Labour’s first budget brought a dose of realism to their ambitious housing and net-zero goals. Despite a strong commitment to build more homes, tackle the planning gridlock, and reach net-zero, the big question remains: do they have the funds to match their promises? Andy Macintosh of FCBStudios discusses what that dilemma means for the industry and why there is still lots to be optimistic about.
 
So first the headline numbers, just in case you haven’t already heard: Labour’s first budget included a headline figure of “£5 billion of investment in housing supply”. Although most of that was existing schemes, the Affordable Homes Programme got an extra £500 million, boosting it to £3.1billion, and there was £128 million of new money for specific housing projects and initiatives across the country. In addition, there was £3 billion of support for SMAs and the Build to Rent sector, by expanding the housing guarantee schemes.
 
All of this is great news, and underlines the government’s focus and ambition on housing. But its also clear that the cash figures don’t match the election ambition. The illustrative graph below shows how future housing completions might have to change to deliver 1.5 million homes. [1]

Based on government figures, the extra 150,000 homes per year above what we manage currently would cost about £110 billion over 5 years, which is a whole different order of magnitude than the budget available.
 
And what about tackling our existing housing stock? The environment and net-zero carbon goals got less attention generally in the budget – there’s money for carbon capture and storage projects, nuclear, and electric vehicles, but little related to buildings or renewable energy. It’s generally agreed that the UK’s route to net zero carbon relies on significant retrofit of our existing housing. Estimates for the cost of that run into the hundreds of billions too. Money that clearly doesn’t exist in current budgets either.
 
So there is no silver bullet, but the funding and policies announced still all point in a very positive direction. That ambition and focus still makes a big difference to industry sentiment. At FCBStudios, we’ve seen a marked increase in new work. More in the private sector so far, with increased optimism about planning and support for development, but also in the public sector too. There are glimpses of calmer waters and it feels as though there is a renewed confidence in the perceived stability of the next few years.
 
The announcement about money pledged to recruit 300 new planning apprentices doesn’t make much of a dent in national staff shortages, nor will it counterbalance the possibility that nearly 30% of officers could leave or retire within the next two years. [2] But it will have a positive impact on publicising the profession and attracting other recruitment. Many readers will be familiar with Public Practice which has helped recruit many excellent Architects into the planning system, and long may this continue.
 
So, as Architects and designers, we need to roll up our sleeves and keep going. We need to design and build more efficiently so that we can achieve more high quality and low energy homes within the budget limits that we have. We need to look to increase density on suitable sites with sustainable infrastructure, whilst still creating inspiring places, because increasing density will have a faster impact and is more within our control than the number of projects.
 
The new masterplan for Brabazon, which FCBStudios worked on with for YTL Developments on the northern fringe of Bristol, managed to more than double the density of the new neighbourhood compared to the previous masterplan. That ambition to move from suburban density to create new urban destinations is crucial where there is the infrastructure to support sustainable living but still the space to develop. Our research showed that this is expected to achieve a 45% reduction in travel carbon, compared to spreading the same number of homes over two sites. That kind of design approach is a necessary response to the ambitions for more homes, within both the constraints of both the government’s budget and the environment.



[1] note that the 1.5 million homes figure which was first talked about ahead of the election didn’t get included as a specific election pledge, but is not being referenced again in the budget which references “turbocharging the delivery of 1.5 million homes”
[2] Warning from a recent report by Public Practice

Image credit: YTL Developments