Warm Homes: Social Housing Fund: Wave 3 - clarification questions (23 September 2024)

Question 1

Eligible applicants

Accepted Answer

1. Are combined authorities or other non-stock holding local authorities able to apply on behalf of a consortium?

Non-stock-holding local authorities and combined authorities may apply as the lead of a consortium on behalf of eligible stock-holding Applicants under Wave 3 of the WH:SHF to support the installation of energy performance measures in social homes in England.

2. Can I apply for WH:SHF funding if I have received grant funding in a previous wave?

Yes. Previously receiving funding from WH:SHF does not preclude you from receiving funding for WH:SHF Wave 3 via the Challenge Fund or Strategic Partnerships.

Question 2

Eligible properties

Accepted Answer

3. What if I’ve already started a project, but I have homes in the project that work is yet to begin on? Can I apply with these homes?

WH:SHF Wave 3 funding may only be used for homes where retrofit works (e.g., the installation of measures) have not yet commenced. If preparatory work has already occurred (for instance teams set up, overarching plans in place, tenants engaged, designs developed, remedial/enabling works undertaken, etc), this does not preclude the project from applying for Wave 3 funding.

4. Are projects based around void properties viable?

Yes, projects including void properties are acceptable – although Applicants should consider whether prioritising immediate benefits to in-situ tenants is more appropriate when selecting stock to apply with. We recognise that forecasting which properties will be void may be a challenge – therefore, applications submitted on the basis of expected void archetypes will be acceptable. Recognising the challenging nature of developing these applications, we recommend taking a realistic approach to the deliverability, and ensure you plan your projects with contingency. If, in reality the number of voids you applied with do not occur, an alternative plan should be in place to fulfil your commitment at application stage – so for instance, applications still need to include a tenant engagement plan.

No, properties must be owned by an eligible organisation (Local Authority, Combined Authority, Registered Provider of social housing, or Registered Charity who owns social housing) to be eligible for funding, except for non-social housing included for the purposes of infill, as outlined in section 2.4 of the scheme guidance.

6. While owner occupiers and private rental sector landlords are no longer required to contribute to measure costs, can I still ask for contributions?

Contributions from these landlords/occupiers are no longer necessary, though can still be requested by Applicants. Any contributions acquired this way will contribute to the co-funding amount, not the grant funding. There is also no longer a need for Applicants to establish and prove the ‘able to pay’ status of such landlords/occupiers. These contributions must adhere to all relevant legislation (including Florie’s Law, for example).

7. Are care homes eligible for WH:SHF Wave 3?

Care homes do not fall under the definition of social housing as defined by the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (sections 68-70), which would make them ineligible for WH:SHF funding.

Properties must fall under the definition of social housing as defined by the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (sections 68-70). Assuming the property met the aforementioned definition of social housing, it would class as one home for the purposes of an WH:SHF application.

9. Do infill homes have the same performance outcomes as other homes?

No.

EPC C+ homes: EPC C+ homes are already at EPC C, so therefore already meet the performance outcomes of WH:SHF.

Non-social homes: Non-social homes are not required to reach EPC C. Measures installed on non-social homes should only be those which, if not installed, would adversely affect our ability to effectively retrofit surrounding social homes. These measures are limited to insulation, associated ventilation, and communal low carbon heating.

No, non-social homes do not also count to the EPC C+ infill limit.

Non-social homes do not have the same performance outcomes as other homes, meaning they do not need to reach EPC C. As such, Applicants do not need to establish a starting EPC band for non-social homes.

12. What impact will the potential rollout of the Home Energy Model and potential changes to EPCs have on scheme eligibility?

We do not anticipate any changes to EPCs disrupting the delivery of Wave 3 and expect to continue using EPCs throughout the life of the scheme.

13. Does inclusion of infill apply to only properties seeking grant funding? If we include necessary infills of C and fully fund them, do we have to state them in the application numbers/projects we wish to undertake?

If funded entirely by the Applicant (meaning no grant funding would be used on these homes, and the Applicant funding used not being counted in the Wave 3 co-funding contribution), these homes would not need to be included in an WH:SHF application – either the costs involved, or as a contribution to the number of homes retrofitted. Grant Recipients doing so should outline the retrofit of these homes in written response at Phase Request stage, without including these entirely self-funded homes in the tables on infill homes.

Question 3

Minimum application size

Accepted Answer

14. What if I can’t meet the 100-home level?

Wave 3 applications should include a minimum of 100 eligible social housing properties at EPC band D-G per application.

Small social housing landlords (defined for this purpose as those who own or manage fewer than 1000 homes) can apply with fewer than 100 homes. For such landlords, there is no minimum application size and no obligation to include 100 homes in applications.

If a large social housing landlord (defined for this purpose as those who own or manage more than 1000 homes) cannot include 100 homes in an application for any reason, they are encouraged to engage with our consortia forming services to see if a consortium application might be suitable.

15. What happens if fewer than 100 homes are delivered due to resident refusals?

Positive tenant engagement is a critical aspect of successful delivery, and we expect to see clear strategies and plans for how this will be achieved. In addition, Grant Recipients are expected to have contingency plans in place to address tenant refusals. Any change to the agreed baseline must be requested via the change control process.

