_Build to last: why we need to build better homes, not just more homes

The Commission posed two questions of Knight Frank, which form the basis of the two reports:

1. Is there added value where schemes are developed with quality as an explicit aim compared with mainstream housebuilder-led schemes? 

Our answer is yes, but there is more to it than that. In the first report, ‘Cost and Value’, we look at nine developments from around the country. Our findings reveal that yes, there is certainly added value in housing that justifies the additional cost of quality, but we should not ignore the significant value beyond housing itself, particularly the value of nurturing local jobs within thriving communities. The relationship with cost also goes well beyond construction costs. This report looks at the costs associated with planning and infrastructure funding too. 

2. Recognising a correlation between the involvement of a landowner adopting a stewardship role and a higher quality residential product, what critical factors might influence a landowner’s decision to participate in development?

Through our case study narrative in the second report, ‘Building in Beauty, we highlight the difficulties that landowners face in delivering high quality housing. From the complications of land equalisation, the inability to fund a planning application and the length of the planning process, to the burden that the financing of infrastructure places on large-scale development, the landowners are actively dis-incentivised from participating in the development process despite their desire to steward a high quality urban extension on their land. We also make a number of recommendations to mitigate these challenges.

Charlie Dugdale, who led the research, commented: “Together, these reports make a series of policy recommendations that seek to level the playing field and encourage all involved in housing delivery to adopt behaviours that have a better social outcome. The outcomes don’t need to lead to lower corporate profits, or more expensive housing. If the delivery model aligns with the profit motive over the longer-term then all interests, including those of the community, can be aligned for mutual benefit.”

Gail Mayhew from the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission commented: "These reports show that it's not the planning system that's the obstacle to delivering on high quality development, but housing targets and the land allocation system - which create the wrong pressures and incentives. In prioritising numbers over place, planners are required to ask the wrong question. The fundamental ambition of planning should be to satisfy all local needs and respect context and character - this qualitative approach should be the starting point. This in fact will drive numbers, and build trust between local authorities and developers - so everyone wins”

"Through the reports and evidence taking, we have seen the need for a patient approach, in particular when it comes to funding. To build great neighbourhoods is not a short term activity - it is a long term investment.”

The Commission has proposed a number of measures and recommendations to help ensure that new housing developments meet the needs and expectations of the communities they’re built in, turning the tide on attitudes towards house building up and down the country.

Read Knight Frank’s Reports for the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission here: