Case Study
Embedding High-Quality Public Engagement in a City-Scale Retrofit Programme
Strategic Advice for Cardiff Council
- Location: Cardiff
Size: 9 council members
20 actors
Challenge: The Council had strong strategic evidence (including co-benefit analysis and health impact assessment). However, there remained significant uncertainty about the “how” of delivery, particularly around trust, uptake, contractor quality and reaching those most in need.
Key partners: Cardiff Council
Project timeline: May – December 2025
Executive Summary
In 2025, Cardiff Council partnered with Involve to strengthen its approach to public engagement for its proposed retrofit programme, which primarily targeted households experiencing fuel poverty.
The retrofit programme aims to deliver warmer homes, lower bills, improved health outcomes and wider economic benefits, while supporting a just transition to net zero. However, the Council recognised that technical planning and economic modelling alone would not guarantee success. Building trust, ensuring uptake, and supporting residents before, during and after installation are equally critical.
Over a seven-month period, Involve provided:
- Strategic workshops with climate and housing teams
- Public engagement training
- A multi-agency roundtable with Cardiff’s Affordable Warmth Partnership
This work surfaced a clear conclusion: engagement is not an add-on to retrofit delivery — it is core infrastructure. Done well, it reduces risk, improves outcomes, strengthens community trust, and increases the long-term effectiveness of public investment.
Key recommendations include:
- Planning engagement across funding scenarios
- Embedding engagement requirements in procurement
- Prioritising follow-up and aftercare
- Investing in tailored, person-centred approaches
- Strengthening work with refugee, migrant and other seldom-heard communities
- Proactively addressing scams and misinformation
Objectives
The strategic advice project ran from May to December 2025 and had three core objectives:
- Make the case for high-quality engagement as an essential component of a future retrofit programme, including for securing funding.
- Start a structured conversation about contractor–resident relationships, recognising that installers are often the primary interface with households.
- Prepare the ground for future engagement, should funding be secured.
The underlying policy challenge was clear: while the Council had strong strategic evidence (including co-benefit analysis and health impact assessment), there remained significant uncertainty about the “how” of delivery, particularly around trust, uptake, contractor quality and reaching those most in need.
The project therefore, focused on designing an engagement framework that would:
- Reduce implementation risk
- Improve resident experience
- Strengthen cross-sector coordination
- Embed learning for long-term climate action
Approach and Methodology
The methodology combined internal capacity building with external pre-engagement.
1. Strategic workshops
Initial workshops with climate and housing teams clarified:
- Programme scope and decision points
- Lessons from previous engagement
- Risks and barriers
- Boundaries and scope
These sessions ensured engagement planning was tied directly to decision-making, rather than operating in isolation.
2. Public engagement training
Involve’s Capacity Building and Standards team, delivered training covering:
- Principles of high-quality public engagement
- Dialogue and deliberation methods
- Engagement strategy planning
- Designing participatory processes
This strengthened internal capability and ensured that engagement planning could adapt over time.
3. Affordable Warmth Partnership roundtable
A facilitated roundtable brought together 20 representatives from health services, charities, supply chain, government, housing professionals and academia.
The discussion was structured around:
- Resident case studies
- Barriers and opportunities
- Practical advice for future engagement
This pre-engagement surfaced frontline insights about trust, vulnerability, misinformation, workforce shortages and system coordination.
Evidence base
The project was built on substantial existing work, including:
- One Planet Cardiff Strategy
- Local Area Energy Plan
- Health impact assessment with Public Health Wales
- Co-benefit modelling showing potential 5:1 returns on retrofit investment
The engagement strategy was therefore designed to complement — not duplicate — technical and economic planning.
Key Outcomes
1. A clear case for engagement as risk mitigation
Participants consistently highlighted that poor engagement leads to:
- Lower uptake
- Increased complaints
- Reputational damage
- Spread of negative word-of-mouth
Conversely, trusted, face-to-face and person-centred engagement builds momentum and creates ripple effects within communities. Engagement was reframed as a risk reduction strategy, not simply a communications exercise.
2. Recognition that trust is foundational
The roundtable confirmed that mistrust of contractors, technology, and sometimes public authorities is a major barrier to retrofit uptake. Trust must be built before technical detail is introduced.
