Government housing targets missing the point
Thursday, 10 July 2008 12:00 AM
Government targets to reduce the environmental impact of new-build property will do nothing to reduce the overall carbon impact of the UK's built environment.
That was the damning conclusion of a report issued today by the Environmental Change Institute (ECI) at Oxford University, released earlier today.
Instead, argues the report - Transforming the UK's Existing Housing Stock - the government should concentrate on the renovation of existing property in order to meet environmental commitments.
Climate change challenge
The government has committed to a reduction of 60 per cent in carbon emissions from 1990 levels by 2050. At the G8 summit in Japan this week, it appears this commitment may now have been increased further.
However, plans to achieve this aim remain vague at this stage.
One area housing minister Caroline Flint and her Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) have been concentrating on is the built environment.
At present the country's 26 million domestic properties account for 27 per cent of the UK's carbon footprint.
In response it is now planned to make all new homes carbon neutral - i.e. reach the Code of Sustainable Homes level six - by 2016, with commercial property following suit by 2019.
The targets will be incorporated into plans to build three million new homes, one million of them carbon-neutral, by 2020.
It is hoped this will reduce the impact of domestic homes, and contribute to the overall aim of reducing emissions levels, while also increasing supply and increasing affordability for desperate first-time buyers.
But will it work?
Existing housing stock
No. That is the simple answer according to the ECI report - which was commissioned by the Federation of Master Builders (FMB).
The report, and its author Gavin Killip, argue it is the existing stock of property in the UK which is crucial to reduction of the nation's carbon output.
Some 80 per cent of the dwellings which will be inhabited in the UK in 2050 are already standing, with the ECI arguing these properties should be the focus of attempts to reduce carbon emissions.
Through the large scale introduction of carbon reducing technologies into these properties, the report argues emissions from each home could be reduced from 1.8 tonnes per annum to 0.4 tonnes.
Multiplied across the sector as a whole and the savings are evident.
Only in this manner will carbon emissions from domestic property be reduced, argues the ECI - not by forcing new-homes to meet stricter environmental criteria.
"UK housing is among the worst in Europe when it comes to energy efficiency - which means there's plenty of room for improvement," argues Mr Killip.
"Bringing British homes up to standard is possible using existing technology but the skills and industry base to deliver the necessary change is under-developed.
"Making low-carbon housing mainstream will be good for business and good for jobs, as well as reducing energy bills and CO2 emissions."
It is argued, by placing the renovation of existing property to tougher environmental standards - as advocated by the FMB 'Building a Greener Britain Campaign - at the top of the agenda the UK will reduce fuel poverty among the poorest members of society.
"Given that existing homes contribute 27 per cent of the UK's total carbon emissions and that 4.5 million families are living in fuel poverty there is really no time or excuses left to delay action," added Richard Diment, director-general of the FMB.
Location, Location, Location
The government's housing targets have also come under attack for their monolith, 'top down' nature.
Gordon Brown has committed to three million new properties, but this fails to understand the complexity of the situation at a local level argues think tank Centre for Cities (CfC).
"If we want to see the right houses in the right places, 'build, build, build' isn't always the answer," said Dermot Finch, director of CfC.
"It's not enough to talk about the big three million target - politicians from both central and local government need to understand where in Britain's jigsaw of local economies new houses should be built."
This view was supported by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (Rics).
"Rather than simply looking at delivering a number of units, housebuilding needs to be tailored to respond to local demand and housing need," said Rics chief economist Simon Rubinsohn.
"Innovative solutions are needed to give people the homes they want, including greater use of the private rented sector and a wider role for schemes such as rent to buy."
So what next?
It now appears the government will struggle to meet its housing targets, regardless of their environmental impact or location.
With the property market now experiencing a severe correction in prices - which the International Monetary Fund (IMF) argues could see prices fall 30 per cent - developers are seeing their financial incentive to build reduced.
Simultaneously job loss figures are increasing, with 4,500 positions shed by the country's largest house builders, including Barratt Developments, Taylor Wimpey and Persimmon in the last six months alone.
This means fewer new properties coming onto the market, with closer to 150,000 new-build properties being completed each year - well short of the government target of 240,000.
In response the government needs to add an increased degree of flexibility to the plans.
Housing is the only industry with top-down production targets imposed by the central government and this can prove counter productive in some cases.
Changes to the planning system to allow a greater fluidity, the reintroduction of empty property and a reduction in proscribed design specification will all reduced the burden on industry and allow for greater production of new homes.
Without this, the government's aims will prove to be well off target.
Chris O'Toole
