Memorandum from Construction Products Association (BDH 22)

 

 

The Construction Products Association represents the manufacturers and suppliers of products to the construction industry. Through its major company and trade association members it represents more than 85% of the £40 billion industry in the UK.

 

Summary

 

· The Decent Homes programme has not kept pace with interim targets and is unlikely to meet the revised target that 95% of all social housing will be of a Decent standard by 2010

· Improving the energy efficiency of non-decent homes will help raise them to a Decent standard and also help meet the government's CO2 emissions targets

· The construction products industry is keen to engage with government to identify a process to deliver what is required to meet its Decent Homes targets

· The most important point of all is to set a clear programme for removing the outstanding backlog

· Local Authorities and Housing Associations should tackle a number of properties within a given area at the same time as this will provide significant benefits

· Resources will be spread too thinly if minimum acceptable standards are amended to take into account issues such as the estate

· The same principles as applied to local authority non-decent homes should be applied to private sector non-decent homes

 

Main Text

 

1) The Association welcomed the commitment the government made in 2000 to bring all social housing up to a Decent standard by 2010. We have been monitoring on an annual basis the progress that has been made towards achieving this (along with other government commitments on other aspects of the built environment such as schools, hospitals and transport infrastructure) in our annual report Achievable Targets: is government delivering? which is available on the Association's website

 

2) Unfortunately the programme has not always kept pace with the interim targets that were set:

 

Target	Progress made
By April 2004 reduce number of non decent homes by 24%, a reduction of one third from the 2001 baseline	24% reduction
By 2006 - by 45%-50%	31% reduction
By 2008 - by 65% - 70%	55% reduction

 

Against this background we are very doubtful that even the revised target that 95% of all social housing will be of a decent standard by 2010.

 

3) In considering this it also has to be borne in mind that the 'Decent' (even after taking into account recent revisions of this) Homes standard falls well short of the standard that government sets for new social housing. Bringing all existing social housing even up to this modest standard is not an unreasonable aspiration and should be achieved as quickly as possible. This is particularly pertinent as one of the key elements by which social housing falls short of the Decent Homes standard, is in respect of energy efficiency. Tackling this not only provides improved accommodation for the occupants of these dwellings, it also helps save on their energy bills, and, critical for the government's climate change agenda, it reduces the carbon emissions.

 

4) The construction products industry is constantly innovating to find new products to deliver the significant improvements in energy efficiency required to deliver zero carbon new housing by 2016. It is important to recognise that the products required to deliver existing housing up to a decent standard are readily available, the key to meeting the targets for decent housing rests not with developing new products, but more with identifying a process to deliver what is required as efficiently and as cost effectively as possible. Manufacturers and suppliers are keen to engage in delivering these solutions.

 

5) The Association is not in a position to contribute to all the questions that the Committee is asking for advice on. The main points we would wish to make are:

 

· Where targeted housing fails to reach the Decent Homes criteria in 2010, how should the backlog be addressed?

 

6) Most important of all is to set a clear programme for removing the outstanding backlog, a programme that has clear interim targets and has the financial support that is needed to ensure it is delivered.

 

7) In terms of the mechanism for delivering this programme, Local Authorities and Housing Associations should utilise the money available to ensure a large number of properties are improved at the same time in the same area. This project process has significant benefits over a piecemeal approach:

 

- Tenants in the same area receive the benefits in a similar time frame creating a neighbourhood approach rather than a silo approach, thus reducing tenant complaints

- Labour is more efficiently organised as teams can begin at one end of a street or road and work their way along. The benefit comes from reduced travel time, less carbon emissions from vehicles and easier management of labour with improved labour efficiencies. This method typically increases efficiency by 20%

- Distributors can plan back to back orders from manufacturers and manage delivery programmes. The benefit is derived from improved end to end logistics and a subsequent reduction in carbon emissions from delivery vehicles, better utilisation of labour and less risk of accidents as deliveries are planned and road closures for height equipment is easier to manage and implement

- Manufacturers can plan better production runs. Reducing the demand on fuel makes labour more efficient and assists in reducing overheads and costs

- Tenants see the benefits faster and at the same time. One of the benefits of the mass installation of energy efficiency measures is not just the reduction in carbon from the installations but the lifting of many tenants out of fuel poverty as their energy bills are reduced

- From a government perspective, knowing that a street, estate or town containing a specific number of social properties has been improved allows the Local Authority/Housing Association to easily monitor and report on carbon savings. There have been instances in the exchange of bathrooms where authorities were about to approach the same property after only eight months because of a spasmodic approach and no clear records

 

· Should minimum acceptable social housing standards be amended to take account of environmental standards, fuel poverty and the estate?

 

8) The danger with extending the requirements away from the condition of the individual dwelling to issues like the estate is that it will spread the resources available more thinly and it will take longer to address the key issues that are already defined in the standard. This is a particular concern at a time when public resource is likely to be at a premium.

 

· How should the Decent Homes target for private sector homes occupied by vulnerable people be taken forward?

 

9) Wherever possible the same principles as set out above should apply to improvements to private sector dwellings i.e. try to deal with the physical requirements of the property in a grouped way. Clearly this is more difficult as the vulnerable households referred to are more likely to be scattered throughout the community, but every effort should be made to avoid a piecemeal approach to overcome the shortcomings alluded to above.

 

· Are there local examples of innovative best practice with wider post-2010 applicability?

 

10) St. Augustine's Road, Camden, is an excellent example of best practice in relation to bringing a non-decent home up to a Decent Homes standard. The house is a four storey semi-detached property, which was dilapidated and in need of modernisation. A close working partnership between contractor and manufacturer enabled very high levels of energy efficiency to be achieved in what was a difficult refurbishment. The building is the first of its type to achieve carbon dioxide emission levels to Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable homes. The property is Local Authority housing and is currently occupied by tenants from Camden Council's housing waiting list.

 

September 2009