{"id":9223,"date":"2011-10-13T16:51:06","date_gmt":"2011-10-13T15:51:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.singleaspect.org.uk\/?p=9223"},"modified":"2025-12-02T08:49:32","modified_gmt":"2025-12-02T08:49:32","slug":"riba-housing-conference-q-a","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/singleaspect.org.uk\/?p=9223","title":{"rendered":"RIBA Housing Conference – Q & A"},"content":{"rendered":"

This is the record of a live blog conducted by Su Butcher of https:\/\/www.justpractising.com\/riba-housing-2011\/<\/a> at the RIBA Housing Conference at Robinson College<\/p>\n

Reconvening for a Question time Panel:<\/p>\n

John Lefever Hastoe HA,
\nPeter Studdert of Peter Studdert Planning,
\nHarry Rich, Chair of panel and CEO of RIBA (https:\/\/twitter.com\/harryprich<\/a>)
\nGlen Richardson of Cambridge City Council
\nAlex Ely of Mae Architects (https:\/\/twitter.com\/alexely<\/a>)
\nThursday October 13, 2011 4:23 Su Butcher<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

John is currently working with a community group in Wells next the Sea who want to deliver a Community Land Trust. They want to grow their 3 houses but for them to grow there is a problem. They have expertise (they are all retired people with time on their hands) but they acknowledge that\u00a0 there isn’t anyone else to help them. They need specialists to take things forward.
\nThursday October 13, 2011 4:26 Su Butcher<\/span><\/p>\n

Peter Studdert – there has been a huge loss of technical capacity in the local authority system over recent years. There have been opportunities for project management skills to be rebuilt over recent years but we didn’t take them. In coming years LAs will have less finance and less capacity in this area.
\nThe public are on their backs about cost overruns so they’ll think very carefully about major projects. An increasing risk aversion.
\nThursday October 13, 2011 4:27 Su Butcher<\/span><\/p>\n

Glen Richardson – in terms of housing development the sticking point is land costs. If the LA has handing in the bank ok, but if you need to acquire it, you’ll need a capital and a revenue budget.
\nThe City Council in Cambridge own land on the southern fringe and we’ll be going to tender competition for Code level 5 with all the incentives to get the best possible development we can. So councils can act as enablers and set the standards high.
\nThursday October 13, 2011 4:29 Su Butcher<\/span><\/p>\n

Harry – so if the government offered you incentives to develop you’d take them?
\nGlen – we’re lucky to have a progressive council – not all councils are like that.
\nThursday October 13, 2011 4:30 Su Butcher<\/span><\/p>\n

Alex Ely – just to add, funding is a key factor, and the private sector can deliver – the Olympics are an example of that, but needed an overarching body ot make it happen. I can’t see that model being rolled out more widely.<\/p>\n

There are changing relationships about who is developing housing – HA’s building private housing for sale, private pension funds developing housing , so there will be more competition.
\nThursday October 13, 2011 4:31 Su Butcher<\/span><\/p>\n

Q: at a recent CPD about localism and planning and local communities, it was reported to the group in the room that Parish Councils are being approached by housing developers to encourage them to support scheme.
\nThe civil servant who gave this information was asked ‘does this mean brown envelopes under the table?’ and answered ‘we don’t mind them being on the top of the table’.
\nThursday October 13, 2011 4:33 Su Butcher<\/span><\/p>\n

Glen – The local authority really has to have a tight grip. We need to build a foundation that knits the neighbourhood planning level into the whole planning system.
\nFor example our Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment SHLAA (which are happening nationwide) create tensions already.
\nThursday October 13, 2011 4:34 Su Butcher<\/span><\/p>\n

Harry Rich: -what do we think will be the role of professionals in supporting people through the process?
\nThursday October 13, 2011 4:35 Su Butcher<\/span><\/p>\n

Peter Studdert: The thing about localism is that it is unknown, which makes it frightening. My worry about what some parishes will do when things are relaxed is that we’ll tend to see more very large four car houses being built and not enough social housing in order to try and raise the ‘tone of the neighbourhood’. If this were to become the norm there will be a danger of returning to the bad old days in Cambridge of too many too large properties.
\nThursday October 13, 2011 4:36 Su Butcher<\/span><\/p>\n

Alex Ely – I think there is a major role for architects to play in managing the consultation process. Every project we have been involved in has gone more smoothly when there is engagement with the local community.
\nMy fear is however that localism won’t in itself deliver the numbers we need for the current crisis.
\nThursday October 13, 2011 4:37 Su Butcher<\/span><\/p>\n

