I assume that I am not the only QS in the country to becoming increasingly frustrated at the misinformation regarding the ‘cost per unit’ of social housing which is being published by the national press and repeated unchallenged by the so called ‘technical’ press?

In order to compare any costs with others, you need to use a constant base line. Volume house builders, (currently being held up as the saviours of the government’s need to provide large numbers of ‘low’ cost housing), are good at building large volumes of cheaper houses and shifting them on to the public as end user. Housing associations and other providers of social housing, on the other hand, have to provide houses, which comply with many more regulations and to more restrictive standards (Eco homes being the latest of many), and maintain them as property owners with low maintenance budgets.

Should we not learn from history? In the early 1970s many volume house builders when faced with a slump in the market offered their properties to the social housing providers of the time, (usually local authorities) who couldn’t use them as they were some 2/3 of the space required by Parker Morris Standards (1961 government report on social housing).

Many of the housing associations, being forced to join the new framework agreements in order to survive, have been successfully providing ‘sustainable communities’ (of which the houses are only a part) for years and Housing Corporation monies did not then contribute to shareholder’s profits.

Often small associations provide, as here in Cumbria, much needed local homes on small difficult sites which the volume house builders would shy away from. The new ‘system’ will destroy many important supply chains for small to medium contractors and professionals, without producing the desired results , since they are based upon statistical spin for political reasons.

Come on fellow QSs, stand up and be counted.

Robin Hayward, Hayward Associates (Cumbria)

Source

QS News