How design, tenure and reform can unlock extra social and inexpensive houses
Nigel Booen, director of design, Boyer
Density is inevitable
If we’re to construct new social and inexpensive the place individuals want them, greater density just isn’t a alternative however a necessity.
That is already changing into obvious: in 2024 alone, planning functions had been submitted for 64 towers over 20 storeys in London.
And the general public stays cautious. Even in London, the place flats make up nearly all of houses, just one in 5 is at present in a high-rise constructing. If we’re going to ship 1.5 million houses by 2029, that should change: we have to make density not solely acceptable, however engaging – and which means getting the design, planning and coverage proper.
Why house residing has fallen out of favour
Most of the criticisms of high-density housing are comprehensible.
After the pandemic, the will for house, gardens and privateness grew. Hybrid working calls for residence places of work and a greater work-life stability. This makes house residing – particularly poorly designed flats in noisy blocks with no out of doors house – a tricky promote.
Leasehold problems haven’t helped. Regardless of latest reform efforts, prices related to floor rents, service prices and cladding remediation have undermined confidence. In the meantime, commonhold – the federal government’s most popular future mannequin for residences – stays largely theoretical, with fewer than 25 such developments in England and Wales and at present little or no help or understanding amongst mortgage lenders and customers.
Stricter regulation, particularly in relation to constructing security, has cooled appetites. In consequence, many social and inexpensive house schemes have stalled, with builders more and more turning again to homes – notably exterior London and the South East.
Security and planning delays
The Constructing Security Act has added one other layer of complexity. Whereas well-intentioned, the introduction of the Constructing Security Regulator has created a planning bottleneck.
There are additional pressures on the horizon. The brand new Constructing Security Levy (BSL) will impose an extra price on residential developments over 18 metres. In the meantime, guidelines requiring second staircases in high-rise buildings have already led to planning revisions and delays and are lowering the viability of many schemes.
That is slowing in supply comes at a time when housing want is acute. Based on the ONS, simply 153,900 new houses had been in-built 2024 – the bottom determine in years and much wanting what’s required.
For inexpensive housing suppliers, they exacerbate already tight viability margins.
Designing density that works
There’s a approach by way of this – and it begins with design.
Not all density means tower blocks. A number of the hottest components of London – Notting Hill or Pimlico for instance – are additionally among the many densest, and but they’re largely low- to mid-rise. Elsewhere, new communities like Poundbury in Dorset, display how ‘light density’, impressed by conventional structure, can ship excessive densities with extensive public help.
Breaking the monotony of so many 20th century housing estates, the place buildings and types are repeated with out bearing in mind the environments identification, these new communities comprise walkable, combined use neighbourhoods with a wide range of housing choices, densities, and public areas countering the detrimental impacts of city sprawl, a way of identification and group for a sustainable future.
The thought is gaining political traction. Each Labour and the Conservatives have promoted conventional structure as a method to scale back opposition and ship extra houses. Georgian-style schemes can attain 40-60 houses per hectare – considerably greater than the standard 30-35 houses per hectare on greenfield websites – whereas commanding a price premium.
This has actual relevance for each social and personal sectors. For inexpensive housing suppliers, it presents a method to ship greater unit counts with out sacrificing group or high quality.
Suburban v city density
However context issues. What qualifies as dense within the suburbs could look positively low-rise in metropolis centres. Whereas a four-storey block could also be applicable for suburban infill, central websites – the place land values are greater and demand is acute – require higher scale.
Even then, we might be extra artistic. Airspace improvement – including flooring to current buildings – presents a largely untapped path to new houses in constrained city areas. Equally, reconfiguring underused industrial or civic websites for mixed-use, mid-rise improvement can unlock capability with out counting on controversial towers.
For inexpensive housing, partnering with NHS trusts or native authorities to construct houses above well being centres or libraries can yield mutual profit.
Altering hearts and minds
we have to change how individuals really feel about density. Which means not solely higher buildings, but additionally higher streets, providers and communities.
If density is related to poor high quality, nameless towers, then individuals will resist it. But when it delivers engaging, sustainable, well-located houses that reply to how individuals really wish to stay – whether or not renting or shopping for – then it turns into a part of the answer, not the issue.
In the end we received’t hit the 1.5 million houses goal by way of sprawl alone. Nor ought to we strive. Increasing into the Inexperienced Belt dangers long-term environmental and financial prices. The reply lies in doing density higher – and doing it within the locations the place individuals already wish to stay.
Completed nicely, dense improvement can supply alternative, affordability and high quality of life. We simply want the boldness to construct it.
