Why on earth isn’t the government engaging with architects on retrofit?

Last week, I was on stage at Grand Designs Live with presenter Kevin McCloud, sustainability experts, architects and other thought leaders. One of the main topics was how we retrofit homes to make them warmer, more comfortable, higher quality and, of course, more sustainable. The conversation was positive and optimistic about our chances. We discussed ways to tackle the macro problem of retrofitting the 25 million-plus homes that already exist just in England.

As I’ve always said, we can’t build our way to net zero; unlocking the retrofit problem is the battle we need to fight and win. Some of the solutions discussed included prioritising common house types, improving insulation without compromising breathability, and investing in ventilation systems that protect homes from issues like mould.

Walking among us is a group of people, almost mythical in their expertise, trained to solve these issues

For years, I have advocated for a systematic approach to retrofitting by categorising the country’s housing stock into individual house types. The idea is to identify the most common house types and work with a select group of consultants, architects and experts to determine the best retrofit solutions for each.

Last year, at Housing UK, I delivered a keynote on this approach, and Selvin Brown, then director for Net Zero Buildings at the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, commented that it was a strategy the government should consider adopting.

I’ve always believed there is light at the end of this long, dark tunnel. Yet, the morning I was due to go back on stage with Kevin, I saw a piece on the BBC that highlighted a family in Luton – coincidentally, where I spent much of my childhood. The father of the family, an immigrant from Bangladesh, had worked at the Vauxhall Plant. Sadly, he passed away, and his wife has suffered two recent strokes. Two years ago, as part of a government insulation scheme, their home was externally insulated. Yet, now, the house is plagued by black mould, fungal spores and peeling paint.

Anyone skilled at retrofit could have anticipated this. Improper insulation without adequate ventilation led to these problems. But the BBC’s analysis missed the mark entirely. Instead of consulting architects or ventilation experts, the correspondent in the studio misidentified the issue, referring to cold bridging (heat escaping through parts of a building’s structure) as ‘cold spotting’ and attributing the mould solely to gaps in insulation. They failed to mention ventilation and breathability – critical aspects when retrofitting buildings, especially in older properties with unique needs.

I felt like screaming at the screen: ‘It’s not the contractors’ fault! They’re not trained to understand the problem.’ But walking among us is a group of people, almost mythical in their expertise, trained to solve these issues. They study for years, quietly, diligently, imbuing themselves with arcane knowledge. They know the secrets of walls, can hear the breaths that buildings take, and speak the subtle language of airflow and insulation. They’re not wizards; they are architects – and there are bloody thousands of them.

The irony? While we struggle with the monumental task of making homes sustainable, this wellspring of knowledge remains largely untapped, waiting in the wings. It frustrates me because the challenges we face are already significant, and the road to a sustainable housing future is steep without these avoidable setbacks. Yet here they are – the architects – and they have the answers we seek.

If the government is truly committed to an effective strategy for retrofitting homes, architects must be involved from the very beginning. Organisations like the RIBA and ARB are a good start, but this isn’t enough; the government must also find ways to tap into the broader architectural industry to address these complex challenges.

Without the expertise of architects, we risk doing more harm than good, as highlighted in the BBC Breakfast report. The tragedy of the situation is compounded when you consider that 3,000 homes in Luton have been insulated, and if only 20% of them are like the one in this piece, the bill for rectifying this basic mistake will be in the region of £60 million. That’s £60 million that could have been used to retrofit more homes but instead has been wasted.

This is exactly what happens when architects are excluded from decisions that directly affect the integrity of buildings. Civil servants can manage budgets and timelines but the strategy must be shaped by professionals who truly understand the intricacies of retrofitting. Without their involvement, we risk not only falling short of our goals but also wasting resources and exacerbating the very issues we aim to resolve.

Imagine a government organisation prescribing medication for cancer patients without consulting oncologists. We wouldn’t blame the nurses administering the drugs; we’d question why the correct experts weren’t involved from the start. In this analogy, contractors are like the nurses, and architects are the doctors. Just as only trained doctors should prescribe cancer medication, only those trained in design should approve retrofitting strategies.

The government needs to recognise that if they are going to tackle the housing crisis, improve energy efficiency or address the key built environment challenges, the architectural industry must be the first port of call.

Kunle Barker is a property expert, journalist and broadcaster