Determining the principles for a Scottish equivalent to the Passivhaus standard - Analysis of Consultation Responses

1. Introduction

Scottish building regulations set minimum standards applicable to new buildings and to new work to existing buildings.

In December 2022 the Scottish Government committed to make subordinate legislation by 14 December 2024 to give effect to Alex Rowley MSP's Proposed Domestic Building Environmental Standards (Scotland) Bill "to introduce new minimum environmental design standards for all new build housing to meet a Scottish equivalent to the Passivhaus standard^[1] in order to improve energy efficiency and thermal performance".

To fulfil this commitment, the Scottish Government commenced a further review of energy standards within building regulations at the beginning of 2023 to consider further improvements to the standards and processes set within The Building (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (as amended) and associated regulations with a focus on two outcomes:

• Improvements to the setting of energy and environmental (ventilation) performance standards for new buildings, leading to lower energy demand (and reduced running costs) and a healthy indoor environment
• Improvements to the design and construction process to give greater assurance that compliance, and therefore the performance sought, is delivered in practice

This report presents the analysis of responses to the first of two planned consultations, considering the technical, commercial and wider policy implications of improvements to standards.

The Building Regulations: Determining the principles for a Scottish equivalent to the Passivhaus standard: Stage 1 consultation ran from 31 July to 23 October 2024. Across 30 questions, it sought views and information on the form and approach that a Scottish equivalent to the Passivhaus standard should adopt. This included asking stakeholders for their views on:

• The proposed design components of an equivalent standard
• The proposed compliance components of an equivalent standard
• The proposed delivery programme

The consultation also sought information on the implementation of the 2023 energy standards.

A second consultation is to be launched by the Scottish Government in summer 2025, setting out the detail of proposed new standards or performance targets and improvements to compliance processes. It is intended that the outcome of this first consultation will inform both amendment to regulations by the end of 2024 and the structure and content of next year's consultation.

Respondent profile

In total, 350 consultation responses were received^[2]. Most (313) were submitted via the online consultation platform, Citizen Space. Those received in an alternative format, for example, an email or PDF document, were reviewed separately by the research team.

Individuals provided 164 responses to the consultation; the remaining 186 responses were from organisations. To aid analysis, organisations were grouped on the nature of their work. Table 1 shows the number of each type of respondent, and a list of organisations who took part and gave permission for their responses to be published can be found in Appendix C.

One campaign response was identified. The same response was submitted to the Scottish Government, by email, by 24 contractors/developers. Please note that three of these 24 respondents also submitted their own response via Citizen Space. While both responses have been included in the analysis, each of these organisations is only counted once in the total of 350 responses.

The campaign was coordinated by Homes for Scotland (HFS), who submitted their own response via Citizen Space. The 24 campaign responses used similar wording to express their views on the consultation proposals – this is provided in Chapter 6. As these responses did not directly answer the consultation questions, it was not practical to include them in the question-by-question analysis which is presented in the remainder of this report.

While not a campaign response, similarly worded responses to a few consultation questions indicates that at least some other respondents answered their questions based on the wording suggested by the Passivhaus Trust. This organisation published their response early in the consultation period, and actively encouraged others to respond to the consultation. Where identical wording was used by multiple respondents this is highlighted in this report. However, many respondents expressed similar views as the Passivhaus Trust - which were often prevalent themes in responses to the early consultation questions - but used different wording. This makes it challenging to determine the extent to which the Passivhaus Trust had informed these other responses, or how much supporters of the Passivhaus Trust contributed to these more prevalent views.

Analysis approach

The Lines Between was commissioned to provide a robust, independent analysis of the responses to the public consultation. The main purpose of consultation analysis is to understand the full range of views expressed, and where possible using closed questions, to quantify how many respondents hold particular views. This report provides a thematic analysis of responses based on the analysis approach outlined below.

Reflecting the number and knowledge of respondents, it is impossible to detail every response in this report; some, especially organisations, shared lengthy submissions reflecting their specific subject matter expertise. These responses are referenced where possible. Full responses to the consultation, where permission for publication was granted, can be found on the Scottish Government's consultation website.