Q: Where are all the new people coming from if the population is ageing?
\nAlex:<\/strong> The number of households is increasing because families are splitting up or staying single longer, and people are living longer.
\n Glen:<\/strong> There is a whole range of changing housing needs, particular in this region.
\nPeter:<\/strong> The UK population will be over 70m in 20 years, so there is a net increase, but the main issue is changing demographic.\u00a0 South Cambridgeshire always comes out in the top 10 longest lived regions – people are so healthy they live longer and their kids need somewhere to live too. Housing turnover is a problem.
\nHarry:<\/strong> John – are you seeing a difference in demand for property sizes?
\nJohn<\/strong> – yes. We start with a housing needs survey which identifies the need in the parish for the rural housing .
\nThere is an increasing demand for 1 and 2-bed flats in rural areas which would have been unheard of in the past.
\nUsually when we publish the needs survey people come out of the woodwork and complain that they weren’t involved. People often say ‘there is definitely not a need in my local area – I go to the pub and everyone is alright’. So I ask him ‘do you know if your neighbour pays his mortgage? You’ll be the last to know about a housing need’.
\nThursday October 13, 2011 4:42<\/span><\/p>\n

Q: Please could someone define the word ‘Sustainable’ as used in ‘Sustainable Construction’. No Waffle!
\nThursday October 13, 2011 4:43 Su Butcher<\/span><\/p>\n

Alex:<\/strong> It’s not just about construction but also the National Planning Policy Framework which is supposedly going to support ‘sustainable development’.
\nSir John Egan did a study proposing 10 points for a sustainable community – housing links, mixed transport etc.
\nWhen as a practice we talk about sustainability we talk about it in terms of urban design as well as construction performance.
\nThursday October 13, 2011 4:44 Su Butcher<\/span><\/p>\n

Peter:<\/strong> Remember ;Long Life, Loose Fit, Low Energy? That’s my definition of sustainability.
\nThursday October 13, 2011 4:45 Su Butcher<\/span><\/p>\n

Glen:<\/strong> I personally get really sick of the discussion (no disrespect). I come from Canada. Ontario uses ‘smart growth’ – doing smart things in the overall planning and design process. The confusion about definition is causing huge problems.
\nThursday October 13, 2011 4:46 Su Butcher<\/span><\/p>\n

John<\/strong> – It means lots of things to lots of people. If my team takes a scheme to planning, the officer may say ‘this is not sustainable because there is no pub or shop in the village’. Even with evidence of the housing needs survey.
\nThursday October 13, 2011 4:47<\/span><\/p>\n

Harry:<\/strong> Clearly when the NPPF moves forward definitions will emerge, but we’re probably looking at environmental, economic and urban sustainability.<\/p>\n

Richard Owers:<\/strong> ‘We do things today that don’t disadvantage our children in the future’ is a good definition.
\nThursday October 13, 2011 4:48 Su Butcher<\/span><\/p>\n

Q: A lady asked Alex earlier if he’d looked into ideas of shared space within multiple households. I was surprised that you hadn’t been asked to look at it. Perhaps it isn’t part of your remit, but it is so important.
\nWith children coming home for example, we should include options for flexibility as an offer for potential house buyers.
\nI have a client who is a family of 3+4 generations who want to live in this way. If you follow the example of some of the Northern or Central European models, with very little space you can make more use of the shared space and make personal spaces that much bigger, instead of putting people into this eternal ‘nuclear family box’ we keep coming back to.
\nThursday October 13, 2011 4:51<\/span><\/p>\n

Harry:<\/strong> Isn’t this a cultural issue?
\nAudience member:<\/strong> We’ve said before that people buy what is available and they don’t have a choice of more flexible living.<\/p>\n

Alex:<\/strong> We’d love to design those types of schemes, but the nature of our clients doesn’t make it an issue. I can see CLT and Self Build projects building this kind of shared facilities as part of a community project. PRP did a project called ‘The Ryde<\/a>‘ which had a shared common space which could be hired out. I feel it takes a special type of client to commission that. Who will own the space?
\nThursday October 13, 2011 4:53 Su Butcher<\/span><\/p>\n

John:<\/strong> At Circle we used to do Sheltered housing with a communal bedroom which could be used by all residents. We stopped because of management issues – who would collect the money and maintain the system? Perhaps we should be asking if there is a need for communal spaces, but at the moment we don’t think there is a need for that.
\nThursday October 13, 2011 4:54 Su Butcher<\/span><\/p>\n

Peter Studdert – mentioned the Co-housing movement. There can be cultural reasons for not using them. The North West Cambridge housing scheme – 50% of the housing will be built for post doctoral university staff, and there is an opportunity for the university to build new models to suit this type of resident. If the university builds the model and it is successful that might demonstrate.
\nThursday October 13, 2011 4:56 Su Butcher<\/span><\/p>\n

Glen<\/strong> – for the volume house-builder flexible housing isn’t really their game.
\nOne example that has been built is the Grow Home – it does exist but won’t work in the volume market.<\/p>\n

Harry:<\/strong> if we could find a way to demonstrate the value of flexible housing, I’d be interested to look at it.<\/p>\n

John:<\/strong> a side effect of building Passivhaus is the 4m2 plant room you need for each house. We are therefore building bigger houses. Tomorrow we’re organising a seminar about fuel poverty with Kate Barker chairing. We’re trying to educate the government that there’s a different way.
\nThursday October 13, 2011 5:00 Su Butcher<\/span><\/p>\n

Q:<\/strong> one of things that came out of the CAA charette described earlier is flexibility and adaptability.
\nThere is pressure for density standards pushing from LA’s and volume house-builders trying to build volume…
\nThursday October 13, 2011 5:01 Su Butcher<\/span><\/p>\n

