An almighty row has erupted between housebuilders and the governmentâ€™s design watchdog over the quality of housing design in this country
The governmentâ€™s Â£1.1bn housebuilding rescue package has kickstarted more than just an ailing industry. Over the past couple of weeks, a row has been reignited over the design quality of the UKâ€™s housing, with the spark provided by the Homes and Communities Agencyâ€™s (HCAâ€™s) decision to fund poorly designed homes through the Kickstart programme.
Mostly, the furore has taken place on a very public level. Politicians on both sides of the House of Commons have branded the HCAâ€™s decision to fund â€œgrottyâ€ private homes unacceptable and inexcusable, and the communities departmentâ€™s cross-party select committee has already pledged to look into it.
Behind the public outrage, however, lies a longer stand-off between the nationâ€™s housebuilders and Cabe, the governmentâ€™s design watchdog. Cabe has consistently raised questions about the standard of housing design in the UK, its damning assessment of the Kickstart homes being just the latest in a series of stark verdicts. However, this in itself begs the question: why, 10 years after the Urban Task Force and the formation of Cabe, has the quality of housing design still not improved?
Although the HCA is still questioning the validity of that question by suggesting that Cabeâ€™s Kickstart verdict was too harsh, it is clear that at least some the schemes were very badly designed indeed. The assessors have been asked not to speak publicly about the process, given the political sensitivity of the matter, but one says: â€œThe schemes I saw were appalling â€“ I gave one 1.5 [out of 20 on the governmentâ€™s Building for Life criteria]. It seems absurd to commission research and then ignore it. Itâ€™s such a risk for those communities.â€
Documents obtained by Building under the Freedom of Information Act show that the HCA felt Cabeâ€™s â€œdesktop reviewâ€ of schemes had marked a number of them lower than they should have been, because Cabe simply gave a score of zero if information was not supplied. The HCA subsequently marked a number of them more highly.
Why were they so bad?
But this does not explain why some schemes scored as low as one or two on the criteria. The assessor says: â€œWhether there were any limitations to the Cabe assessment, a 1.5 scheme is never going to be any good.â€
All of the schemes assessed under the first phase of Kickstart were standard housing schemes, albeit not originally intended for public funding, but all had received planning permission. Why were so many of them so bad? For architect Alex Ely, founder of Mae Architects and a former Cabe employee, design quality comes down to the desire of the client to see good design, a desire that is patchy at best. â€œSome of our clients have realised that design is a way for them to capture more market share in the recession, but even where there is this desire development directors at housebuilders have a lot of trouble with their cost evaluators.â€
At a more essential level, Cabe sees a problem with the housebuildersâ€™ business model in terms of design â€“ they primarily compete on location and price with other builders, with big incentives to drive down costs, one of which is the design process. They also have no stake in the long-term success of a place, just the initial sale price. Ben Derbyshire, founder of architect HTA says: â€œTheyâ€™re land traders, and this model doesnâ€™t require product differentiation.â€