Memorandum submitted by the Chartered
Institute of Housing
INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Chartered Institute of Housing (CIH)
is the only professional body for individuals working in housing.
Its primary aim is to maximise the contribution that housing professionals
make to the well being of communities. Membership status is dependent
on completion of a professional qualification and a track record
of professional achievement. CIH has over 19,000 individual members
working for local authorities, housing associations, Government
bodies, educational establishments and the private sector.
1.2 CIH welcomes this inquiry and the opportunity
it provides for a deeper investigation into the progress made
on the delivery of sustainable housing.
ON THE
CODE FOR
SUSTAINABLE BUILDINGS
2. CAN
A VOLUNTARY
CODE FOR
SUSTAINABLE BUILDINGS
DELIVER THE
CHANGE NEEDED
IN THE
BUILDING INDUSTRY
TO ACHIEVE
WELL DESIGNED,
ENERGY EFFICIENT
SUSTAINABLE BUILDINGS
WHICH HAVE
MINIMAL IMPACT
ON THE
LOCAL ENVIRONMENT?
2.1 Some developers are involved in progressive
and innovative work, as highlighted in the Five Year Plan, but
there is real concern that this is a minority and that the impact
for the majority of private developers will be small. The opinion
of CIH respondents is that a voluntary code cannot deliver the
change needed in the building industry. Housing built by the social
sector, regulated by the Housing Corporation, will respond more
effectively due to the requirements set, but social housing development
is only a small percentage of new house building. The lack of
incentive for private developers to step up the standards to which
they build will only increase the gap between the sectors as they
respond to different levers. It is uncertain that the inclusion
of private developers in the bidding for National Affordable Housing
Programme grant will encourage them to apply the same standards
to the housing they develop without that subsidy.
2.2 Results from surveys by CABE indicate
that people would pay up to 5% more for energy efficiency and
other environmental measures, but current levels of housing shortage
mean that this is not an indicator that private developers currently
have to consider to boost sales. Building regulations are the
only really effective way of driving up standards in energy efficiency
and other environmental requirements.
3. Is the Government doing enough to promote
the code with the industry and general public?
3.1 Not enough is known about the code,
as reflected in the responses CIH received, and not enough is
being done to promote it, apart from the doubts about its efficacy
expressed above.
3.2 The code is still being developed and
tested for a national roll out in 2006, which may explain the
lack of promotion. However, if the code is intended to encourage
purchasers to demand higher environmental standards, the lack
of awareness and the time it will take to raise that awareness
will mean a loss of impact in the short term. This, coupled with
the voluntary basis of the code, will weaken the potential impact
at a time when pressure is on to achieve a "step change"
in delivery.
3.3 There is still a lack of awareness among
the general public on wider environmental and sustainability issues,
but greater knowledge there could lead to increased pressure of
demand which might influence private developers in the future,
so there needs to be more proactive measures by government to
raise awareness of environmental sustainability.
4. Should the Government introduce fiscal
measures to reward higher building quality and greater environmental
performance?
4.1 There should be a balance of penalties and
incentives; penalties based around minimum standards to be achieved,
and incentives such as tax breaks to exceed those minimum standards.
4.2 In the social housing sector, there
is an argument for considering a sliding scale of grant based
on Eco-Homes measures, particularly to cover those areas of expenditure
which will not be covered by rental income, such as water saving.
There is concern amongst the social sector that there are increasing
pressures to deliver on requirements such as environmental measures
with decreasing subsidy and fixed rental incomes, and so increased
incentives in this sector also need to be considered.
ON THE
FIVE YEAR
PLAN
5. Does the ODPM Five Year Plan (Sustainable
Communities: Homes for All) demonstrate a greater recognition
of and commitment to tackling impact of increased house building
on the environment?
5.1 The plan gives recognition to the problems,
and makes commitments to addressing it through a variety of measures,
including increased brownfield development, higher densities and
promoting excellent design. There has also been success in some
areas, such as the brownfield development. However, in the long
term, some policy commitments could potentially be compromised
by conflicting pressures. The voluntary basis of the code could
undermine the stated commitment to excellent design standards
and sustainable buildings, in comparison with the effect that
could be produced through building regulation for example.
6. To what extent does the Five Year Plan
address the environmental impact of the geographical distribution
of demolition versus new build?
6.1 The plan is welcome in responding to
real pressures for housing linked to the economic growth of the
wider south east. However, in the long term, a more robust proactive
vision for greater economic throughout all of the English regions
is needed, which will in turn prevent further increase on some
of the environmental challenges facing the south east—notably
those connected with water supply and flood risks.
ON THE
INFRASTRUCTURE.
7. Is the Government doing enough to secure
sufficient funds for the timely provision of infrastructure in
the four Growth Areas? (transport, schools, hospitals etc)
7.1 In spite of the announcement of the infrastructure
fund, there are considerable concerns in the regions containing
the growth areas that the funding will be adequate. It has led
to the protests by regional assemblies over the number of houses
expected.
7.2 Experiences to date show that as the
pressure for more homes leads to developments increasing, there
is delay in provision for the wider services required alongside
that.
8. ARE
WATER COMPANIES
DOING ENOUGH
TO SECURE
THE SUPPLY
OF WATER
RESOURCES IN
THE FOUR
GROWTH AREAS?
IS CONCERN
ABOUT SECURITY
OF WATER
SUPPLY, IN
THE SE IN
PARTICULAR, A
VALID ONE
OR SIMPLY
A REACTION
TO SOME
HOT DRY
SUMMERS?
8.1 There are pressing issues for water
companies on maintaining and improving the infrastructure for
existing homes. Investment in advance of development requires
careful liaison with national, regional and local agencies tasked
with delivering the plan, to ensure that patterns of growth and
development can be accurately planned for, and investment correctly
directed.
9. IS
SUFFICIENT EFFORT
BEING MADE
BY THE
GOVERNMENT, THE
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY
AND THE
WATER COMPANIES
TO EDUCATE
PEOPLE ABOUT
WATER EFFICIENCY?
9.1 Water consumption has increased as a
result of lifestyle changes, and more action is needed around
raising awareness of the implications of this to the general public.
Whilst better standards in water efficiency in new housing stock
is important, greater measures are needed to increase water efficiency
in existing housing stock. In some regions the message is clearer
than others, largely because of the impact of water shortages
that already exist, although more needs to be done to make people
aware of the reality of the problems, rather than seeing it as
a periodic or over reactive response.
November 2005
| 