16. Can a Housing Association of 8000 homes apply to the Challenge Fund?

Yes, there is no upper limit on the number of homes an organisation can apply with. For organisations planning to apply with this volume of homes, we would encourage them to apply via the Strategic Partnership route.

Question 4

Eligible installers

Accepted Answer

17. Where can I get more information on PAS 2035?

If you have questions about the changes and your role as a PAS 2030 certified installer, we advise you to view the FAQs available on the BSI webstore or contact your PAS 2030 certification body.

18. Will options appraisals and medium-term plans developed under PAS 2035: 2019+A1:2022 be valid under PAS 2035:2023?

PAS 2035:2023 requires every dwelling to have a Medium-Term Improvement Plan. It is the responsibility of the retrofit coordinator to ensure that any existing MTIPs, including those done under previous iterations of PAS 2035, are reviewed and updated to ensure they meet the requirements of PAS 2035:2023. The same applies for Improvement Options Evaluations (IOE).

Note that Improvement options evaluations may change following the introduction of SAP 10 under the 2019 version. This is expected to come into effect from tImprovement options evaluations may change following the introduction of SAP 10 under the 2019 version. This is expected to come into effect from aImprovement options evaluations may change following the introduction of SAP 10 under the 2019 version. This is expected to come into effect from hImprovement options evaluations may change following the introduction of SAP 10 under the 2019 version. This is expected to come into effect from tImprovement options evaluations may change following the introduction of SAP 10 under the 2019 version. This is expected to come into effect from Improvement options evaluations may change following the introduction of SAP 10 under the 2019 version. This is expected to come into effect from eImprovement options evaluations may change following the introduction of SAP 10 under the 2019 version. This is expected to come into effect from tImprovement options evaluations may change following the introduction of SAP 10 under the 2019 version. This is expected to come into effect from oImprovement options evaluations may change following the introduction of SAP 10 under the 2019 version. This is expected to come into effect from id-2024.

19. What help will be provided to support engagement with Distribution Network Operators?

It is the responsibility of the Grant Recipient to engage with relevant Distribution Network Operators (DNOs) with regard to their projects. If Grant Recipients are experiencing delivery challenges due to engagement with DNOs this should be raised as a risk via the reporting process.

Question 5

Eligible measures

Accepted Answer

20. Will DESNZ prioritise projects proposing fabric over those with low carbon heating, even if the justification for only doing low carbon heating fitted their definition of reasonable?

Wave 3 aims to enable Applicants to realise their decarbonisation strategies in their own way. Different approaches to decarbonisation are accepted, though it is expected that Applicants will seek to treat homes in a way that represents good value for money and which adheres to PAS standards.

21. Would failed CWI/loft insulation extraction and refill on a home starting below EPC C be eligible for funding if other measures are installed to make it an EPC C, given it would increase resident experience? And what evidence is required to support this?

If removal of failed cavity wall or loft insulation is necessary for effective retrofit of the home, then this would be eligible for Administration and Ancillary funding. However, costs for this purpose should be kept to a minimum - any inclusion of spend on this would need to be proportionate, with value for money on retrofits delivered being a key driver of WH:SHF funding award. Consequently, applications with these costs as a high proportion of overall costs may score less well on value for money. Written justification of the reason for extraction of CWI being included in costs for an WH:SHF application would suffice as evidence – Applicants should briefly outline why this approach has been undertaken for the stock applied with in response to question 2.6 and justify why it is a value for money approach, including the cost levels incurred for this purpose, in response to question 4.2.

Homes where this approach is taken would still need to reach the WH:SHF performance outcomes (see guidance section 2.8).

22. What are the limitations around the eligibility or hybrid boilers?

While hybrid boilers are an eligible measure, they have to have an ErP rating of at least A, until the ErP energy labelling is rescaled, where an ErP rating of equivalent efficiency would be required.

23. Which measures are eligible on homes that start at or above EPC band C?

Where being included on an infill basis (i.e., social homes below EPC band C would be adversely affected without treating them), eligible measures are limited to insulation, associated ventilation, and communal low carbon heating.

Where being included to install low carbon heating measures, eligible measures include low carbon heating measures, plus any energy efficiency measures or solar PV to ensure bills do not rise as a result of retrofit works.

Question 6

UK subsidy control rules

Accepted Answer

24. How should subsidy control be managed in consortium applications?

DESNZ are the public authority responsible for ensuring that subsidies made under the WH:SHF are compliant with the Subsidy Control Act 2022 (SCA) and will assess the scheme against the SCA’s subsidy control principles. Each partner in a consortium will be responsible for understanding their own subsidy requirements, as these may be different for each consortium partner. We recommend potential Applicants engage with their legal and finance teams to understand and review the provisions for grants as laid out in the SCA.

Refer to section 2.16 of the scheme guidance for further information on subsidy as it applies to Wave 3. See the guidance for beneficiaries on the subsidy control regime and the UK subsidy control regime statutory guidance.

25. In terms of subsidy control, is there a ceiling on the amount of grant that can be applied for over a period of time?

