Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We use cookies to personalise your experience; learn more in our Privacy and Cookie Policy. You can opt out of some cookies by adjusting your browser settings; see the cookie policy for details. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies.

If housing developers braved ‘risky’ sites, we would all reap the rewards

  • 1 Comment

There is still ample opportunity for housing development in the suburbs, if only developers were prepared to take on difficult sites, writes Colm Lacey

We’re delighted to have received planning permission recently for our first batch of development sites in Croydon. The overarching aim of Brick by Brick is to create properly designed new housing supply throughout the borough which is affordable to a range of incomes, while maintaining a robust and sustainable commercial business model. This, of course, is not without its challenges and our experience with this batch of sites has proved no exception.

By definition, increasing housing productivity within an established economic system means creating supply where it didn’t exist before. Existing suppliers may be able to increase their capacity somewhat, but without major changes to their hard and soft corporate infrastructure this is unlikely to be significant, and it certainly won’t be quick. In other words, the established housebuilder fraternity won’t solve the housing crisis.

People in severe housing need simply don’t have time to wait for a new eco-town

Enter the new suppliers, a motley crew of local authority companies, newly married housing associations, institutionally funded specialist developers and self-builders raised on a diet of Kevin McCloud and Elle Decoration. It’s early days for this lot (we happily count ourselves among them) and their impact on housing delivery remains to be seen, but their very existence at least points towards a delegation of the responsibility of supply, surely a positive development in a static market.

Of course, all new suppliers need new materials to work with, and the availability of land suitable for development is therefore crucial to their productivity. This basic problem – new development needs new land – has historically led us down the blindest of alleys. People in severe housing need simply don’t have time to wait for a new eco-town.    

It is perhaps helpful to focus less on allocating new land supply, and more on the appropriateness of existing sites. Developers (read: their funders) have a surprisingly tiny appetite for risk, a trait which leads many of them to discount much of the potential land before them. Several of our first batch of schemes deal with the intensification of a suburban, low density development context where rapid development in the 1920s and 1930s has focused mainly on flat sites with great access. Many of the developments on these sites have taken a design path of least resistance. The historic commercial decisions of previous developers are all too plain to see, and not a lot has changed since. 

But there are still sites remaining for those who are willing to look hard enough, and while it is certainly true the various reasons for their lack of development to date can become more apparent on further inspection, it is rare that they present a development problem which can’t be solved by good design.

More importantly, the potential impact of these sites on the future sustainability of the suburbs is huge. Much as planners define the form of the city through the layering of opportunity and constraint to create a context for development activity, developers equally shape their environment through their choice of development site and the attendant impact on the design of their homes. In this sense, more innovation and risk-taking in site selection could not only create additional land supply and commercial development opportunities, but also genuinely foster local placemaking. 

Colm Lacey is Croydon Council’s director of development and CEO of its housing-focused delivery arm Brick by Brick

Enter Croydon iStreet – an AJ competition

Croydon istreet logo crop

Croydon Council and the AJ have launched a competition to design an interactive streetscape for Croydon. It’s FREE to enter and open to all. Click here to find out more.


  • 1 Comment

Readers' comments (1)

  • What Colm Lacey & co are striving to do in Croydon is admirable, and when it comes to credits, and precedent, he must surely be aware of the fine examples of what could be achieved on awkward 'left over' sites in Lewisham and Brighton by the councils there working with self-builders and that remarkable design genius, Walter Segal - as displayed in the AA exhibition of his work in February last year. Though I don't much brick was involved, if any.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.

Related Jobs

Discover architecture career opportunities. Search and apply online for your dream job.
Find out more