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

5. Proposed delivery programme

The consultation paper sets out proposed stages, with timescales, for delivering outputs from the energy standards review and the commitment on a Scottish equivalent to the Passivhaus standard.

Q30. Do you agree with the proposal to mandate the standard in 2028, introducing changes initially as a voluntary standard from 2026?

Please provide information on why you agree or disagree or if you consider other actions need to be considered.

Among those answering Q30 (87% of all respondents), three quarters (74%) were in favour of the proposed approach, 12% were opposed and 13% were unsure. Over four fifths (82%) of individuals who answered were in favour, compared to 66% of organisations. Among organisations, the highest level of agreement was recorded among designer/consultants who answered (87%) followed by industry associations (69%). Contractor/developers who answered were least likely to agree (25%), with 50% opposed and 25% unsure. Higher uncertainty was also recorded among housing providers/RSLs (33%) and professional bodies (50%).

Three quarters of all respondents provided comments at Q30. In line with the closed question, the most prevalent themes were agreement with the phased approach, or agreement alongside caveats or comments about the conditions needed for success. Conversely, some emphasised that the timescale would depend on the final proposed changes.

Agree with a phased approach

Agreement with the proposed timeline, or the benefits of a phased approach to introducing changes was by far the most common theme in comments and was the most common theme among individuals and most types of organisation, particularly housing providers/RSLs, designer/consultants and local authorities. These included that an initial voluntary standard allows time for:

• The industry to prepare, upskill and become familiar with new systems.
• Gathering learning to refine the process before standards become mandatory.
• The market, manufacturing, products and supply chains to develop, reducing the costs of materials and ensuring capacity.

A phased approach was also valued because it was seen as:

• Demonstrating a just transition in practice.
• Providing models in the form or early adopters who can encourage others.
• Accelerating the adoption of higher standards.
• Being more likely to support the sector by minimising any potential stress, challenges or financial risks associated with the changes.
• Ensuring achievable, successful and sustainable uptake.

A small number commented on the proposed timescale being a reasonable balance between the needs of industry and the need to move quickly to drive change. A few also appreciated that a phased approach aligns with successful implementation in other countries, like Canada, or the strategy implemented following the Sullivan report.

At this question, wording used by the Passivhaus Trust in their response was used by other respondents. For example, the phrases 'it provides the industry with adequate time to upskill and train' and 'accelerate the adoption of higher standards' were each used by a few other respondents.

Conditions needed for success

Several respondents caveated their agreement with the proposed timescales or highlighted conditions and actions they felt are needed during the voluntary period or prior to introduction of the mandatory standard. Respondents felt these issues were important to ensuring that the industry is suitably prepared for the standard.

A wide range of considerations were highlighted, including a desire for:

• Support for transformation of the industry generally, or for specific people likely to be impacted. This included community organisations, independent and small-scale design firms, builders and architects, building contractors and surveyors, verifiers, potential homeowners and self-builders, or any other interested parties impacted.
• Training programmes, accreditation and role upskilling. One industry association, for instance, suggested the Scottish Government collaborate with industry bodies to develop and fund a dedicated training scheme. A few individuals suggested training be enhanced by professional networks or advocated for industry information sharing.
• Comprehensive guidance and clear milestones, including the new NCM "Scottish Wrapper" and accompanying technical guides being published well in advance of new regulations.
• Development of feedback mechanisms and accurate reporting/feedback from early adopters in the voluntary stage to refine the approach. This could include providing case studies of completed projects, noting technical challenges identified and addressed so they can be learnt from before 2028 mandatory implementation.
• Investment, resources and funding, including financial subsidies, tax relief, or grant schemes to offset the initial capital costs associated with delivering high-performance buildings.
• Validated and agreed methodologies, compliance tools and processes.
• The establishment or further development of supply chains for any necessary software, technologies or cost-effective products.
• Increased personnel and capacity in the sector.
• Education and public awareness programmes to ensure the public, industry and the supply chain are given sufficient notification of upcoming changes and the benefits and requirements of these.
• Developers to be given time, once the standards are available, to adapt house designs for incorporation before they can be applied within new planning proposals. It was highlighted that the ability to deliver where there are consented planning applications will have a significant impact on timescales for delivery.

A small number expressed agreement with a phased approach but felt the specific timeline should be agreed with industry or emphasised the importance of consultation with the sector during the transition. They felt this would ensure that any issues identified can be addressed before the standard becomes compulsory.