Where Applicants are eligible to receive funding as an exempt subsidy, including the Minimal Financial Assistance exemption and the Services of Public Economic Interest Assistance exemption, DESNZ may choose to award funding under one of these exemptions. Where funding is awarded as an exempt subsidy, there will be restrictions on the amount of funding that can be awarded over three financial years. If a Grant Recipient is likely to exceed the threshold for these exemptions, funding will be awarded as a non-exempt subsidy in line with the Subsidy Control Act 2022, for which there is no ceiling to the amount of grant that can be applied for subsidy control purposes.

Applicants are advised to declare the amount of state support they receive, if any, on their application form so that DESNZ can assess whether funding is to be awarded as an exempt subsidy. Refer to section 2.16 of the scheme guidance for further information on subsidy as it applies to Wave 3, including the Minimal Financial Assistance exemption. See the guidance for beneficiaries on the subsidy control regime and the UK subsidy control regime statutory guidance.

If you are a non-registered provider of social housing or your consortium contains a non-registered provider of social housing or a registered charity, funding will be awarded as a compliant subsidy in line with the Subsidy Control Act 2022 (SCA). Applicants are advised to declare the level of state support, if any, supplied to each consortium member on application as you may be eligible to receive funding as an exempt subsidy under the Minimal Financial Assistance exemption. The Minimal Financial Assistance exemption can also apply to consortia.

Refer to section 2.16 of the scheme guidance for further information on subsidy as it applies to Wave 3, including the Minimal Financial Assistance exemption. See the guidance for beneficiaries on the subsidy control regime and the UK subsidy control regime statutory guidance.

27. Please can you provide specific criteria which housing cooperatives and associations must meet for compliance with subsidy rules?

DESNZ are the public authority responsible for ensuring that subsidies made under the WH:SHF are compliant with the subsidy control Principles set out in the Subsidy Control Act 2022 (SCA). There are no specific criteria that housing cooperatives and associations must meet outside of providing accurate information on their subsidy position in their application form and ensuring that the terms set out in the Grant Funding Agreement are met. We recommend potential Applicants engage with their legal and finance teams to understand and review the provisions for grants as laid out in the SCA.

Grant recipients must provide DESNZ with accurate information to upload to the subsidy control transparency database.

Refer section 2.16 of the scheme guidance for further information on subsidy as it applies to Wave 3. See the guidance for beneficiaries on the subsidy control regime and the UK subsidy control regime statutory guidance.

Question 7

Funding and eligible costs

Accepted Answer

28. If measure costs inflate, will grant cost caps inflate along with them/does DESNZ hold the right to raise cost caps post award?

For Wave 3, the cost cap levels are those outlined in section 2.12.3 of the scheme guidance, and it is expected that these will not be adjusted for any inflation. The expectation is that Applicants use the certainty provided by the longer delivery windows for Wave 3 to secure a contract within the stipulated grant funding levels (plus co-funding) over the delivery period. Applicants are expected to provide as accurate costs as possible at application stage – including through engaging with the supply chain, but also factoring in any estimates of inflation. If costs do increase during delivery, then Grant Recipients may input more co-funding to cover these. Co-funding forms part of the agreed project baseline, and therefore any changes to this will be subject to the change control process.

29. Do the cost caps include VAT and if so, what do we assume VAT to be? 10% 5% or 0%?

The cost caps include non-recoverable VAT. Applicants are expected to seek their own advice on VAT (for example, internal finance team/HMRC) before application. Inaccurate submission of VAT is a potential blocker to effective delivery.

30. When can co-funding be claimed from and how will the process for counting pre-Grant Funding Agreement activity towards co-funding work?

Co-funding may be claimed from the date of the scheme launch. Scheme launch is defined as the date on which the final set of Wave 3 guidance documents were published in September 2024.

Successful Applicants may count any eligible costs incurred between the launch of Wave 3 and the signing of the Grant Funding Agreement (GFA) towards their co-funding requirement. Eligible costs are described in section 2.12 of the scheme guidance and defined in the GFA. Projects should keep a record and evidence of any spend incurred. Once the GFA has been signed, Grant Recipients will be required to set out their co-funding spend in the first monthly reporting cycle and evidence this as part of the reconciliation process.

This spend will be at the Applicants’ risk pending successful award and Applicants carry the risk for any contractual arrangements that they would not be able to uphold if they are unsuccessful in their WH:SHF application.

31. Would WH:SHF fund any decoration costs (to make good after works have caused mess or disruption)?

It is not expected that decoration costs would be funded through WH:SHF funding – these would have to be provided by Grant Recipients and should not be included in the co-funding amount provided in the application form due to not being an eligible cost.

32. Can costs for pre-install property surveys and retrofit assessments be grant funded if the property is then deemed unviable or the tenant refuses the work?

Yes. Costs incurred on pre-install property surveys and retrofit assessments in order to prepare for upgrades are eligible for grant funding, even if the property is deemed unviable or the tenant refuses the work. As per section 2.12.4 of the Scheme Guidance, these can be classes as either capital funding or A&A funding. However, Applicants should note that at most 15% of grant funding can be used on Admin and Ancillary costs.

