好色先生TV

Towards the end of last month, communities minister Hazel Blears shocked housebuilders by signalling that, from 2013, the Lifetime Homes standard is likely to become mandatory in England.

The government will definitely force all social housing to meet the standard, which is designed to ensure that homes are suitable for older and disabled people, from 2011. And, if the private sector 鈥渉as not matched market need or expectations鈥� by 2013, the government will 鈥渂ring forward regulation鈥� to impose criteria such as ground-floor toilets and wheelchair turning spaces. Moreover, although officials say they will work with the industry to implement Lifetime Homes, it will not consult on the exact criteria, admitting that they are pretty much set in stone. Although most admit that housing older people does present a problem, housebuilders have major concerns about the cost implications and the lack of consultation over the policy shift.

So why has the government done it? Over to Habinteg Housing Association, which has taken on the task of championing the standard from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the organisation that originally came up with the 16 criteria back in 1991.

Mike Donnelly, chief executive of Habinteg, explains why the standard is necessary: 鈥淲e鈥檙e still building poky, inaccessible boxes and not thinking about the population they have to serve. This is not just about older people; it鈥檚 about parents with young kids or a younger disabled person. The real challenge is for the building industry to provide housing fit for purpose. The better ones will see this as a market opportunity.鈥�

But, so far, the industry that will actually build these homes has been united in its dismay. The standard is seen as yet another burden placed on housebuilders, alongside the requirement for more affordable housing and the 2016 zero-carbon target. And this time, they say, they are not even being asked for their opinions.

Together, housebuilders say, these extra costs are driving down land prices and eroding profit margins, making it less likely they will get anywhere near the government鈥檚 target of 3 million homes by 2020.

John Slaughter, director of external affairs at the Home Builders Federation, says: 鈥淭his is another layer of cost for the industry. And it鈥檚 not obvious that consumers want it. A turning circle for a wheelchair may be desirable for some, but it may lead to redundant space at extra cost. Do people want that?鈥�

Even the government admits the estimated costs for implementing the standards varies massively 鈥� from 拢545 to 拢1,615 a dwelling, depending on size, design and the experience of the builder. Much of this extra cost is accounted for by a handful of things 鈥� increasing the overall floor area and providing a toilet, shower drainage and bedspace at entrance level. Each of these, according to calculations by the RICS, account for between 拢100 and 拢150 of its 拢547 estimate.

A turning circle for a wheelchair may be desirable for some, but it may lead to redundant space at extra cost. Do people want that?

John Slaughter, Home Builders Federation

Adam McTavish, director of sustainability services at consultancy Cyril Sweett, says: 鈥淥ne of the issues with Lifetime Homes is that it can be more difficult to achieve the standard on certain types of site and housing design.鈥�

Indeed, the implications are far more severe for smaller units, as a certain amount of floorspace and frontage is required to allow ground-floor facilities or a winch in the bathroom.

Furthermore, some of the criteria are difficult to reconcile with existing planning guidance. For example, the need to minimise distance between front doors and car parking spaces, alongside the increased need for space, would seem to contradict government attempts to reduce dependence on the car and increase housing density.

Steve Wielebski is division director at Miller Homes, and has experience of building homes to the standard in Scotland, where the code was incorporated into building standards last year. He says: 鈥淲e find that it requires between 拢1,500 and 拢2,000 per house, with smaller homes generally costing more. The bigger the unit, the easier it is to accommodate; it鈥檚 especially difficult with narrow-fronted houses.鈥� He admits that it also requires a substantial rethink in terms of design, but adds that housebuilders and their customers have an ambivalent attitudes towards the standard.

A quick browse through the government鈥檚 own Lifetime Homes, Lifetime Neighbourhoods document, published alongside the announcement, gives other hint 鈥� aside from the meteoric increase in the elderly population 鈥� as to why it is so keen on the new standards. Apparently, in 1994, 拢350m was spent on providing adaptations for disabled people, of which 拢210m came from the taxpayer 鈥� a figure that could be reduced if developers would only build more spacious, expensive homes. The document reads: 鈥淓ncouraging greater uptake of the Lifetime Homes standards from design stage will reduce the cost of adaptations, and also reduce care costs.鈥� In total the saving if all new homes are built to Lifetime Homes standards is 拢92.5m.

According to the same document it will cost 拢400,000 more than it saves to build the homes at this standard. But, importantly, while the saving is to the public purse, the additional cost is borne by the private sector.