2024-10-17 09:09:00
Many of the thermal strainers (DPE G) soon to be banned for rental are found in small condominiums. Penalized by their size, they benefit from fewer subsidies for energy renovation than larger ones, even though they constitute the majority of the rental stock. This is due to several perverse effects, which could nevertheless be remedied by changing the financing conditions.
From 1is next January, DPE G housing must (in theory, since the government is considering a postponement) be prohibited for rental. This measure, which particularly affects co-owned housing, is part of a regulatory and incentive arsenal, deployed from the Grenelle Environment Forum and regularly reinforced to encourage energy renovation decisions. But in co-ownerships, the systematization of energy renovation remains timid, the announced boom is still awaited.
While co-ownerships represent 28% of French housing, subsidies allocated to co-ownership buildings only represent 8.6% of total aid for energy renovation distributed by the ANAH in 2023. In addition, they are in fact mainly allocated to large condominiums with collective heating.
The reasons for this inertia have been the subject of numerous sociological analyses. These point out in particular the problem of taking collective decision in general assembly of the co-owners, and thestill insufficient involvement of professional trusteeswho nevertheless manage nine out of ten co-ownerships.
These are not the only problems. As part of a recent search on alternative strategies to global renovation, a sociological study in which I participated highlights that the institutional framework for encouraging energy renovation leaves aside the majority of the condominium stock.
In question, the technical model of global renovation promoted by the public authorities, which appears inaccessible for certain co-ownerships. They then find themselves excluded from subsidies and support for energy renovation. In co-ownership, the democratization of energy renovation therefore requires a more inclusive policy.
Co-ownerships excluded from subsidies
To understand why this model is unattainable for certain co-ownerships, we must start from the conditions for granting collective aid. MaPrimeRenov’ I coverwhich finances up to €25,000 of work per accommodation.
To benefit from the subsidy, a work project must reach the threshold of 35% energy gain. However, for certain co-ownerships, this objective may be impossible to achieve for various reasons. These share – and often combine – characteristics which constitute handicaps with regard to an overall renovation:
- Heritage facades made of stone or brick (sometimes protected by the State as historic monuments), very numerous in the city center, which makes exterior insulation more complex,
Shutterstock
-
Individual heating, the replacement of which is not decided within the framework of the collective works vote of the building,
-
Recent work, such as the renovation of the facade which will not be resumed for several decades.
-
Paradoxically, previously carrying out energy saving work can prove to be detrimental to reaching the threshold of 35% energy gain.
To this can be added several factors of additional cost of energy renovation:
-
the small size of the building which leads to a doubling of the average price per apartment,
-
or the priority to be given, in terms of investment, to structural works necessary for the sustainability of the building.
The perverse effects of incentive mechanisms
The second problem relates to the structure of the renovation market. Indeed, for professionals, the profitability of the activity of supporting co-owners in an energy renovation is based on the effective voting of the work, largely favored by this assistance.
However, design offices are faced with very strong growth in demand, linked to obligations de diagnostics and the incentive aid offered by some communities. A context in which they can afford to choose.
Anticipating the difficulties of these small co-ownerships in sticking to the global renovation model, professionals therefore focus on those who have the best chance of obtaining the subsidy.
As for the co-ownership trustees, thecurrent organization of offices does not allow them to support their numerous co-ownerships in parallel in a global renovation, which explains a certain selectivity.
To follow environmental issues as closely as possible, find our thematic newsletter “Ici la Terre” every Thursday. Subscribe today.
However, the deadline is clear: all co-ownerships must have completed before 2025, a draft multi-year work plan (PPPT). This diagnosis consists of entrusting a professional with carrying out an assessment of the work to be planned on the building in the next ten years, moving away from a logic of global renovation at once.
Beyond compliance with the legal obligation, co-owners who take advantage of this diagnosis expect more visibility, particularly on future maintenance needs, as well as prospective reflection on the modernization of the building.
The model of global energy renovation in questions
But professionals rely on this PPPT to deploy an economic argument in favor of a global energy renovationwhich consists of carrying out several energy renovation works in one go.
Paris City Hall, Provided by the author
And ultimately, the differences between co-owners and professionals on the content of the work slow down the decision to carry out the work. The professionals’ exclusive approach, focused on overall renovation, leads them to propose work that can leave co-owners perplexed.
Their fears go beyond costs. For example, for exterior insulation: attachment to the aesthetics of the facade, loss of qualities of use (for example, reduction in brightness, size of balconies), fears for the structure of the building… This insulation also requires the modernization of ventilation, which involves work experienced as intrusive.
In addition, the current regulatory framework is not sufficient to integrate certain work in private areas (for example, individual heating) into the common project, making it uncertain whether the threshold which triggers the subsidy will be reached.
In these buildings, the co-owners generally do not adhere to the global renovation model and claim their sovereignty over the work project. They consider excessive the search for energy performance based on abstract calculations which leads, for example, to replacing equipment in good working order. Faced with the scale of the work, they also express strong disbelief regarding the actual receipt of the promised subsidies.
Ultimately, they favor more progressive renovation projects which can integrate energy improvement as part of routine maintenance and/or whose costs remain reasonable in their eyes. This renovation strategy allows them to incorporate aspirations other than energy (for example modernization or beautification), and to ensure the acceptability of the work by the general assembly of co-owners.
The risk of a two-speed system
It is true that a dynamic of energy renovation has now been launched, at least among large condominiums of the Trente Glorieuses in collective heating. But the global renovation model, which applies well to these, remains visibly unsuitable for a majority of co-ownerships in France. In fact, more than half of co-ownership housing is located in buildings of less than twenty lotsand two thirds have individual heating.
The risk of the state in which is real: we would end up with a two-speed energy renovation, distinguishing the co-ownerships “privileged” by the current institutional framework and the “relegated” which would remain excluded. However, the thermal strainers affected by the upcoming rental bans are more often located in these small condominiums…
Given this situation, it is essential that energy renovation policy becomes more inclusive, in line with the current search for a just transition. A more inclusive energy renovation would be one that would integrate a larger part of the condominium stock into the aid framework.
Better adapt to each building
This may mean adopting a more segmented approach, which would adapt the energy gain objective according to the history and technical characteristics of the co-ownership. The professionals interviewed as part of the study also called for progressiveness in the allocation of MaPrimeRenov’ Copro.
Moving away from a “hard-line” search for energy performance, inclusive energy renovation should also take better account of the technical requirements of each building (for example, structural work to be carried out) and the expectations of co-owners (for example, example, improvement of summer comfort, etc.).
So that this inclusive energy renovation does not remain just wishful thinking, other areas of improvement should be considered.
On the professional side:
-
promote their development of skills in the treatment of heritage buildings,
-
develop economic models adapted to smaller co-ownerships (for example: offer combining design and works, pooling of diagnostics per block, etc.),
-
help develop project management assistance beyond just overall renovation.
On the institutional side, this involves improving the articulation of work in private areas with the collective project (for example, we could extend the notion of private areas of collective interest).
L’ANAH et some communities are currently experimenting with relaxed methods of encouraging energy renovation for small condominiums. We can bet that this approach can be quickly extended to a larger scale.
1729163645
#small #condominiums #forgotten #energy #renovation #aid