33. Would Wave 3 funding cover cost of the removal of gas supply from properties if the move to a heat pump takes place?

Yes, the remedial aspect of administration and ancillary costs covers those elements vital to the retrofit of social homes that arise through reasons other than landlord neglect. This would encompass the removal of gas supply from properties, but this would need to comply with the expectations and requirements on A&A spend (see section 2.11.4 of the scheme guidance). Any inclusion of spend on remedial works would need to be proportionate – with value for money on measures delivered being a key driver of WH:SHF funding award.

34. Can Applicants utilise other sources of funding (blended funding), as part of their co-funding?

Applicants may use funding from other government schemes, such as the Energy Company Obligation (ECO), to support works on the same home but funding from multiple government schemes cannot be used to fund the same individual measure twice. It is the Applicant’s responsibility to ensure that any blending of funding is compliant with each individual scheme and the respective requirements and objectives for each fund is met.

This funding does not contribute to co-funding for the WH:SHF application.

35. Is there a minimum co-funding spend requirement per financial year?

Grant Recipients must spend a minimum of 10% of their total co-funding contribution per financial year (from FY25/26) and are limited to spending a maximum of 50% of their total co-funding contribution in FY28/29. Grant Recipients are allowed to spend co-funding in FY24/25 after scheme launch, as long as their co-funding spend in subsequent years follows the above rules.

There is an expectation that Grant Recipients would exceed this minimum each year to ensure that the minimum 50% total co-funding contribution requirement is achieved by the end of the delivery window. Grant Recipients should consider this when setting out their co-funding profile in their application.

36. Can I set out my own co-funding spend profile?

Applicants are encouraged to set out their own co-funding spend profile that is appropriate for their project but note that the profile must meet:

the 50% minimum total co-funding contribution requirement by the end of the delivery window
a minimum of 10% of their total co-funding contribution per financial year (from FY25/26), and are limited to spending a maximum of 50% of their co-funding contribution in FY 28/29.
the grant funding profiles.

37. What will be the process in managing my project if I am not able to spend grant funding allocated in the financial year? What are the flexibilities around this?

As part of the application process, Lead Applicants must set out the total grant funding to be spent in each financial year of the project. These per-FY totals will be recorded in the Grant Funding Agreement as part of the baseline and DESNZ expects Grant Recipients to spend their baselined, agreed grant funding amount in each financial year.

Lead Grant Recipients that underspend against their agreed baselined grant funding in each financial year will not be able to receive this underspent grant funding in the following financial year. Where there is expected or actual underspend against this baseline in any financial year, Lead Grant Recipients must make DESNZ aware of this eventuality as early as possible. Further to this, any spend that has been claimed for but cannot be evidenced as part of the reconciliation and evidence checking process will be subject to clawback.

Further information can be found in Section 2.12.1 and 5.9 of the guidance.

38. What if I want to deliver my project over a shorter timescale (e.g. 1-2 years) and did not want to deliver over 3 years? Can I include in my application what I will deliver in Years 1 and 2, and then request additional funding for Year 3 once in delivery?

Applications for projects that want to deliver across a shorter timescale (i.e. 1-2 years) will be accepted, and Lead Applicants will be required to set out in their application this intention, along with their grant spend for each financial year. DESNZ retains the right to request these projects to amend their delivery or spend profile; this is to ensure that DESNZ can adhere to the required grant funding profile available to WH:SHF.

Grant funding is not transferable across financial years, and we strongly encourage Applicants to consider this in their delivery plan if they are intending to deliver in under 3 years. For example, if a Lead Applicant requests funding for only 1 financial year and there are unexpected delays with delivery which lead to underspend, there will not be scope to move this unspent funding into the next financial year.

Similarly, it cannot be guaranteed that there will be available funding for Grant Recipients to request further funding once in delivery if they did not set this out at application stage.

We encourage Applicants to consider if they could expand their project to deliver more over 3 years if possible.

For further support on this, Applicants should contact the RISE team at www.riseretrofit.org.uk.

39. Will we receive funding for the Challenge Fund Phase Request stage to complete retrofit assessments?

Grant Recipients in the Challenge Fund route will be permitted to count eligible costs incurred when putting together Phase Requests as part of their co-funding contribution for the project. Such costs might include those incurred when carrying out retrofit assessments and tenant engagement. Additionally, from the 1st of April 2025, Lead Grant Recipients will be able to draw down up to 20% of their total grant funding award for eligible costs incurred to put together Phase Requests; made up of up to 15% A&A (exact % will be based on the A&A costs set to be incurred by the Grant Recipient) and 5% capital (see section 2.12.4 of the scheme guidance for detail on classification). Lead Grant Recipients will only be able to draw down the remainder of their grant funding on a phase-by-phase basis, following the approval of a Phase Request.

Question 8

Cost caps

Accepted Answer

40. Have the cost cap names changed?

We have three different cost caps:

The base cost cap (£7.5k per home),
The off-grid low carbon heating uplift (which makes a further £7.5k available to off-grid homes where installing low carbon heating), and
The on-grid low carbon heating incentive offer (which replaces other cost caps and provides £20k of grant funding which does not require co-funding).