A few respondents emphasised that the voluntary period should not be extended or that the introduction of the mandated standard should have firm boundaries and clear deadlines to avoid drift and ensure changes are delivered.

Timescale would depend on the nature of final proposals

Some suggested agreeing the timeframes for introducing the mandatory standard should be deferred until the next consultation stage or felt that this decision can only be made once proposals are fully developed and the details of the design standards and compliance approach are clear. This included both respondents who agreed or disagreed at the closed question and was the most common theme in comments from those who were unsure at the closed question.

To inform the decision, there were calls for:

• Impact assessments and appropriate software to conduct these.
• Evidence from real world applications of the standard.
• Better understanding of funding mechanisms and costs, including modelling, and pilot projects in different sectors to ascertain costs and feasibility.
• An assessment of the industry's capacity to deliver compliant buildings.
• Better understanding of the compliance plan process.
• A clear definition of Passivhaus 'equivalent'.
• Awareness of the level of challenge set by the new standards.

A few suggested that timeframes should depend on how ambitious the standard is, while others emphasised that the sector and wider supply chain need sufficient notification. For instance, one housing provider/RSL felt that if greater input was required, such as needing more verifiers or new skills and training, then a longer lead in time would be necessary.

A few respondents also noted the importance of timeframes being dependant on the type of compliance tools and software adopted, these being robust, tested and fully developed prior to implementation of the Standard, or concerns about software issues.

Timescale is too slow

Some respondents, most of whom disagreed or were unsure in the closed question, felt the timescale is too long and suggested mandatory standards should be adopted sooner or by a specific earlier date such as 2026 or 2027. Respondents emphasised the need for change as soon as possible to address the high cost of domestic heating, improve progress towards Net Zero and avoid having to retrofit more houses later, for instance.

Timescale is too quick

A view that the proposed timescales are overly ambitious was also noted by a few respondents, all of whom either disagreed or were unsure at the closed question. They cited factors such as the negative impact of current economic climate on the housing industry, skills gaps, underdeveloped supply chains, technology and software, and labour shortages. Concerns were also expressed that if the standard is introduced too quickly it could lead to: viability risks for developers; rising costs and fewer and less affordable homes being built; weak guidance and processes causing challenges with construction and increased workloads for verifiers; or, ultimately, result in the standard failing.

Other themes

Less common themes, each suggested by a few respondents, included the following.

There were calls to incentivise early adopters to mitigate concerns around affordability and encourage voluntary adherence. This could include offering faster planning approval processes, technical support and consultancy, training and upskilling support, financial support mechanisms, and lower rates for Passivhaus-compliant buildings or tax incentives for tenants who occupy highly energy-efficient buildings. A few felt non-early adopters should be disadvantaged or receive a fine per build.

A range of other considerations or suggestions for introducing the standard were noted. These included: stepped implementation with the percentage of builds meeting the standard increasing each year or certain aspects of the standards introduced first; phasing their introduction according to building size and type with the biggest developments required to comply soonest; adopting a plot-by-plot process; agreement with the proposal to recognise the Passivhaus Standard with Certification as a means of achieving compliance to a shorter implementation timetable; using interim standards such as the AECB Carbonlite standard as a stepping stone; and questions about how the standard would to other standards and strategies such as the unitary housing standard for accessibility and liveability and Scotland's decarbonisation pathway.

A few expressed uncertainty about using voluntary standards, questioning if these would be followed by the majority on a voluntary basis. Others queried how a voluntary standard would be incorporated into Section 6 compliance tools (SBEM & HEM), described a voluntary standard as unfeasible due to, for example, a lack of suitable software being in place, or unnecessary given the standards are the minimum that needs to be achieved. One local authority noted a concern that a voluntary standard could allow developers to load the current system with developments based on the existing regulations, effectively delaying the building of developments to the Scottish equivalent to the Passivhaus standard until 2031.

Concern about wider negative consequences of introducing the standard were noted by a small number. These included that the standard could: be a barrier to new projects and make fewer developments economically viable; focus development activity only in higher value areas; reduce the supply of new homes; exacerbate the housing crisis, increase rents, rates and fuel poverty; perpetuate inequalities and disadvantage residents and contractors in rural and island areas; and increase respiratory disease related deaths, where ventilation systems are not maintained.

Two respondents disagreed with a phased approach entirely, suggesting that it is "ill conceived" or that it would create a two-tiered system and complicate the process.