I once told a local government official I was interested in getting involved in planning. He pretty much laughed in my face and said something like; ‘Frankly it takes about 20 years to get anything significant done’. The publication of the National Planning Policy Framework in 2012 and now the review of Planning Policy Guidance notes (due end of March 2013) has been an attempt to cut some of the bureaucracy. At this years’ Ecobuild, however it was clear that the reviews haven’t yet gone far enough for some developers.
The government’s ‘Red Tape Challenge on housing and construction’ in 2012 reviewed over 200 regulations and Lord Harman’s report ‘A Review of Local Standards for the Delivery of New Homes’ led to the ‘Technical Housing Standards Review’ which aims ‘to rationalise the large number of codes, standards, rules, regulations and guidance that add unnecessary cost and complexity to the house-building process’. It involves various working groups on issues like water, accessibility, energy, space. The groups will present their findings in a report to ministers by April 2013 and there will be a public consultation in May.
Andy von Bradsky, who sits on the ‘Red Tape Challenge Panel’, talked at Ecobuild about the need for certainty in both planning and building requirements and simplify the two regulatory regimes. In particular, he’s calling for clarity in between ‘regulations’, ‘standards’ and ‘guidance’. Local development requirements, he argued, show wide variation between localities. He feels that local authorities should only impose local standards when subject to the ‘economic viability and deliverability’ of a local plan, as outlined by Lord Harman’s viability review.
Breaking the burden
BREEAM came under fire at one particular event – the Building Research Establishment’s (BRE) Environmental Management Standard. Isabel McAllister, head Sustainability at Mace pulled no punches commenting that “with over 500 pages of guidance BREEAM has become ‘mental!”. She said it is overly burdensome, such as 17 versions of their spreadsheet calculator tool which was confusing to say the least. BREEAM also sits along-side a whole bunch of other building and design standards, both in the UK and internationally, such as the LEED standard (from USA), Green Star (Australia), not to mention other guidance and frameworks like BSI’s Building for the Future. The Belaggio Report from University of Westminster estimates that are now at least 21 rival tools. Leaving developers and architects to decide which is the most appropriate to use. As Elizabeth Ness of AIMC4 aptly put it; “We’ve got a forest of regulations out there!”. Louise Ellison, from Responsible Property Investment at PRUPIM, felt that BREEAM has helped to raise standards but that now it has grown into a hindrance and auditors are focused on compliance rather than encouraging innovation.
Martin Townsend of BRE Global, responded by highlighting how far building practice has come in the UK. He argued that BREEAM has helped “inspire designers to work in an integrated way, based on good research and knowledge...BREEAM has achieved a massive change in terms of sustainability in built environment”. James Parker from BSRIA - a BREEAM Assessor - conducted a survey of BREEAM where the survey indicated the additional costs incurred by applying such standards are recouped during the operation of the building. Parker also pointed out that higher development costs don’t necessarily result in higher BREEAM ratings. The key recommendations from the survey were to simplify the process, reduce bureaucracy, and develop more practical guidance.
Flexible but ‘smart’ urbanism
Listening to these actors is vital in understanding the practical realities of delivering new housing and infrastructure, however there is now a significant risk that the rush to cut standards will go too far. CPRE’s national office has reported on how the NPPF is already posing a major threat to the country’s green spaces and undermining the regeneration of our urban areas.
At a time of even deeper cut backs and short-term pressures, taking account of longer term economic, social and environmental outcomes becomes harder, both publically and privately. As one architect pointed out these standards are not just for the sake of ‘green wash’, they have real objectives and value, seeking to establish communities with a sense of place, resilience and wellbeing. The services that ecosystems provide for local communities – touched on in the first Ecobuild blog – need to be reflected in plans and development, even where they don’t offer immediate ‘economic’ outcomes. As the Harman report says; “Planning authorities will need to strike a balance between the policy requirements necessary to provide for sustainable development and the realities of economic viability.”
It is clear the construction and housing industry need to accept a certain degree of quality assurance, however, it is also apparent that these frameworks need to be consolidated to help the sector adapt and engage with them, allowing for new ideas and practice. As Bradsky put it – perhaps performance standards should be set but it should be up to industry to decide how they comply.