Previously, the base cost cap was referred to as the energy efficiency cost cap, and the off-grid low carbon heating uplift was referred to as the off-grid low carbon heating. Both of these have been changed slightly to avoid confusion.

41. Does solar PV count as an energy efficiency measures or a low carbon heating measure? Which cost caps can I use to fund solar?

Solar PV is not a low carbon heating measure. It can be installed using any of the three cost caps.

It is eligible for the base cost cap.
In an off-grid property, where low carbon heating is being installed, money left over from the base cost cap and low carbon heating uplift can be used on other measures, including solar PV.
In an off-grid property, where low carbon heating is being installed, and the on-grid low carbon heating incentive offer is being accessed, money left over from the low carbon heating measure installation can be used on other measures, including solar PV.

Question 9

Off-grid low carbon heating uplift

Accepted Answer

42. If a home is connected to the gas grid but is electrically heated, is it eligible for additional low carbon heat cost caps (meaning is it treated as an ‘off grid’ home)?

For the purposes of Wave 3, an off-gas grid home is defined as one that does not use mains gas for heating purposes.

43. Can I use the base cost cap as well as the low carbon heating grant uplift for a low carbon heating solution off gas grid?

Yes. The off-grid low carbon heating cost cap uplift increases your overall pot of funding. While low carbon heating installation is mandatory with this funding (as organisations are only entitled to the uplift by installing off-grid low carbon heating measures), any leftover funding from this uplift can be spent on energy efficiency measures. Similarly, funding from the base cost cap can be spent on low carbon heating measures.

Question 10

On-grid low carbon heating incentive offer

Accepted Answer

44. What measures are eligible with the £20k offer?

Using the £20k on-grid low carbon heating incentive offer mandates the installation of one of the following measures: air-source heat pump, ground-source heat pump, shared ground loop, or heat network.

It is not expected that this will use all of the grant funding. The left-over grant funding should be used to install measures that will ensure bills do not rise in the home as a result of the retrofit works. All SAP compatible measures are eligible, including solar PV.

45. Is there any limit to which homes can be treated with the £20k offer?

All homes accessing the on-grid low carbon heating incentive offer must be on the gas grid. The total number of homes that access the offer is limited at 10% of the total number of homes in the application. There is no limit to how many of these homes can be at or above EPC band C, as long as the overall 10% EPC C+ limit for the application is complied with. These homes can have been treated previously in Wave 1 or the Demonstrator. Homes treated in Wave 2 are not eligible for Wave 3 funding.

46. Where accessing the £20k on-grid low carbon heating incentive offer, can I also access the £7.5k base cost cap?

No. This £20k is for mandatory low carbon heating measure installation and expected installation of other measures to ensure bills do not rise. As such, these homes cannot access the £7.5k base cost cap.

47. Does the 10% home limit for this offer apply to on-grid homes within an application, or to total number of homes in an application?

While every home that accesses the on-grid low carbon heating incentive offer must be on the gas grid, the total number of homes that can access it is 10% of all homes in an application.

So, if an application of 1,000 homes included 800 on-grid homes, 100 of those on-grid homes could access the offer (10% of 1,000).

Question 11

Application process

Accepted Answer

48. Can we submit more than one application?

Lead Applicants will not be permitted to submit more than one Strategic Partnership application. However, Strategic Partnership Applicants will be permitted to also apply to the Challenge Fund, where applying with different homes. Applicants submitting multiple applications must ensure that they will be deliverable simultaneously and will be required to justify their confidence in deliverability as part of the Challenge Fund Initial Application.

It will be possible for Strategic Partnership Lead Applicants to indicate as part of their application form submission if they wish to be automatically considered for funding via the Challenge Fund route, should their Strategic Partnership application be unsuccessful.

Lead Applicants are permitted to submit multiple Challenge Fund applications, where applying with different homes.

49. What are the key differences between the funding models and how do I know which one I should apply for?

A key principle of the Challenge Fund approach is that all applications that meet the minimum requirements of the scheme will be awarded funding (although if the scheme is oversubscribed, this may not be the amount of funding requested). In addition, this model will facilitate the phased approach to delivery taken by many organisations, with detailed information required on the homes included within a phase only once it is ready to start delivery. Applicants are not required to have any experience of retrofit and the minimum application size is 100 homes (with landlords who own/manage fewer than 1000 homes permitted to submit applications of any size). Both individual and consortium applications will be permitted through this route.

Organisations with a proven track record of successful delivery and whose applications display ambition aligning with our Strategic Priorities, including delivery at scale, can access funding through a Strategic Partnership. Full information on these strategic priorities can be found in section 4.2.3 of the Wave 3 Scheme Guidance. To reflect the capability evidenced by these organisations and to support delivery at scale, these Grant Recipients will not be required to provide detail on specific homes and measures until works have been carried out, as part of routine delivery monitoring. Both individual and consortium applications will be permitted through this route.

If an Applicant is unsure which application route is most appropriate for their organisation, they can find more information and access guidance through RISE www.riseretrofit.org.uk.

