Government adviser calls for simpler standards framework for housing

A simpler standards framework for housing should be introduced in return for a set of minimum national design standards for all new homes, the government’s adviser on architecture, urban design and public space has said.

In its report Simpler and better: housing design in everyone’s interest, CABE argued that the current mix of standards required by building regulations, planning policy and funders “desperately needs rationalisation”.

The advisory body wants to replace the existing system with a single set of clear requirements by which developments are designed, judged and developed through the planning system, and specifically identifying those that should be delivered through building regulations.

CABE suggested that the minimum design standards for housing should clarify what is required to meet environmental commitments and the basic needs of communities and residents.

“This would establish the basis upon which local authorities can decide what works for their area, but below which developers would not be able to go,” it added.

CABE chief executive Richard Simmons said: “We all recognise that the current mix of standards is complicated, overlapping and inefficient. The industry needs a consistent set of standards – and the consumer and the community a guarantee of homes that are good enough.”

The report was based on expert workshops run by CABE. Its authors admitted that participants were often pessimistic about the potential to get the housebuilding industry to raise its game on design quality, or to persuade government, its agencies and local government to give design quality equal billing with volume and speed of construction.

The workshops concluded that:

• Given that the complete deregulation of the supply of land is very unlikely to happen, the planning system and public funding regimes have to mandate design quality and make sure it is delivered
• The most equitable and efficient way to do this is to use minimum design standards which are simple, clear, universal in coverage, locally distinctive where appropriate and enforced consistently and rigorously
• Thinking about planning as a community golden share rather than an adversarial process could create a more collaborative and creative environment for good design – but it will not deliver consistently good quality without being supported by good, clear standards
• The possibility of reformulating planning gain as a community equity share could be considered as a way of creating a genuine partnership between developers and local communities. This should be done through local government because it is durable and accountable, and
• Making regulation more efficient and improving design skills in the planning system is pivotal.