THE BARKER REVIEW'S CONCLUSIONS
161. The Barker Review concluded that house builders
did not generally hold an excessive supply of land that could
adversely affect development rates, although there was some indication
that they controlled production rates in order to maintain house
price increases. Consequently, the Review recommended that it
would be desirable for planning permission to have lower set time-limits
for development to take place and to include agreements on build-out
rates. The Review also noted that house builders do not have to
deliver a good product or high levels of customer service to win
market share and that the industry must improve the quality of
its customer service. Also acknowledged by the Barker Review
was the fact that the impact of increasing the supply of land
would have a very limited effect on housing supply if there was
little innovation or a shortage of skilled labour. Improving local
acceptability of development was also highlighted as a problem,
one which the Review suggested could be improved by better quality
of design, ensuring that developments enhance the existing built
environment, are sustainable and bring new services to the local
community.
162. It is therefore hardly surprising that the overall
conclusion of the Review was that the industry is going to have
to improve the way it operates in order to increase the supply
of housing. What was surprising was the Review's approach to improving
the house building industry's performance. As pointed out by Friends
of the Earth, "the final set of recommendations [within
the Barker Review] are essentially a voluntaristic approach
to persuading the industry to do what would be desirable, unlike
the planning system, where major reforms, radical reforms are
suggested".[153]
Indeed, the extent of the measures proposed for improving house
builders' performance appear very modest compared to the drastic
changes proposed to the planning system. This is of particular
concern as it is very clear that there has been ample market opportunity
for over a decade for developers to increase the supply of affordable
housing, something they have failed to take up. It is unclear
to us how increasing the supply of land available to private developers,
as proposed by the Barker Review, would in any way compel them
to bring forward proposals for smaller dwellings, at higher densities,
to reverse the trend in reduced affordable and social housing
supply.
163. The Review recommends that the HBF, develop
a list of strategies or codes to address a ream of issues: customer
satisfaction; fair contracts, removing barriers to Modern Methods
of Construction; uptake of apprenticeships; the external design
of new homes; and a best practice guide for compensating householders
for development in their area. The Review also recommends that
the Government should consider policy options to improve the performance
of the building industry if completion rates do not improve by
2007, and suggests that the Office of Fair Trading should carry
out a wide-ranging review as to whether the market for new housing
works well for consumers if customer satisfaction levels do not
increase substantially.
164. Whilst the Review recognises the resistance
to change that characterises the house building industry, none
of its proposals would compel them in any way to improve the environmental
performance of their product or to increase the supply of affordable
housing. The Government should make it clear that it will oblige
the housing industry to address the way it functions if there
is no clear and significant improvement in housing quality and
affordable housing supply by 2007, at the latest. The housing
industry as a whole will do very little unless forced to, which
the Barker Review has failed to recognise. Unless the industry
improves its standards it should expect to be required to operate
in an enhanced regulatory environment.
143