts, comments and views that we have discussed today will help to inform the report that we

put together at the end of this project, so that we can make recommendations based on what you have

told us. We hope that this will help energy suppliers and housing providers to develop more

programmes like this, to ensure that more neighbourhoods like North Bransholme can benefit from

improved energy efficiency.

Any views or comments included in the report will be anonymous and no names will appear anywhere

in our report, but if you have any concerns about this please feel free to speak to us about it.

Community Event

[Add in details if secured]

Any final questions/thank you

If you have any further questions we are pleased to take them now or you can contact us at a later

date, using the contact details provided on the information sheet. We have also put together some little

packs for you with some information about keeping warm in winter.

And we also have your gift vouchers to say thank you for your time today; we really appreciate you

giving up your afternoon to talk to us.

Thank you for taking part!

REF:

NB/____________________

(OFFICE USE ONLY)

82

The North Bransholme Community Energy Saving Project

Household Impact

Dear Householder,

Thank you for taking part in the evaluation of the North Bransholme Community Energy Saving Project which

is being carried out by the independent charity National Energy Action (NEA). Your views are very valuable

and will help inform how projects like the North Bransholme Energy Saving Project might benefit other

communities in the future.

As part of your involvement, we would like to ask you some questions related to the health and wellbeing of

your household. The findings will be used alongside our discussions with local residents and

temperature/humidity readings to provide a clear picture of the project’s impact.

All responses will remain anonymous and no personal information will be shared with anyone outside

of NEA. NEA is registered with the Data Commissioner and all data is held in accordance with the Data

Protection Act 1998. NEA is a national independent charity (registration number 290511).

If you would like to take part, please take a few moments to answer the following questions and then return the

questionnaire to us in the FREEPOST envelope provided.

You do not need to provide any personal contact details and your responses will in no way impact on your

involvement in the North Bransholme Energy Saving Project or any future regeneration programmes.

If you have any questions about the study, or would prefer to receive the questionnaire in a different format

(e.g. large print or over the telephone), please feel free to contact the NEA research team on 0191 269 2944.

Thank you for your time!

83

Section 1: Keeping warm at home

First of all we would like to ask you a few questions about how you keep warm and use energy at home, both

before and after you had measures installed as part of the North Bransholme Energy Saving Project.

1. Thinking about the following aspects of your heating system, would you say you are NOW more

or less satisfied than before you received measures as part of the North Bransholme Energy

Saving Project?

(Please circle one choice for each item listed below)

Much more satisfied now

A little more satisfied now

About the same

A little less satisfied now

Much less satisfied now

How warm your home gets 1 2 3 4 5

How easy the system is to use 1 2 3 4 5

The amount of control you have over the system

1 2 3 4 5

The cost of running the system 1 2 3 4 5

How well the house keeps the heat in 1 2 3 4 5

If it’s too early to tell, please tick this box

2a. Thinking about how you currently heat your home, which ONE of the following statements

applies to you best?

2b. Now thinking about BEFORE you received measures as part of the North Bransholme Energy

saving project, which statement do you think applied best then?

(Please tick only one statement) BEFORE

I didn’t have any worries about keeping the house warm in winter

When it was cold, keeping the place warm got a bit difficult but I managed OK

Keeping the place warm was actually something that caused me a lot of worry

If the situation didn’t improve I just didn’t know what I was going to do about keeping the place warm

(Please tick only one statement) NOW

I don’t have any worries about keeping the house warm in winter

When it is cold, keeping the place warm gets a bit difficult but I manage OK

Keeping the place warm is actually something that causes me a lot of worry

If the situation doesn’t improve I just don’t know what I am going to do about keeping the place warm

84

3. Which temperature is the closest to what you normally set your heating or room thermostat at,

both NOW and BEFORE you received measures as part of the North Bransholme Energy Saving

Project?

(Please circle one for

both now and before)

Lower

than 18oC 18oC 19oC 20oC 21oC

Higher

than 21oC

NOW 1 2 3 4 5 6

BEFORE 1 2 3 4 5 6

4. How would you describe your knowledge of how to keep your home warm and manage your

energy bills, both NOW and BEFORE you received measures?

(Please circle one choice for each item listed below) Very

poor Poor OK Good Excellent

Your knowledge NOW 1 2 3 4 5

Your knowledge BEFORE 1 2 3 4 5

5a. Please tell us how much you agree or disagree with each statement below.

(Please circle one choice for each item listed below) Strongly

agree Agree Disagree

Strongly

disagree

Paying for energy (gas & electricity etc.) means that I/we

sometimes cannot afford to buy, or buy less of, other essentials

such as food

1 2 3 4

Sometimes we have the heating on less than we would like so

that the bill is not too high 1 2 3 4

I/we often struggle to afford my/our fuel bills 1 2 3 4

5b. Now thinking about BEFORE you received measures as part of the North Bransholme Energy

Saving Project, please tell us how much you agree or disagree with each statement below.