50. What happens if I apply through the Strategic Partnership route but am unsuccessful?

It will be possible for Strategic Partnership Lead Applicants to indicate as part of their application form submission if they wish to be automatically considered for funding via the Challenge Fund route, should their Strategic Partnership application be unsuccessful.

51. What will be the split of funding between Strategic Partnership applications and Challenge Fund applications?

The split between funding across both routes will be determined by DESNZ, and is dependent on the number applications received, along with the size of each application.

52. In the Challenge Fund route, what balance of information are we going to have in the Initial Application compared to the Phase Requests?

At Initial Application, Challenge Fund Applicants will not be required to provide information on specific homes to be upgraded or specific measures to be installed. This information will be required at the Phase Request stage which is after grant award. Please see section 4.3 of the scheme guidance for detail of what information will be asked for at each stage.

53. Why do I need to provide details for a named point of contact for self-conducted evaluation in my Strategic Partnership application form?

Information provided at application stage will be used as a basis for DESNZ officials to assess the level of self-conducted evaluation support required, and to assure DESNZ of Applicants’ capacity to deliver self-conducted data collection, analysis and reporting activities. They will not be scored or form the basis upon which grant funding is issued.

One of the key information requirements at application stage for Applicants to the Strategic Partnership route and to the Challenge Fund route who opt in to self-conducted evaluation, is a named point of contact for self-conducted evaluation activities. This is required to enable DESNZ and the evaluation partner to efficiently follow up on the information provided and effectively support Grant Recipients with self-conducted evaluation activities. This individual may be responsible for delivering evaluation activities in-house, or for managing externally commissioned evaluation activities. It is not required that they are an experienced or current evaluation practitioner, though Applicants are encouraged to carefully consider the most appropriate point of contact to lead self-conducted evaluation activities, including engaging with the evaluation partner to utilise the support and guidance available.

54. Why do I need to provide examples of previous research in my Strategic Partnership application form?

Applicants to the Strategic Partnership route must provide information about previous individual and organisational research and/or evaluation experience. This will be used as a basis for DESNZ officials to assess the level of self-conducted evaluation support required. These responses will not be scored or form the basis upon which grant funding is issued.

55. What level of detail am I expected to provide when explaining examples of previous research or evaluation?

Where possible and known, Applicants to the Strategic Partnership route should include in their application an overview of relevant previous research and/or evaluation project(s) and its/their objectives, the data collection method(s), the sample group(s) and methods(s), the analysis method(s), and whether the project(s) was/were delivered in-house or commissioned to a third party (such as a university or research institution).

Any details provided will be used as a basis for DESNZ officials to assess the level of self-conducted evaluation support required. They will not be scored or form the basis upon which grant funding is issued.

Question 12

Modelling at application stage

Accepted Answer

56. Does the principle on bill decreases take into account the general increase in fuel bills, for example installing an air source heat pump might not deliver a huge bill saving just due to the increasing cost of electricity? Can I use methods such as actual bills to evidence a bill reduction to strengthen my application?

Evidence of bill decrease should be provided at Phase Request stage and should be based upon modelling via Full SAP, RdSAP, or PHPP as an alternative. DESNZ requires homes to reach EPC C, and modelled evidence needs to be provided at Phase Request stage to support this. Any further evidence beyond modelled improvement to EPC C (for example, submission of actual current bills with estimates based on future bills post retrofit) will not further benefit an application compared to the bill improvements evidenced through modelling.

57. Can the PHPP modelling tool be used as an alternative to SAP?

Yes, PHPP is a recognized tool for domestic energy model in PAS2035 in assessing and designing your retrofit projects however for compliance with the Wave 3 funding you will need to demonstrate that the dwellings that have been retrofitted now meet an EPC C rating.

Question 13

Strategic Partnerships

Accepted Answer

58. What are the benefits of Strategic Partnerships compared to the Challenge Fund?

Strategic Partners will not be required to submit specific details on homes to be treated or measures to be installed via a Phase Request before starting works on a home. Instead, they can start delivery of homes as soon as they have been awarded funding. In addition, if they stay within the broad parameters of the project set out at application, Strategic Partners will have greater flexibility to change specific aspects such as measures installed without going through the change control process. Strategic Partnership monitoring will take place on at least a quarterly basis, as opposed to monitoring for Challenge Fund Grant Recipients which will take place at least monthly, as these Grant Recipients are expected to be experienced in delivering projects of this nature.

The Challenge Fund is expected to better suit many Applicants, as Applicants on this route will not be expected to provide as much detailed information at application stage, nor deliver against the Strategic Priorities, and will not be required to undertake self-conducted evaluation. In addition, all applications to the Challenge Fund that meet the minimum requirements of the scheme will be awarded funding, whereas Strategic Partnership applications will be scored and only awarded funding on that basis.

59. For Strategic Partnership applications, the delivery is expected to be in the multiple 1000s. Is there a minimum threshold?

There is no minimum number of homes Strategic Partner applications must propose. Projects proposing more homes will score more highly when the application is assessed, as this is one of the strategic priorities, and so have a greater chance of being successful.

60. Can you clarify when applying through the Strategic partnership route what is classed as having delivered a considerable amount of properties on previous Waves? Can you put a figure on that?

