The cost of future-proofing homes

What a time to be a homebuilder. With every week, a new initiative on housing is unveiled, each more ambitious than the previous. The latest is to ensure that all new homes are ‘future proofed’ to cope with an ageing population. Who could argue with that? It’s undeniable that people are living longer, and as homebuilders it’s our job to cater for a changing market, is it not?

While this may seem true, for those of us entrusted with delivering the new homes there are a number of countervailing considerations which need to be weighed in the balance. HBF has a number of concerns about the Government’s proposals, not least the implications for affordability and delivery.

HBF has a number of concerns about the Government’s proposals, not least the implications for affordability and delivery.

More fundamentally, there is no such thing as a typical homebuyer. The average first-time buyer is different from the middle-aged family, who is in turn different from the retired couple in their 70s. Each are looking for particular features, and we the homebuilders need to cater for them all.

In proposing that the Lifetime Homes standard should apply to all new homes, the Government appears to be prescribing a ‘one-size-fits-all’ standard to a complex issue. The needs of the elderly are an important factor in our business model, but they are by no means the only one. The wishes of the elderly themselves vary greatly too.

In an age when the housing market is looking further out of reach for most potential first-time buyers, this would not mark a positive step forward.

So what are the implications of such a standard being applied? One of the most significant is the impact on affordability. To ensure that all of our new homes were compliant with the Lifetime Homes standard, would inevitably mean extra expense being passed on to the consumer. In an age when the housing market is looking further out of reach for most potential first-time buyers, this would not mark a positive step forward.

This week’s announcement should also be seen in the context of the drive to build 240,000 zero-carbon homes per year by 2016, a monumental task in itself. With other regulatory changes in prospect such as improvements in water efficiency, complying additionally with Lifetime Homes does not sit comfortably with our efforts to keep up with the Government’s 3 million homes target for 2020. It also risks introducing a number of different strands of regulatory change that have not been considered in the round and may in some instances be contradictory.

Mandatory requirements for Lifetime Homes standards are not a panacea for the very varied requirments of the elderly let alone those of younger people.

As a method of progressing to homes which will better serve the elderly, we are therefore sceptical of the value of a blanket application of these standards. Nor has it helped that the Government did not enter into proper discussions with the industry about its aspirations before making this week’s announcement. Consultation with the industry which would be charged with delivering these standards is a fundamental prerequisite, and its absence should be treated with concern.

Our approach is a simple one. Homebuilders are in the business of providing homes for their customers. Mandatory requirements for Lifetime Homes standards are not a panacea for the very varied requirments of the elderly let alone those of younger people.

It is critical that the Government addresses the shortcomings in its thinking if its wider agenda for building regulation reform is to prosper.