New energy standards proposed by the Scottish government pose a threat to both jobs and housing, according to Homes for Scotland (HfS).

The group said new proposals will contribute only 0.07% to overall climate change targets, but will add £10,000 to the cost already highly energy efficient new homes.

HfS says it has consistently advised the Scottish government on the impact of proposals in the wake of the economic downturn which has seen housing production across both public and private sectors slump by over 40%.

The firm says current standards mean new build homes have already reduced their carbon emissions by 70% since 1990 levels.

The industry has now developed an alternative approach to enable the improvement of Scotland’s less efficient existing homes at no cost to the taxpayer.

But HfS says the "Retrofit Reward" option, which it describes as offering "a bigger bang per buck" does not appear in the energy standards review.

-- Advertisement --

HfS Chief Executive Philip Hogg, said: "Whilst the consultation suggests a 45% carbon reduction rather than the original 60% set back in 2007, this is a token dispensation resulting in proposals that threaten to cripple our industry and further deepen Scotland’s housing crisis at a time when 160,000 people are on waiting lists.

"Whether you consider the provision of warm, sustainable homes, employment, skills and training, tackling fuel poverty, long-term social benefits or economic contribution, home building supports a wide range of policy areas. All are of fundamental importance to Scotland’s social, environmental and economic well-being yet all face being adversely affected should these proposals be implemented as housing output, including affordable housing, will only fall further.

"And for what outcome? A new build housing contribution of only 0.07% to the Scottish Government’s overall climate change target. Such negligible benefit simply does not justify the cost or wider risk. Indeed, the Scottish Government’s own analysis shows that the benefit does not justify the cost and yet the proposals are still proceeding.

"Further, the whole consultation appears contradictory and ideologically driven. Whilst on the one hand, the reconvening of the expert Sullivan Panel, which set the original targets back in 2007, acknowledges the dramatically different economic circumstances we are all now operating in, an implementation timeline of January 2014 leaves little opportunity for its findings to be fully taken into account. We therefore reiterate our call that no changes be made until this has been done."

(IT)