Effective strategies identified included:
- Working through trusted third sector intermediaries
- Peer-to-peer advocacy and community champions
- Transparent communication before, during and after works
- Demonstration homes and visible examples
3. The importance of person-centred delivery
Many households experiencing fuel poverty face compounding challenges: debt, health issues, language barriers or insecure tenancy.
A one-size-fits-all model risks alienation. Instead, engagement and delivery must:
- Adapt to tenure and household circumstances
- Integrate with health and social care services
- Provide follow-up and aftercare
- Allow flexibility in eligibility and funding criteria
4. Contractors as key engagement actors
Installers are often the face of the programme, yet engagement expectations are rarely embedded in procurement.
The project identified the need for:
- Engagement requirements in contracts
- Dedicated engagement roles within delivery teams
- Clear codes of conduct
- Strong information flow between council and contractors
- Training in resident interaction and vulnerability awareness
5. Addressing misinformation and scams
Scams and misinformation were identified as a serious and growing barrier. Residents may struggle to distinguish legitimate schemes from fraudulent operators. This creates reluctance to engage, particularly among vulnerable groups. The project recommended proactive “pre-bunking” and coordinated anti-scam partnerships.
Challenges & Lessons Learned
Funding uncertainty
Engagement planning is complicated by uncertain funding streams. The framework therefore includes minimum and gold-standard scenarios to allow flexibility.
Lesson: Engagement planning must anticipate variable funding while protecting core standards.
Defining and communicating “fuel poverty”
Targeting those most in need requires clarity, but the term “fuel poverty” can carry stigma.
Lesson: Language matters. Eligibility criteria and communications must be fair, transparent and non-alienating.
Reaching seldom-heard groups
Refugee and migrant communities, private tenants, veterans and digitally excluded residents are often overlooked.
Lesson: Rather than framing communities as “hard to reach,” institutions must examine their own capacity gaps and invest in specialist skills, translation and representation.
Workforce and delivery constraints
Contractor shortages, PAS 2035 complexity and supply chain pressures create delays.
Lesson: Engagement timelines must be realistic and transparently communicated to avoid eroding trust.
Communicating for impact
The project identified several principles for effective communication:
- Proactive outreach: Meet residents in trusted community spaces rather than relying on digital channels alone.
- Demonstration and storytelling: Share visible examples and lived experience case studies.
- Continuous feedback loops: Ensure residents see how their input shapes decisions.
- Media presence: Highlight positive outcomes while inviting constructive feedback.
- Expectation management: Be clear about scope, timescales and limitations.
Crucially, communication must be ongoing — not limited to the launch phase.
Table of Contents
- Executive Summary
- Funding uncertainty
- Defining and communicating “fuel poverty”
- Reaching seldom-heard groups
- Workforce and delivery constraints
- Key Takeaways & Recommendations
- 1. Plan engagement across the full programme lifecycle
- 2. Embed engagement in procurement
- 3. Prioritise aftercare
- 4. Invest in tailored, person-centred approaches
- 5. Strengthen partnerships
- 6. Proactively tackle misinformation
- 7. Protect core engagement standards
- Contact Information
Key Takeaways & Recommendations
For policymakers designing retrofit or similar net zero programmes, the following recommendations emerge:
1. Plan engagement across the full programme lifecycle
Engagement must happen:
- Before (design and trust-building)
- During (feedback and transparency)
- After (follow-up, maintenance, learning)
It should not end at installation.
2. Embed engagement in procurement
Contracts should include:
- Clear behavioural standards
- Engagement training requirements
- Dedicated engagement roles
- Monitoring of resident experience
- Explicit follow-up obligations
3. Prioritise aftercare
Residents require support to use and maintain new technologies. Without this, public investment risks underperformance and reputational harm.
4. Invest in tailored, person-centred approaches
Different tenures and communities require different strategies. Engagement must integrate with health, social care and advice services.
5. Strengthen partnerships
Standing steering groups involving community leaders, public partners and lived experience representatives can provide continuous oversight and adaptation.
6. Proactively tackle misinformation
Commission research and coordinate across authorities, third sector and trusted contractors to counter scams and disinformation.
7. Protect core engagement standards
Even under funding constraints, minimum standards should include:
Built-in feedback mechanisms
Named engagement leadership
Clear eligibility definitions
Transparent communication
Community pre-engagement
Contractor roundtables
Contact Information
