SCVO response to the Heat in Buildings Bill: consultation (Scottish Government)  

About our response

SCVO is fully committed to Scotland achieving its climate change goals, and we welcome the opportunity to respond to the Scottish Government’s consultation on the Heat in Buildings Bill.

Many voluntary organisations across Scotland, of course, rent space in non-domestic buildings – some may do so on a long-term basis, taking on a management function.

Our comments throughout this consultation will be primarily focused on those non-domestic buildings owned and run by voluntary sector organisations across Scotland, including hospices, churches, museums, community halls, theatres, sports clubs, charity offices, and more.

If Scotland is to achieve our net zero targets, it is crucial that all sectors – the voluntary sector included – are supported to make this transition now. That support must include high-quality advice, easily accessible financial assistance for those who need it, flexibilities where appropriate, and creative use of all levers at the disposal of government.

The heat in buildings standard – covering heat and energy efficiency

Q1. To what extent do you support our proposal to prohibit the use of polluting heating systems in all buildings after 2045?

Strongly support.

SCVO is fully committed to Scotland achieving its climate change goals.

Through our Growing Climate Confidence work, we assist third sector organisations to reduce emissions, engage communities, as well as supporting them on their journey towards net zero.

Our work spans a range of areas, including energy and buildings. Through this work, we support organisations to conduct a ‘Scorecard’ exercise, to assist them in their journey to net zero. We have conducted this exercise with 280 organisations since June 2023. A quarter of organisations have retrofitted their spaces, half have not, and for a quarter of organisations taking such measures was not applicable. Meanwhile, 26% had carried out an energy audit of their workspaces, while 60% had not.

Speaking in general terms, if Scotland is to achieve our net zero targets, it is crucial that all sectors – the voluntary sector included – are supported to make this transition now. That support must include high-quality advice, easily accessible financial assistance for those who need it, flexibilities where appropriate, and creative use of all levers at the disposal of government (e.g., planning powers, including planning gain). This is a point made throughout this consultation response.

Our comments throughout this consultation will be primarily focused on those non-domestic buildings owned and run by voluntary sector organisations across Scotland, including hospices, churches, museums, community halls, theatres, sports clubs, charity offices, and more.

Many voluntary organisations across Scotland, of course, rent space in non-domestic buildings – some may do so on a long-term basis, taking on a management function. While the responsibility for delivering a heat transition will lie with the building owner, the costs and disruption associated with adaptations may be borne by tenant voluntary organisations. The Scottish Government should give proper consideration to how such voluntary organisations can meaningfully influence landlords to meet their responsibilities, in a manner that is cost-effective to them as tenants, while minimising disruption.

It is worth noting that many organisations now operate entirely remotely or have staff working at home for a significant part of their contracted hours. We will not comment on measures relating solely to private residential dwellings.

Q4. Do you agree with our proposal to set a minimum energy efficiency standard that can be met by either installing a straightforward list of measures, or showing a good level of energy efficiency based on a reformed EPC fabric efficiency metric?

Somewhat support.

We note that it will be simpler for some properties than others to put in place energy efficiency measures – depending on age, construction type and other factors. Indeed, this point is noted by the Tenements Short Life Working Group. This is, of course, equally relevant to some non-residential buildings, and is not unique to those owned by voluntary organisations. In such circumstances, it is crucial that the Scottish Government provides a comprehensive suite of support – including financial assistance and high-quality advice.

Flexibilities, and even exemptions, should be considered for voluntary organisations who need them. This, for example, is particularly true of any measures that are more complicated or expensive because of age of building, construction type, planning constraints that apply to listed buildings and conservation areas, or other factors. 

Relatedly, creative use of other levers, like planning gains, should be fully explored by the Scottish Government as a means of supporting voluntary organisations in need of support.

Q6. Do you think that properties for which most or all of the measures on the initial proposed list are not relevant should be required to meet an equivalent minimum energy efficiency standard?

Yes - they should be required to meet the standard and additional measures should be included on the list (such as solid wall insulation, solid floor insulation and flat roof insulation), but they should only be required to install some of these where feasible, and they should be allowed additional time to do so.

Our response to this question is caveated. As stated in response to previous answers, this should be backed with high-quality advice and easily accessible financial assistance for those who need it.

As stated previously, flexibilities, and even exemptions, should be permitted under certain circumstances. This, for example, is particularly true of any measures that are more complicated or expensive because of age of building, construction type, planning constraints that might apply to listed buildings or conservation areas, or other factors. 

Again, as stated previously, creative use of other levers - like planning gains - should be fully explored by the Scottish Government as a means of supporting voluntary organisations that need support.

Q7. Do you think that an alternative approach to setting the minimum energy efficiency standard is required?

Yes.

The age and construction-type of some buildings – for example, buildings with solid stone walls – may make flexibility, or even exemptions from the minimum energy efficiency standard, a necessity.

Q8. Do you agree that the use of bioenergy should continue to be permitted in certain circumstances?

Yes, it should be permitted for those buildings who have no other clean heating system available.

Property purchases

Q9. To what extent do you support the requirement to end the use of polluting heating following a property purchase?

Strongly support.

It should be noted that not all properties owned by voluntary organisations will have been purchased. For example, a proportion may have been inherited, through donations or mergers, or through a Community Asset Transfer process. Consideration must be given to such scenarios.

As detailed elsewhere in this consultation it is essential that financial support, and flexibilities are available to those voluntary sector organisations that own buildings but do not have the liquidity to put in place expensive improvements – for example, a community group that has been gifted a church hall, or a building that has come into community ownership through a Community Asset Transfer.