(Please circle one choice for each item listed below) Strongly

agree Agree Disagree

Strongly

disagree

Paying for energy (gas & electricity etc.) meant that I/we

sometimes could not afford to buy, or bought less of, other

essentials e.g. food

1 2 3 4

Sometimes we had the heating on less than we would have

liked so that the bill was not too high 1 2 3 4

I/we often struggled to afford my/our fuel bills 1 2 3 4

85

6. Please tell us a little more about any changes to how you use energy or heat your home

since receiving measures as part of the North Bransholme Energy Saving Project.

Section 2: Staying healthy at home

We would now like to ask you a few questions about staying healthy at home, both before and after receiving

measures as part of the North Bransholme Energy Saving Project.

7a. In general, at the moment how good is the overall health of your household?

Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor

7b. Compared to before you received the measures as part of the North Bransholme Energy Saving

Project, how would you rate the overall health of your household NOW?

Much better now Slightly better now About the same

now

Slightly worse

now

Much worse now

1 2 3 4 5

Could you please tell us a little more about why the general health of your household is better or

worse now?

8a. Is there anyone in your home with a disability or long term illness/condition?

Yes No I’d rather not say

If you answered no, please go to question 13.

If you answered yes, please tell us the nature of your disability/illness

86

8b. Since receiving measures as part of the North Bransholme Community Energy Saving Project,

would you say that the person in your household with a disability or long term illness (this may

be you) have experienced any changes regarding their health? Would you say you or they…

(Please circle only one)

Feel a lot better

now

Feel a little better

now

Feel about the

same

Feel a little worse

now

Feel a lot worse

now

1 2 3 4 5

If it’s too early to tell, please tick this box

Could you please tell us a little more about why you or the member of your household feels better or worse

now?

9a. Thinking about your whole household, in the last four weeks roughly how many times have the

following events occurred?

(Please write a number in the box next to each item - if you are unsure then

just a rough estimate is fine)

Number of

instances

GP appointments

Outpatient hospital appointments

Inpatient hospital stays (number of days)

Trips or falls (either in or outside of your home)

9b. Compared to before you received measures as part of the North Bransholme Energy Saving

Project, have there been any changes to how often these events occur?

(Please circle one choice for each event listed

below)

Less often

now

About the

same

More often

now

Don’t

know

GP appointments 1 2 3

Outpatient hospital appointments 1 2 3

Inpatient hospital stays (number of days) 1 2 3

Trips or falls (in or outside of your home) 1 2 3

Please tell us a little more about any changes to how often these events have occurred:

87

10a. Thinking about your health at the moment, please tell us how often you feel…

(Please circle one for each item below, or

tick the box if you’d rather not say)

All of the

time

Most of

the time

A little of

the time

Never Rather

not say

Happy 1 2 3 4

Worn out 1 2 3 4

Full of life 1 2 3 4

Downhearted and low 1 2 3 4

Anxious or depressed 1 2 3 4

10b. Now thinking about BEFORE you received measures as part of the North Bransholme Energy

Saving Project, how often would you say you felt…

(Please circle one for each item below, or

tick the box if you’d rather not say)

All of the

time

Most of

the time

A little of

the time

Never Rather

not say

Happy 1 2 3 4

Worn out 1 2 3 4

Full of life 1 2 3 4

Downhearted and low 1 2 3 4

Anxious or depressed 1 2 3 4

11. Compared to before you received the measures, taking everything into consideration are you

NOW more or less satisfied with your…

(Please circle one for each item below, or

tick the box if not applicable)

Much

less

satisfied

now

A little

less

satisfied

now

About the

same

A little

more

satisfied

now

Much

more

satisfied

now

N/A

…mood? 1 2 3 4 5

…physical health? 1 2 3 4 5

…household activities? 1 2 3 4 5

…family relationships? 1 2 3 4 5

…social relationships? (e.g. friends,

neighbours) 1 2 3 4 5

…leisure time activities? 1 2 3 4 5

…living/housing situation? 1 2 3 4 5

…ability to function in daily life? 1 2 3 4 5

…ability to get around physically without

feeling dizzy, unsteady or falling? 1 2 3 4 5

88

…overall sense of wellbeing? 1 2 3 4 5

…medication? (if applicable) 1 2 3 4 5

Please tell us a little more about the reasons for any changes to your mood, household activities or social

relationships in the time since you received measures as part of the North Bransholme Energy Saving Project:

12. Thinking about any changes since you received measures, how strongly do you agree or

disagree with each of the following statements?