Strategic Partnership Applicants are no longer required to have delivered on a previous wave. However, past successful delivery of projects of a similar size will be taken into account as part of the weighted delivery confidence question in the delivery assurance section. The scale of proposed delivery will be considered as part of the weighted application question on strategic priorities, with points available for delivery of 3,000 to_>6,000 homes and strategies for using scale to lower costs.

61. For the Strategic Partnership route, the guidance says “experience of successful delivery”. Does that mean the whole partnership needs the experience of delivering together? Or can this be adequately demonstrated through the delivery experience of each individual partner?

It is not a requirement for consortium Applicants to have experience of delivering in that consortium. However, consortium Strategic Partnerships are expected to have formed for a clear strategic purpose and to have thought carefully about how they will ensure that the project will be delivered successfully across the consortium. Consortium Applicants who are unable to demonstrate both of these things are unlikely to be successful at application stage.

Consortium applicants must ensure that they also detail their confidence in delivering this project in this consortium. Where possible, this should be done through provision of evidence of successful delivery of at least one past project (energy efficiency or otherwise) delivered in this consortium.

If it is a new consortium, evidence of successful project collaboration and delivery, whether in a similar consortium project or otherwise, should be included from as many individual consortium members as possible. Where possible, this should include evidence of the consortium lead’s previous successful leadership of a consortium.

62. For Strategic Partnership applications the draft guidance states that applications will not be successful or indeed allowed for consortiums that have come together just for scale to try and achieve the size required for applications. How will this be determined and judged and what is the criteria for measuring this?

Consortium Strategic Partnerships are expected to have formed for a clear strategic purpose and to have thought carefully about how they will ensure that the project will be delivered successfully across the consortium. Consortium Applicants will be required at application stage to demonstrate this, and those who are unable to demonstrate both of these things are unlikely to be successful at Strategic Partnership application stage. Further guidance on this is included in the application form.

63. Are Strategic Partnership Applicants expected to complete a number of retrofit assessments and Medium Term Improvement Plans (MTIP) prior to submitting an application? And if so, how many/what percentage of the application size?

Applicants are not required to complete retrofit assessment and MTIP’s prior to submitting an application. Applicants will be asked to provide high level information on the number of homes (and homes to EPC C), total grant and co-funding spend, and energy savings which will set their baseline. Applicants will not be required to provide detailed information on the type or number of measures they will deliver.

Successful Applicants may count any eligible costs incurred between Wave 3 scheme launch and the signing of the Grant Funding Agreement (GFA) towards their co-funding requirement. Eligible costs are described in section 2.12 of the scheme guidance. Projects should keep a record and evidence of any spend incurred. Once the GFA has been signed, Grant Recipients will be required to set out their co-funding spend in the first monthly reporting cycle and evidence this as part of the reconciliation process. This spend will be at the Applicants’ risk pending successful award and Applicants carry the risk for any contractual arrangements that they would not be able to uphold if they are unsuccessful in their WH:SHF application.

Yes, Grant Recipients within the Strategic Partnerships will be required to report on at most a monthly basis and attend at least quarterly monitoring meetings which will give the opportunity to raise any blockers or issues and share best practice. In addition, Grant Recipients will have a point of contact that they can escalate issues or raise questions with outside of these processes.

65. Can we get more detail on what the mandatory self-conducted data collection, analysis and reporting activities would need to look like for the Strategic Partnership evaluation requirement and what would be expected of Grant Recipients?

A summary of the mandatory self-conducted evaluation approach for Strategic Partners is provided in Section 7.5.7 of the scheme guidance. Grant Recipients in the Strategic Partnership route are required, at a minimum, to collect data on outcome indicators for three key outcomes:

social housing landlord capacity and capability development, e.g. Division of roles within Grant Recipients’ retrofit capacity
supply chain capacity and capability development, e.g. Upskilling undertaken within Grant Recipients’ supply chain
resident experience, e.g. Satisfaction with measures installed

Each outcome indicator will require specific quantitative data to be collected by Grant Recipients, using set data collection methods. The final list of outcome indicators and methods will be communicated when grant funding is awarded but are expected to include the completion of reporting forms once per year, to align with yearly review processes. Resident experience outcome indicators are expected to be collected via a resident questionnaire. Grant Recipients can choose the exact questionnaire method which best suits their residents and project contexts, so long as it adheres to minimum methodological requirements which DESNZ will specify (for example, achieving a minimum sample size).

Detailed technical guidance will be provided post-award and where feasible, data collection forms will automate any necessary analyses. DESNZ’s independent evaluation partner will support with project-specific advice and quality assurance.

At application, DESNZ require a named point of contact who will be responsible for managing self-conducted data collection, analysis and reporting. This enables DESNZ and the evaluation partner to efficiently follow up and provide targeted support. They do not need to be an experienced or current evaluation practitioner, as the self-conducted evaluation requirements can be easily undertaken without pre-existing skills. However, Applicants are encouraged to carefully consider the most appropriate point of contact to engage with DESNZ’s evaluation partner and utilise the support available.

