Social housing and carbon
control: retrofit practices
under eco-state
restructuring and
austerity
HSA conference, 9 April 2015, York
Jenni Cauvain
Leverhulme Fellow in Urban Sustainability
Laboratory of Urban Sustainability and Complexity, The University of
Nottingham
With acknowledgements to Andrew Karvonen and Saska Petrova
Centre for Urban Resilience and Energy, The University of
Manchester





Introduction: social housing, austerity and
localism
Key literature and theoretical insights:
carbon control (and geographies),
neoliberal regulatory reforms, the housing
stock
Carbon control in Greater Manchester
Retrofit practices in social housing
Discussion and emerging conclusions
Structure




Post-Fordist structural reforms since 1980s
“demunicipalisation” (Pawson 2006)
The human story of social tenants in austerity
popularised by media (from both left and right) –
“undeserving poor”
Bourdieusian idea of cultural and symbolic capital
(dominance/ control)
Institutional impacts for social landlords:
◦ the Welfare Reform Bill 2012 poses significant
operational risks in rental income and sustainability of
tenancies
◦ The Localism Act 2011 targets council-owned social
housing stock to introduce fiscal constraints (borrowing
cap, self financing)
Social housing, austerity and
localism




Sustainability is deemed to have failed, and
carbon control has emerged as first order
policy concern (While et al 2010)
Especially social sustainability* brushed aside
in “sustainable development” (Raco 2014)
Spatiality of carbon control (While et al) and
‘carbon geographies’ (Bridge et al 2013)
Eco-state restructuring: local government
‘owns the problem’ (but owns fewer material
assets)
*focus here on social (energy) justice,
communities and governance (of carbon)
Sustainability, carbon control and
place
“Carbon’s a big figure, there’s millions and
millions of pounds being made every day from
carbon” (interview, 2014)
The purpose of this research is to understand
social landlords’ agency in market-based low
carbon retrofit, under a climate of austerity
and eco-state restructuring.
 The institutions and political economy of low
carbon retrofit
 The relationship between social landlords and
the city-region carbon geography
 Low carbon retrofit practices in the
communities, and their progressive potential
CHARISMA - Community Approaches to
Retrofit in Manchester, Greater
Manchester case study
 12 interviews with low carbon policy elites
and social landlords in the city region
 Workshop with social landlords and
contractors
 Participant observation

Methods

Post-Fordist reforms left social housing with
unsustainable backlog of maintenance (Smyth
2013) + privatisation of energy supply (Eyre
1998)
→ Market failures



New Labour reforms: Decent Homes (by 2010) a
Trojan Horse (Ginsburg 2005), no-choice options
and a missed opportunity in low carbon retrofit
The emergence of the market-based “carbon
gaze” on social housing estates: CESP, CERT and
ECO/Green Deal
Waves of “roll back” and “roll out” neoliberalism
(Peck and Tickell 2002)
Institutions and political economy




Cities and climate change: “eco-competitive
race”, risks and assets (Hodson and Marvin
2010)
Geographies of carbon control – alignment with
“the Northern Powerhouse” (for economic
decentralisation, see Rodriquez-Pose & Sandall
2008): the Low Carbon Hub
‘Hollowed out’ local authorities need partners
with capacity to act: city-region governance and
partnerships
Social landlords possess ‘collectivities’ historically
associated with local government and seen to be
able influence the sub-regional retrofit market
Manchester city-region carbon
geography
Funded and often conceived by the utility
industry (the ‘big six’)
 A carbon market: cash for carbon (nb who
gains what)
 Market-based mechanisms (the ‘carbon
gaze’) see communities as carbon banks
 Social landlords broker access to
communities (carbon banks) – does their
agency have progressive potential?

Retrofit market – “cash for
carbon”

Dressed as ‘carbon control’ to access funding,
but motivations more closely aligned with ethos
and business model of the landlord
◦
◦
◦
◦


Stock sustainability, fit for purpose
Tenancy sustainability (rent affordability)
Revenue stream (RHI, feed-in-tariff)
Fuel poverty, wellbeing, debt management
Leaders and laggards: proactive future-proofing,
strategic response to austerity and operational
risks, long term asset plans, or reacting to
business propositions by utility companies
Deterrents for landlords (Ofgem regulation,
policy landscape, skills/ knowhow)
Retrofit practices
Uneven distribution of benefits from
retrofit within the community
 Perverse incentives in the carbon market
 Uninterested, disengaged or hostile
communities, opposing historic and
cultural practices
 The lack of actual carbon savings (poor
evidence/evaluation, nature of social
housing and low income tenants)

Conflicts and contradictions in the
‘community’




The social housing stock is used as a pawn in
successive policy reforms
Localism intensifies the ‘demunicipalisation’ of
social housing at a time when capacity to act is
central to carbon governance at the local level,
and austerity undermines the housing sector
Manchester city-region ‘carbon geography’ – a
construct based on an economic argument but
materially weak and dependent on Whitehall
‘deals’, and local partners eg social landlords
Community/neighbourhood lens more salient
analytically and materially – the ‘carbon gaze’
works at this level
Discussion

Low carbon retrofit policy at different operational
scales is disconnected from reality
◦ Greater Manchester target (90% EPC B by 2035)
◦ Retrofitting low income housing stock delivers modest
carbon savings (→not a viable business case)
Broadly defined retrofit practices (inc debt advice,
food banks) used to mitigate risks in social housing
(rental income, tenancy sustainability) arising from
austerity
 More forward looking retrofit strategies identify
opportunities for an income from carbon control
 Progressive potential? Social landlords respond to
risks and pressures by using retrofit practices and
‘carbon control’ agenda to pursue a multitude of aims

Emerging conclusions
Thank you!
jenni.cauvain@nottingham.ac.uk







Eyre, N. (1998) A golden age of a false dawn? Energy efficiency in UK
competitive energy markets. Energy Policy 26.12, 963-972
Ginsburg, N (2005) ‘The Privatization of Council Housing’. Critical Social Policy
25, no. 1, 115–35
Pawson, H (2006) ‘Restructuring England’s Social Housing Sector Since 1989:
Undermining or Underpinning the Fundamentals of Public Housing?’. Housing
Studies 21, no. 5, 767–83
Peck, J. and Tickell, A. (2002) Neoliberalzing space. Antipode 34.3, 380–404
Raco, M (2014) "Privatisation, managerialism and the changing politics of
sustainability planning in London." Sustainable London?: The future of a global
city: 91-110
Rodriguez-Pose, A. & Sandall, R. (2008) 'From identity to the economy:
analysing the evolution of the decentralisation discourse', Environment and
Planning C: Government and Policy, vol. 26, pp. 54-72
While, A., Jonas, A.E.G., Gibbs, D. (2010) From sustainable development to
carbon control: eco-state restructuring and the politics of urban and regional
development. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 35.1, 76-93
References