Preamble
Energy retrofits for social housing provide enhanced occupant comfort and make a valuable contribution to Ireland’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets. While the benefits of retrofitted homes are significant and welcomed by Local Authority tenants, the carrying out of works can lead to stress for residents and tensions between tenants and Local Authorities, especially if the works are carried out with residents in-situ. Based on a post-occupation study of a retrofitted social housing development for older people, this paper presents an overview of the kind of problems that can arise and suggests measures to avoid them. The paper identifies communication before, and during, the works as a key requirement to protect residents’ quality of life and peace of mind during the retrofitting process.
Introduction
The 2020 Programme for Government committed to retrofitting 500,000 homes to a B2 BER rating by 2030 (Government of Ireland, 2020). In 2021, the Government launched the Energy Efficiency Retrofitting Programme, increasing the typical scope of social housing retrofits and providing funding for a target of 36,500 Local Authority homes to be retrofitted by 2030 (Government of Ireland, 2021). This scheme was further expanded under the National Retrofit Plan of 2022 (Government of Ireland, 2022). Carrying out retrofit works with residents in-situ can avoid costs associated with temporary rehousing of residents and prevent disruptive removals of more vulnerable residents from familiar surroundings and community networks. Works carried out with residents in-situ can present challenges to residents’ quality of life, peace of mind, safety, and security.
The paper is based on a post-occupancy evaluation of a newly retrofitted social housing scheme for older people. The evaluation consisted of two workshops allowing facilitated discussion of the lived experience of residents during the works. By engaging directly with residents, the evaluation gained first-hand knowledge of the impacts of the works on residents’ quality of life. From this, several examples of negative impacts on tenants emerge, giving rise to recommendations for future retrofit schemes to avoid these impacts.
Project background
An energy retrofit was carried out on a social housing development for older people, consisting of thermal insulation, heat pump installation, heating controls within units, solar PV panels, and LED lighting. The works were carried out by an independent contractor employed by the Local Authority. A team of researchers from University College Dublin carried out a post-occupancy evaluation of the works as part of an EU Horizon funded research project. The evaluation consisted of two workshop round-table discussions with residents who had been living in the social housing scheme when the works were carried out, along with surveys asking residents about their experience of the works and their satisfaction with their homes post-retrofit. Residents were approached via a leaflet dropped to each unit. 6 residents participated in the workshops and 4 residents completed the survey. Participation in the study was voluntary, and several residents had left the development since the works were completed, limiting numbers available for participation. The workshops were carried out over two days, with a different group of residents participating each day. Participants described their lived experience during the construction works which were carried out in 2022. The workshops took place in August and November 2024.
Findings from focus groups/ survey
Study participants reported several areas in which they had been negatively impacted by the works. This section summarises the reported issues and their impact on residents.
Communication
Residents received a letter advising that works were planned, however, residents reported that no further communications were received advising when works were scheduled to start, the duration of works, or the scope of works. The works were carried out by an independent contractor, reducing communication opportunities between the residents and the Local Authority. Residents were frequently surprised by the presence of workmen in their homes, without notice. Residents were unable to make plans to vacate their homes during construction as they did not know when works were scheduled to take place. The workmen generally did not speak English, resulting in residents being unable to voice concerns or seek clarification in real time during the works. One resident who happened to speak the language of the contractor was able to request a specific radiator size to more effectively meet their needs. Residents lacking similar language skills were unable to pursue their interests. The lack of communication generated a breakdown of trust between the residents and the Local Authority, confusion about the nature and extent of the works, personal stress, and frustration. Residents with limited mobility or without family to visit were particularly distressed by this aspect of the works. Fireplaces were removed as part of the works to boost airtightness in the dwellings. While the residents understood the logic behind this, they regretted that such an intrusive alteration to their homes would be made without consultation or discussion. Finally, demonstrations of how to operate the installed equipment were carried out hurriedly and the elderly residents found it difficult to absorb the necessary information. Indeed, participants learned from each other how to operate some features during the workshops.
Quality of life
During the works, residents were commonly exposed to excessive noise and dust levels. In some cases, heating systems were disabled during winter months. Residents were forced to vacate homes at short notice, inconveniencing relatives or spending time in cafés. Participants described how some older and/ or infirm residents had few options other than to wander around the neighbourhood. Alternative daytime accommodation/ quiet spaces were not provided during the works. The unpredictable arrival of workmen at residents’ homes led to security fears, as tenants were uncertain about the safety of their valuables. This increased the level of stress, albeit no incidents of theft were reported.
Unresolved damage complaints
Residents reported that furniture and fittings damaged in the works were not repaired. Private gardens, including plants, were damaged during the works and promised repairs never materialised. Tripping hazards (concrete blocks) were left in place in apartments without being removed. Water leaks also arose during the works and were not repaired in a timely fashion. Residents were forced to remedy some issues at their own expense. In addition, damage that occurred to planting in public areas of the development was not rectified. Residents felt that neither the contractor nor the Local Authority were prepared to accept liability. These issues generated additional stress and led to feelings of abandonment, helplessness and resentment among residents.
Recommendations
Residents were asked what measures could have been taken to improve their experience during construction works. This section summarises residents’ suggestions for avoidance of the negative outcomes described above.
Communications
- Steps could be taken to give clear information in advance of works. A pre-commencement in-person meeting could identify the scope, duration, and likely impact of the works.
- Once works commence, a dedicated liaison officer could be made available to residents to address issues as they arise. This can be augmented by periodic meetings with residents, perhaps weekly, to discuss the works and their impacts. Residents felt that additional information would have allowed them to schedule absences from their homes at key points in the works, should this option be available.
- Sufficient instructions on how to operate novel energy systems could be provided in a manner comprehensible by older people. This should include clearly written instructions and demonstrations, with follow-up visits to ensure the instructions have been understood.
Alternative spaces
- In the event of works being carried out in-situ, alternative daytime/ quiet space accommodation should be offered to residents. This prevents residents from being at home during the works, exposed to excessive noise and dust.
- Vulnerable residents should be offered additional assistance, such as alternative accommodation for the duration of the works.
Responsibility for post-works issues
- Liability for loss or damage to residents’ property should be established at the outset of the works and a process for complaints offered to residents.
Conclusion
The national policy on social housing retrofits benefits tenants, providing increased levels of comfort and lower fuel bills. The policy also assists in GHG emission reductions targets, lowering fossil fuel use for home heating and electricity generation. Notwithstanding these benefits, the process of retrofitting can be intrusive and stressful for residents, especially when the works are carried out with residents in-situ. Inconsiderate work practices can result in distress, frustration, and economic loss. Local Authorities should take account of this reality and plan for residents’ wellbeing and peace of mind. From this single case study of retrofit works being carried out with residents in-situ, it is evident that simple measures could significantly improve the experience of these types of works for residents, such as the provision of clear and accurate information about the works’ scope, duration, and timing to assist residents to make arrangements to vacate units at appropriate times. Alternative, convenient daytime accommodation could be provided where possible. In the case of private contractors carrying out works, liability for damage to residents’ personal property should be established at the outset, and a complaints process established. These measures will maintain the emotional health of tenants and preserve good relations between tenants and Local Authorities.
References
GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND 2020. Programme for Government. Dublin: Government Publications Office.
GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND. 2021. Retrofitting Programme for Social Housing Announced [Online]. Government of Ireland. Available: https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-housing-local-government-and-heritage/press-releases/retrofitting-programme-for-social-housing-announced/ [Accessed 26.01.2026].
GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND 2022. National Retrofit Plan. Dublin: Government Publications Office.