Question 14

Challenge Fund

Accepted Answer

66. What is the anticipated timing from successful submission of a Phase Request to approval?

We will endeavour to set out timescales for Phase Request approvals at grant award stage and will provide support to Grant Recipients in putting their Phase Requests together to ensure they have the best chance of being approved. We understand how important it will be to have timely responses to Phase Request submissions.

67. Will there be a minimum duration of an Applicants Phase for delivery? Would each phase need to be delivered within e.g. 12 months?

There is no minimum duration of a Phase during delivery (provided it is completed by the end of the Wave 3 delivery window) and may be carried out across financial years. Applicants should however consider the requirements for spend across financial years. Further detail on this can be found in Section 2.12.1 and 4.3.3 of the scheme guidance.

68. As the Challenge Fund will provide funding to everyone meeting the minimum requirements does this mean that it’s likely we won’t get all the funding that we apply for?

We will seek to allocate all funding which Challenge Fund Applicants apply for. If we receive too many applications that meet the minimum requirements and are unable to provide all funding applied for, then we may need to scale down funding for some projects. For further information please refer to Section 4.3.2 of the guidance.

69. Can you explain the change control process and time frame for the Challenge Fund?

We will provide detail on the change control process and associated time frames after grant award, however the intention with the Challenge Fund route is that this should reduce the need for change requests, as Applicants to the Challenge Fund route won’t have to submit the detail on homes until they are ready to submit a Phase Request. We expect that the information in each Phase Request should be based on a significant number of retrofit assessments and tenant sign ups so DESNZ and Grant Recipients can have sufficient confidence in the accuracy of the information. Please see section 4.3.3 of the scheme guidance for further detail on Phase Requests.

Question 15

Monitoring and Reporting

Accepted Answer

70. What are the monitoring and reporting requirements for both Challenge Fund and Strategic Partnerships, and what are the key differences from previous Waves?

It is expected that both application routes will report via a data management system on a monthly basis. An indicative list of data points that will be reported on has been provided in the scheme guidance (sections 5.7.3 and 6.7.3) and will give an indication to Applicants of the data they will be required to provide.

Monitoring meetings are expected to be at least monthly for Grant Recipients in the Challenge Fund, and at least quarterly for Grant Recipients in the Strategic Partnerships route.

We have worked closely with Wave 1 and Wave 2 colleagues to gather key lessons learnt on the monitoring and reporting process. The data we require Grant Recipients to report has been reviewed and streamlined, along with a review of the milestones and KPIs which have been revised to avoid any duplication. Further information on the monitoring and reporting requirements will be available at grant funding award.

71. How will successful delivery be measured?

Grant Recipients in both application routes will be required to deliver against an agreed baseline. Grant Recipients will be required to report against a set of KPIs for both application routes, which will be used to determine progress towards the baseline. For further details on baselines and KPIs for both routes, please refer to sections 5.7 and 5.8 in the scheme guidance.

Question 16

Self-Conducted Evaluation

Accepted Answer

72. What support will be available to my organisation for self-conducted evaluation?

DESNZ will appoint an independent evaluation partner to manage the scheme’s evaluation and provide specialist support throughout Wave 3 delivery to Grant Recipients in the Strategic Partnership route, and Grant Recipients in the Challenge Fund route who have opted in to self-conducted evaluation activities.

Grant Recipients in the Strategic Partnership route and in the Challenge Fund route who have opted in must attend initial guidance sessions on the self-conducted evaluation requirements and how to set these up. Additional drop-in sessions will be available for more tailored advice. These are likely to take place during the Mobilisation period; ahead of April 2025.

Throughout Wave 3 delivery, these Grant Recipients will be required to attend regular one-to-one keep in touch sessions with the evaluation partner, to reflect on progress and raise any project-specific issues or queries. Ad hoc support will also be available.

DESNZ and the evaluation partner may also coordinate annual lesson sharing sessions, in which Grant Recipients can learn from each other’s experiences and share findings.

73. What support will be available specifically for the Group A self-conducted evaluation activities, to Grant Recipients in the Strategic Partnership route and in the Challenge Fund route who opt in?

DESNZ and the evaluation partner will provide detailed written methodological and technical guidance on data collection, analysis and reporting required for Group A, throughout delivery. Project-specific advice can be provided if required.

The evaluation partner will quality assure (QA) all Group A data Grant Recipients collect, to ensure it is of sufficient quality and has been provided in the correct format. If required, the evaluation partner may return data to Grant Recipients with a request for further details or clarification.

74. What support will be available specifically for optional Group B activities, to Grant Recipients who opt in?

Grant Recipients in the Strategic Partnership and Challenge Fund routes who opt to undertake Group B evaluation activity will be able to access support and methodological guidance from the evaluation partner, for up to three evaluation topics from the longlist.

The evaluation partner can support these Grant Recipients to develop relevant evaluation plans based on topics of interest, or to refine any existing evaluation plans. For example, the evaluation partner could review a Grant Recipient’s initial evaluation questions and recommend appropriate methodologies for collecting relevant data.

Grant Recipients may explore additional topics from Group B independently if they have further research interests.

To maximise the support available, Grant Recipients may wish to select evaluation topics on similar themes.

Cookies on GOV.UK

Applies to England