Conservation & Heritage Issue 50 Winter 2025/Spring 2026 - Flipbook - Page 107
Cutting Corners Costs More:
Lessons from ECO4 for the
Conservation Retrofit Sector
By Paul Trace, Director, Stella Rooflight
When the government launched its latest wave of retrofit
initiatives, from the Energy Company Obligation (ECO4) to
the Great British Insulation Scheme, the goal was admirable:
improve the energy efficiency of the nation’s housing stock
and accelerate progress towards net zero. Yet, the recently
published audit findings paint a very different picture.
The danger of “cheap wins” in conservation work
Heritage and traditional buildings form a vital part of the
UK’s built environment, representing not just architectural
value but cultural identity. Yet these structures are often
among the hardest to retrofit successfully. Their construction
methods, materials, and moisture behaviour differ
fundamentally from modern buildings, and their aesthetic
integrity is protected by planning and conservation controls
for good reason.
According to data analysed by Refurb & Retrofit, an
astonishing 92% of external wall insulation installations
inspected under ECO4 were found to have major
technical non-compliance issues, with 27% of internal wall
insulation projects suffering similar failings. In some cases,
poor workmanship or inappropriate materials have left
homeowners facing damp problems, trapped moisture, and
damaged building fabric, the very issues these schemes were
meant to prevent.
When you apply the same “one-size-fits-all” mentality that has
failed so dramatically under ECO4 to this type of building,
the results can be catastrophic.
I have seen countless examples where value-engineering,
(the polite industry term for cutting corners!), has stripped
a project of its integrity. A conservation-area roof converted
with standard off-the-shelf aluminium rooflights; a listed
barn punctured by PVC imitation products; stainless steel
replaced with mild steel to “save a bit on the budget”. These
might look like small changes on paper, but in practice they
often compromise both the building’s performance and its
authenticity.
These numbers are shocking, but not surprising. They are
the predictable result of a system designed around volume
rather than quality, a culture of box-ticking, subcontracting
and cost-cutting that prizes speed and budget compliance
over craftsmanship and accountability.
And nowhere are the consequences of that culture more
dangerous than in the world of heritage retrofit.
I
Conservation & Heritage Journal
105
I