Similarly, the technical nature of some of the proposals outlined in the consultation means it is impractical to fully repeat or explain these within this report. Further information on the proposals can be found in the consultation paper.

Quantitative analysis

The consultation included 27 closed questions which asked respondents for their views on the proposed approach set out in the consultation paper.

Not all respondents answered every closed question. Some may not have answered as they hold no strong view on the question, or it may not relate to their area of knowledge or expertise. As noted, respondents who submitted a campaign response did not answer the closed questions. However, where those who did not answer the closed questions expressed a view in their open comments, this has been noted in the qualitative analysis.

To allow comparisons across sub-groups, the tables in this report and Appendix A present the results of the closed questions based on those who answered each question. For clarity, each table shows:

• The percentage of respondents from the total sample of 350 respondents who selected each response (grey row).
• The percentage of respondents among those who answered each question, broken down by individual and organisation responses and by type of organisation (rows including and under "All answering").
• The sample size column notes how many respondents within each audience answered each question.

A full breakdown for each question, including a breakdown by each type of organisation answering, can be found in Appendix A. Please note that the row percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.

Qualitative analysis

Qualitative analysis identifies the key themes across responses to each question. The research team developed a draft coding framework based on a review of the consultation questions and a sample of responses. During the coding process, new codes were created if additional themes emerged.

When reviewing the qualitative analysis in this report, we would ask the reader to consider:

• Public consultations invite everyone to express their views; individuals and organisations interested in the topic are more likely to respond than those without a direct or known interest. This self-selection means the views of respondents do not necessarily represent the views of the entire population.
• Qualitative questions were included in the consultation to allow respondents to elaborate on the views they recorded at the closed questions. However, not all respondents chose to comment, with those who did providing varying levels of detail. The qualitative analysis is therefore based on the information provided by those who commented.
• Views expressed by respondents reflect their understanding and perceptions of the issue in question and may not always be factually correct. Instances where incorrect or inconsistent information was provided by respondents were highlighted to analysts by the Scottish Government as part of the analysis process.
• Where differences between the views of individuals and organisations were evident in qualitative responses, these have been noted. If no specific differences are highlighted then a theme was raised by a mix of respondents, though the composition of the sample means the vast majority were typically individuals.
• The detailed nature of responses from many individuals suggests that they are heavily involved in the sector in some way. However, as it is not possible to identify their roles or the nature of their work, individual respondents are referred to as 'individuals' throughout this report.
• In a small number of instances where a response received via email or in a PDF document contained information that did not align with specific questions, analysts exercised judgment about the most relevant place to include this material for analysis purposes.
• Similarly, many respondents repeatedly raised the same issues or suggestions at multiple questions, regardless of the specific focus of the question. These views are all included in this report, but analysts exercised judgment about the most relevant place to include each theme to avoid repetition.
• Where appropriate, quotes from a range of the 350 consultation responses are included to illustrate key points and provide useful examples, insights and contextual information.

Weight of opinion

This report presents the themes identified in responses from most to least commonly mentioned. All themes, including views shared by small numbers of respondents, are covered; a view expressed by a very small number of participants is not given less weight than more general comments shared by a majority.

Similarly, all responses have an equal weighting. We recognise this means a response from an individual has the same weight as the response from an organisation which may represent many members, but this approach ensures all views are presented.

Qualitative analysis of open-ended questions does not permit the quantification of results. However, to assist the reader in interpreting the findings, a framework is used to convey the most to least commonly identified themes in responses to each question:

• The most/second most common/prevalent theme; most frequently identified.
• Many respondents, 100 or more respondents, a prevalent theme.
• Several respondents, between 51 and 99 respondents, a recurring theme.
• Some respondents, between 21 and 50 respondents, another theme.
• A few / a small number, 5 and 20 respondents, a less commonly mentioned theme.
• A very few / two / one respondent; a view identified in less than five responses.