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'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

More houses, fewer homes

  • 1 Comment

Burgeoning demand and planning permission exemptions are contributing to a worrying trend of low-quality housing

Last week’s Stirling Prize shortlist had something of an end-of-an-era feel to it. We’re unlikely to see the likes of AHMM’s £40.9m Burntwood School in Wandsworth again, now the government has turned its back on uplifting school design.

Equally worryingly, Niall McLaughlin’s Darbishire Place, a mixed-tenure block of flats in Whitechapel for Peabody, could also be one of the last of its kind. Even housing associations with the heft of Peabody are finding development programmes increasingly under pressure as the government works out its grudge against social housing.

In a 2013 report for The Smith Institute, Social Hearted, Commercially Minded, I flagged up how associations were increasingly moving into the territory of housebuilders, developing housing for sale to cross-subsidise housing for social rent. But few could have predicted just how quickly the landscape would change.

We’ve seen the disappearance of housing grants, severely reduced rents and now stock sell-offs at generous discounts to tenants. It’s got to the stage that housing associations like Genesis say they will no longer develop any homes for sub-market rent.

Starter homes for sale are a short-term political stunt

And last week’s Housing Bill served as another attack on their modus operandi, putting the kibosh on one way they have traditionally delivered new homes for those on low incomes – section 106 obligations for low cost housing for rent and shared ownership were cancelled.

Starter homes for sale is where the government now says the action is - to be provided by housebuilders at 20 per cent market rates and offered for sale at no more than £450,000 in London and £250,000 in the rest of the country – 17 and 10 times more than a nurse’s salary respectively. It’s a short-term political stunt, not a much-needed affordable solution, for those on low incomes.

And to accelerate the process, the bill is ushering in a planning free for all, with housing development on brownfield sites being waived through without a mere whiff of objection from the planning department. It’s a major threat to housing quality generally.

Back in 2000, the housing minister of the day, Nick Raynsford, called for an end to the ‘tawdry little boxes’. The response has been patchy. Countryside’s Accordia scheme won the Stirling in 2008 but you still don’t have to look too hard to find housing design that makes you wince – castellations and Olympic torches sit outside the front doors of two recent blocks of flats in my neighbourhood.

Housing is a dysfunctioning market with demand far outstripping supply, forcing purchasers to be less discerning.It’s this weight of demand that persuaded government to waive planning permission, allowing developers to turn offices into flats that are tiny and poorly executed.

It’s just plain wrong that this policy has now been extended. And it is a worrying portent of what’s down the line – wendy houses as starter homes, perhaps?

To compound the bodged nature of government housing policy, housebuilders are no happier with the latest changes than housing associations. A major concern is that starter home initiatives on one side of the road will be competing with help-to-buy schemes on the other. They’ve no real interest in building them.

The only hope now for quality housing is that local authorities wake up and adopt the national housing standards created in 2014. It would also help if the Terry Farrell-led design panel set up before the election to advise on starter home design shows a bit of mettle. Its make-up and choice of exemplar schemes may be controversial but it seems to be the last line of defence.

To date, though, it has been ominously silent. Although, as brownfield housing is now almost entirely exempt from planning permission, how they might exercise constraint is anyone’s guess.

  • 1 Comment

Readers' comments (1)

  • Ben Derbyshire

    The Government does seem to be going for numbers whilst being worryingly silent on quality. There are a number of propositions around that address the problem that there is not enough in the planning system (despite references to quality in the NPPF) that establishes sensible quality thresholds.

    We have been promoting The Home Performance Label in a joint venture between The Housing Forum, BLP Insurance and HTA Design LLP*.

    The Home Performance Label partners have proposed the formation of a Consortium to bring forward a voluntary (but independent), industry based labelling system for the housing market which is meaningful, consumer-facing, and which can both serve the business interests of the industry and meet the objective of transparent, independently accredited information for consumers, regulators and funders.

    The three HPL partners are in discussion with a wide ranging group of housing developers and providers about joining the consortium. These include Wates Living Space, Barratt Developments, L&Q, Pocket Living, Essential Living, Grainger, Notting Hill Housing Group, Grosvenor, Climate Energy Homes, Home Group, Hurford Salvi Carr, Laing O'Rourke, Lend Lease, First Base, Argent and others.

    The HPL partners set out to meet the business needs of consortium members at the same time as serving the public interest in a labelling system that reveals the quality and value of the product in a way lay people can readily understand.

    Our suggestion, arising from the Housing Forum report 'The Case for Home Performance Labelling' is that the Consortium works to trial a labelling scheme based on its members' products, initially on a confidential basis. The scheme would label the performance of members' homes in a range of parameters which might include:
    Predicted costs in use:
    • Energy costs
    • Utility costs
    • Maintenance costs
    • Council tax
    • Service charges
    • Insurance costs
    Compliance with locally applicable standards:
    • Space
    • Broadband speed
    • Daylight
    Price per square foot.
    Interested readers can explore what this might look like by visiting our website: www.homeperformancelabelling.co.uk

    Ben Derbyshire
    Managing Partner, HTA Design
    Chair, The Housing Forum.

    *The Housing Forum (http://www.housingforum.org.uk/) is a cross sector membership network of 128 housing developers, providers and suppliers,
    BLP Insurance (Building LifePlans Ltd) (http://www.blpinsurance.com/) is part of the Thomas Miller Group, providing building defects insurance since 1999 and
    HTA Design LLP (http://www.hta.co.uk/) is a leading multidisciplinary design consultancy in the housing and
    regeneration sector.

    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.