Q.10 We are proposing to give those purchasing a property a ‘grace period’ to end their use of polluting heating. Do you agree with this proposal?

Yes – the grace period should be two years.

Our response is caveated. As stated elsewhere in this consultation, age, construction type and a range of other factors may impact on the speed at which a clean heat system, and energy efficiency measures, can be put in place – if at all. For such buildings, additional time – as set out in the notes attached to this question – should be granted where appropriate, along with other flexibilities as appropriate. This must include voluntary organisations (and not only ‘businesses and households’, as stated additional information that is attached to this question).

We also support a shorter grace period on the condition that financial support is available to those voluntary sector organisations that own buildings but do not have the liquidity to put in place expensive improvements – for example, a community group that has been gifted a church hall, or a building that has come into community ownership through a Community Asset Transfer.

Q11. To what extent do you support our proposal to apply a cost cap where people are required to end their use of polluting heating following a property purchase?

Somewhat support.

We agree that there should be a cap to ensure that the costs associated with a clean heat transition are not prohibitively expensive for voluntary organisations. This is particularly true of those buildings where options for clean heat systems, or energy efficiency measures, are limited or not feasible – due to age, construction type or other factors. Any cap should be progressively structured.

To maximise uptake of clean heat systems and energy efficiency measures, provision of accessible financial assistance from the Scottish Government must be prioritised for those who need it. Any cap should account for said financial support.

Taken together, a cap and financial support, will be particularly important for those voluntary sector organisations that own buildings but do not have the liquidity to put in place expensive improvements –  for example, where a community group has been gifted a church hall, or a building has come into community ownership through a Community Asset Transfer.

Q12. Which of the following methods of applying a cost-cap do you support?

Another.

We are supportive of a progressively structured cost-cap, as outlined in the response to question 11.

As stated in response to the previous question, there are voluntary organisations across the country that own buildings, but do not necessarily have ready access to liquidity to put in place a suite of expensive improvements – for example, where a community group has been gifted a church hall, or a building has come into community ownership through a Community Asset Transfer process. Any cap must be structured in such a way that is not, in such circumstances, punitive.

Q13. To what extent do you support the proposal that the Scottish Ministers should be given powers to extend the circumstances in future (beyond a property purchase) in which people could be required to end their use of polluting heating?

Strongly support.

We are supportive of such measures – subject to the caveats set out in the notes attached to the question, i.e. further consultation so that the voluntary sector can give their views, and parliamentary scrutiny.

Heat Networks

Q15. To what extent do you support our proposal to provide powers to local authorities (or Scottish Ministers) that require developers to connect new buildings within Heat Network Zones to a heat network?

Don’t know.

As stated elsewhere in this consultation response. Consideration must be given to using all levers at the disposal of government, national and local (e.g. planning powers, including planning gains), to assist voluntary organisations that need support to make the transition to non-polluting heat systems.  

Monitoring & enforcement

Q19. We will need to have a way to enforce the Heat in Buildings Standard. We discussed possible options to help achieve compliance. What are your views on these ideas?

I do not support the suggested enforcement tools, but have another suggestion (please provide below).

As already mentioned throughout, supporting a transition to clean heat – through provision of high-quality information and financial assistance to those who require it – must be prioritised ahead of penalties. As previously stated, creative use of all levers (e.g. planning powers, including planning gains) should also be fully considered as a means of assisting voluntary organisations that need support.

In relying on market and financial mechanisms, it is crucial that there is a proper understanding by financial institutions of charities and their prevailing circumstances, which is all too often lacking. For example, there is a widespread and widely reported practice – at present – of charities’ access to bank accounts being removed without reason or recourse. Such poor, or even hostile, practice must not embed hardship for charities because of its interaction with the Heat in Buildings Standard.

The introduction of civil penalties should only ever be used as a last resort, and subject to review. Flexibilities and exemptions should be in place where transitioning to clean heat systems, or putting in place efficiency measures is not feasible, so that no voluntary organisation is unduly penalised.

Q20. To what extent do you support our proposals to modify the Standard or exempt certain people from the need to meet the Heat in Buildings Standard?

Strongly support.

Buildings owned and run by voluntary organisations may need to keep properties at a higher temperature as part of the services they deliver.

Q21. Which people, businesses, or types of buildings, if any, should be eligible for a modified standard or exemptions?

This requires careful consideration. Voluntary organisations that own or run buildings operate a range of services across Scotland that may require higher temperatures – for example, where there are small children, older people, or people who are, for example, receiving end of life care.

Q22. To what extent do you support our proposals to give certain people extra time to meet the Heat in Buildings Standard?

Strongly support.

Q23. Which people, businesses or types of buildings, if any, should be eligible for extra time?

As is recognised by the Tenement Short-Life Working Group, referring to the decarbonisation of homes, “some households will find this simpler than others dependent on construction type of their homes as well as their personal circumstances”. The same is true of non-residential buildings owned by voluntary organisations.

We agree that extra time should be granted in certain circumstances where, for example, limited options for clean heat systems, or energy efficiency measures, are limited, not possible to deliver at pace, or not feasible. This could be a result of age, construction type, or other factors related to a building.

As stated elsewhere in this consultation, particular consideration should be given to voluntary organisations that own buildings, but that do not necessarily have ready access to liquidity to put in place a suite of expensive energy efficiency or clean heat measures. Over and above additional time being granted, such organisations should be prioritised for government support – both high-quality advice, financial and other assistance.