Glen:<\/strong> That’s the topic for another seminar! But it does challenge and create a tension. WE try and look at otehr measures such as person or rooms per hectare. Density is a bit like ‘sustainable development’ – it can be misleading.<\/p>\n

Harry:<\/strong> can you see a tension with flexible housing though?<\/p>\n

Glen:<\/strong> oh yes, there is a tension but we’re stuck with it and we’ll have to deliver it. Go beyond the density discussion to higher design. There’s nothing wrong with high density, but you need good architects to resolve it.
\nThursday October 13, 2011 5:02 Su Butcher<\/span><\/p>\n

Alex:<\/strong> the type of flexibility that gets designed out is adding extra rooms and building up. But the Georgian terrace house gets turned into flats, or a mixture, and back into a house. If you design robustly (Loose fit, long life etc) then flexiblity can be incorporated. It comes back to ownership though, only the owner can make the changes.
\nThursday October 13, 2011 5:03 Su Butcher<\/span><\/p>\n

Peter:<\/strong> I don’t think density is a solution. The struggles that Glen is having of 40-50 hph net, when you think about accommodating car parking, bins, etc there is huge tension. I think there has been a sort of conspiracy to raise densities between planners and house-builders. I’d support a slight lowering of densities to get better qualities. Glen uses the excuse of density to push developers to build top notch high density housing, you can’t slap in copybook housebuilder models.
\nThursday October 13, 2011 5:05 Su Butcher<\/span><\/p>\n

John:<\/strong> I’m a bottom line man – I make sure schemes work financially. The new building regs and Lifetime homes means we’ll have to deliver 3m2 more per unit. If your’e paying 1200 – \u00a31600 per sqm then it hits the bottom line.
\nWhy don’t we move people into other houses when they can’t live in the house instead of making all houses capable of being lifetime homes?
\nPassivhaus building takes up land in the depth of walls. In Europe underground car parking is the norm. We built 25 flats in Saffron Walden with underground car parking. The LA wanted 70% rented but we could only do 50% rented to get it to stack up financially.
\nFor me from the bottom line I want my residents to live in the biggest castles possible, but in reality we can’t afford that.
\nThursday October 13, 2011 5:08 Su Butcher<\/span><\/p>\n

Harry:<\/strong> mentioning developer in North West building ‘warehouse shell’ which can be reconfigured over the lifetime by the owner.
\nHis problem is how to valuers value it? Is it a one bedroom flat or 3 bed house? You have to go back to the financial model.
\nThursday October 13, 2011 5:09 Su Butcher<\/span><\/p>\n

Q: When the Urban Task Force was set up, it did a great deal of work in adapting this country towards an urban culture. The feeling is we’re moving away to different ways of thinking about it.
\nWould the panel agree that it would be good to have an equivalent push to exploring a different kind of urban (or suburban) culture? The DCLG are considerably weaker in producing policy in this case? Do we need a new version of the urban task force?
\nThursday October 13, 2011 5:11 Su Butcher<\/span><\/p>\n

Alex:<\/strong> If the compact city was the model for PPS1 – there doesn’ t seem to be an equivalent.<\/p>\n

Peter:<\/strong> the main result of the UTF was lots of small high density apartments. It showed how inefficient our market is. There is still a need for city centre urban living, but the focus now ought to be on more flexible, urban family housing, more green, lower density. There is potential to get the balance right.
\nThursday October 13, 2011 5:12 Su Butcher<\/span><\/p>\n

Glen:<\/strong> The origin of the UTF was Rogers and Prescott promoting renewal through that model. I don’t think that’s needed. We have a plethora of good planning principles. Good smart planning is all we need.
\nThursday October 13, 2011 5:13 Su Butcher<\/span><\/p>\n

John:<\/strong> I don’t think there is a need to change that. HA’s are long term owners of property. As long as we get it right.
\nAnything I’ve learned in the last 30-40 years, today is completely different. The world is a changing place.
\nThursday October 13, 2011 5:14 Su Butcher<\/span><\/p>\n

Harry Rich is now winding up the conference. Thanks for your input and please do add comments in the post below and we’ll try to respond to them.
\nThursday October 13, 2011 5:15 Su Butcher<\/span><\/p>\n

Live blogging by Cover it live<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This is the record of a live blog conducted by Su Butcher of https:\/\/www.justpractising.com\/riba-housing-2011\/ at the RIBA Housing Conference at Robinson College Reconvening for a Question time Panel: John Lefever Hastoe HA, Peter Studdert of Peter Studdert Planning, Harry Rich, Chair of panel and CEO of RIBA (https:\/\/twitter.com\/harryprich) Glen Richardson of Cambridge City Council Alex […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[11,15,17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9223","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-housing-design","category-politics","category-riba"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/singleaspect.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9223","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/singleaspect.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/singleaspect.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/singleaspect.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/singleaspect.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=9223"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/singleaspect.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9223\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":30387,"href":"https:\/\/singleaspect.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9223\/revisions\/30387"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/singleaspect.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=9223"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/singleaspect.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=9223"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/singleaspect.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=9223"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}