REEPS4/2
Notes from the second meeting of the REEPS technical subgroup
Tuesday 5 November 2013
Present:
Oscar Guinea, Scottish Government
Jamie Robertson, Scottish Government
Katie Chan, Scottish Government
Valerie Sneddon, Scottish Government
Denise Buchanan, Scottish Government
Michael Bruce, Scottish Land and Estates
Roger Curtis, Historic Scotland
Elizabeth Leighton, Existing Homes Alliance
Stephen Cunningham, West Lothian Council
Apologies:
John Apperson, North Lanarkshire
Council
Steven Scott, Scottish Government
Andy Robinson, Scottish Government
Jonathan Waite, Scottish Government
Summary: Technical Group Meeting 2
1. The subgroup agreed the minutes and action points of meeting 1, subject to
some minor revisions.
2. The subgroup noted the feedback from the REEPS3 and first wider context
meeting. It was agreed that the “parking walls” comments would be used as a checkback as the criteria are applied.
3. The revised criteria were agreed, subject to a minor amendment in relation to
incentives. It was noted that finance more generally may be an issue for the REEPS
group.
4. The subgroup agreed that the distinction of performance and prescriptive
approaches might be useful when looking at options (approaches to setting standards),
albeit that options may also be combination of the two. It also agreed that the
additional options raised at the first meeting would be taken forward as variants of
the 4 main options.
5. The project team will forward specific questions on the application of the criteria to
the group for comment by email.
6. The subgroup agreed to recommend to REEPS to use SHCS as the source for
baseline information on Co2 emissions.
7. The subgroup discussed issues and opportunities for looking at consultation in
autumn 2014 and spring 2015. The project team will capture these discussions and
seek agreement by email of pros and cons to present to REEPS4.
8. The subgroup agreed to meet again in mid-late January. The project team will
continue to seek agreement to issues and summaries by email, wherever possible, to
enable time at the meetings to be focussed on policy development.
1
REEPS4/2
Possible Issues for Technical subgroup from Wider Context subgroup meeting
of 26 September 2013
The following was raised and suggested as more for the remit of the Technical
subgroup to discuss:Issue
1. Need to avoid creating “ghetto” stock;
also considering lifecycle analysis of
carbon in retrofit versus replacement
2. Unintended consequences – health and
wellbeing.
For technical and wider context sub
group
3. Technical guidance
How can we address this for different
construction types?
4. EPC credibility with householders – in
terms of how accurate/useful the
information is. Will also have relevance
to Wider Context group
5. How common ownership of communal
areas in areas of both mixed tenure and
single tenure types affect setting of
standards and implementation.
6. Education of owners/inhabitants to avoid
risks of damp and condensation and to
help reduce energy consumption.
7. Evidence – what are the key
 construction types
 archetypes

Deliberation
by
Technical
subgroup (meeting 2 - 5/11/13)
This will be picked up in application
of criteria in terms of “fit with
incentive”
Noted that this will come up as part
of modelling work. Unintended
consequences on fabric of the
building should also be considered.
This can be considered
looking at archetypes
when
Part of work to consider Option 4
(and to some extent Option 2)
against the criteria
Part of work when looking at tasks D
Set Level, and tasks F and G
around implementation
Wider context would lead on the
attitudinal issues – tech group
potentially to identify what specific
issues arise in different archetypes
Task A on evidence will be looking
at archetypes.
how many of these need to be
considered for valid comparison
General comments
It was noted that the majority of these issues relate to specific circumstances of
house types/situations, rather than to the whole of the housing stock in Scotland.
These issues should all be captured in the agreed criteria. The technical subgroup
will use the parking walls as a useful check back as the criteria are applied, to
ensure these issues are being picked up.
2
REEPS4/2
Issues for subsequent discussion from Technical subgroup meeting of
5 November 2013 (meeting 2)
The following was raised and suggested for later discussion for the subgroup:Issue
Action/ (suggested) Next steps
1. Cap and trade – as a mechanism to Cap and trade can be picked up at tasks
attract additional resources
D, E, F in terms of how standards would
be applied. Continue to link with wider
context work in terms of emerging
thoughts around encouraging resources
2. Housing bill update
Project team will provide further
information on any relevant proposals
once available (expect by January
meeting). Subgroup can continue to
consider whether additional powers are
needed, or existing ones could be
adapted,
as
part
of
ongoing
consideration of options (legislative
powers are part of criteria)
3. Triggers
The point at which standards might apply
– such as point of sale or rental,
consequential improvements, and the
wider context subgroup can review all
potential triggers, to achieve both shortterm and aspirational goals- will be
considered as part of Task E (timing)
3
REEPS4/2
Possible Issues for Wider Context subgroup from Technical subgroup meeting
of 5 November 2013 (meeting 2)
The following were raised and suggested as more for the remit of the Wider Context
subgroup to discuss:Issue
Deliberation by Wider Context
subgroup (at next meeting)
8. A performance-based option will be
reliant on sufficient innovation in the
sector to respond.
9. Comms strategy should also consider
how to engage with experts preconsultation – for feedback on proposals
and/or raising awareness
4