(Please circle one for each item below) Strongly

agree

Agree Neither Disagree Strongly

disagree

I feel that I have more control over the things

that happen to me 1 2 3 4 5

I feel less able to solve some of the problems

that I have at the moment 1 2 3 4 5

I feel more confident that I can do just about

anything I set my mind to 1 2 3 4 5

I feel more like I am being pushed around in life 1 2 3 4 5

I feel more able to cope with a disability or

illness 1 2 3 4 5

North Bransholme is a more positive place to

live now 1 2 3 4 5

North Bransholme looks more attractive now 1 2 3 4 5

13. Please tell us a little more about any ways in which the North Bransholme Energy Saving

Project has impacted upon the health, wellbeing or lifestyle of your household (including any

changes to socialising, studying or hobbies):

Section 3: A little bit about you

Finally, we would like to find out a little bit about you. This is only used so that we can understand more about

the types of household that we have spoken to, and will not be used to identify you.

14. Are you: (Please tick only one box)

Male Female

89

15. What is your age: (Please tick only one box)

Under 25 26 - 35 36 - 45 46 - 59 60 - 74

75 - 85 Over 85

16. Which of these best applies to you? (Please tick only one box)

Single Married/living with partner Divorced/separated

Widowed

17. Do any of the following apply to you or your spouse/partner? (Please tick all that apply)

Retired Working full-time Working part-time

Full-time carer Unemployed Other (Please specify)

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

18. Which of these best applies to you: (Please tick only one box)

Own your home (with mortgage or loan) Own your home (own outright)

Housing Association tenant Local authority tenant

Rent from private landlord Other (Please specify)

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

19. Can you tell us about who lives with you in your household? (Please write the number in the

box)

How many people live in your household, including yourself

Home many children under 16 are there in your household

How many people over 60 years live in your home (include yourself if over 60 years)

20. What measures did you receive as part of the North Bransholme Community Energy Saving

Project? (Please tick all that apply)

External wall insulation (cladding) Cavity wall insulation

New boiler Central heating system

Double glazed windows

Other (Please specify) ……………………………………………………………………………………

21. Did you make a financial contribution towards any of the measures installed?

Yes No

If yes, which measures did you contribute to the cost of?

90

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

22. When were the measures installed? (Just the month and year is fine)

..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

23a. In the last 5 years, have you had any other improvement works carried out on your property,

aside from those installed as part of the Energy Savings Project? (Please tick all that apply)

Loft insulation (or top-up) Draught proofing

External wall insulation (cladding) Cavity wall insulation

New boiler Boiler repairs

Central heating system Low energy light bulbs

Double glazed windows Hot water cylinder jacket

None of these

Other (Please specify) …………………………………………………………………………………….

23b. Did you receive any financial assistance towards any of these measures?

Yes No I haven’t had another other works carried out

If yes, what type of assistance did you receive?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

24. Which of these best applies to your household: (Please tick only one)

White – British White – Irish

White – Other

Black – British Black – Caribbean

Black – Other Black – African

Asian – British Asian – Indian

Asian – Pakistani Asian – Bangladeshi

Chinese Rather not say

Any other ethnic group (please specify

……………………………………………………………..)

Mixed ethnicity

Any other thoughts?

If you have any further comments about the measures you have received, or the North Bransholme Energy

Saving Project more widely, which we have not covered then please use the space below to tell us about your

opinions:

91

Thank you!

Thank you for taking the time to fill in this questionnaire. Your views are very valuable to us and will help to

inform how projects like the North Bransholme Energy saving Project may benefit other people in the future.

If you would like a member of the North Bransholme Energy Saving Project team to contact you about any

concerns or issues raised in this questionnaire, or if you would like to talk to the NEA research team in person,

then please tick the appropriate box below and ensure that you provide your contact details.

I would like a member of the North Bransholme Energy Saving Project team to contact me

I would like a member of the NEA research team to contact me about the evaluation study

If you have ticked either of the boxes above, please ensure that you provide your contact details in the

following section so that we can contact you.

If you have highlighted above that you would like to be contacted in relation to your involvement in the North

Bransholme Energy Saving Project, or in this evaluation study, please provide your contact details below. This

information will be treated in confidence and will not be shared with other organisations. This information will

be detached from your questionnaire.

Name: Telephone:

Address Post code:

Thank you for your time! Please return your completed questionnaire to us using the FREEPOST en

National Energy Action (NEA)

David Lynch (Senior Research & Policy Officer)

West One

Level Six (Elswick)

Fourth Banks

NE1 3PA

0191 261 5677

0191 269 2911

David.lynch@nea.org.uk

92

Community Evaluation of the North Bransholme Community Energy Saving

Programme

Final Report