Archive for category: Latest News

The government has released the report of the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission.  Our readership constitutes individuals who collectively would have to bring about the changes recommended in this report. Whilst it acknowledges the desperate need for social housing, it also seems to hark back to a time when money and time where in greater supply and ideals of philanthropy so perfectly demonstrated in housing provision by individuals such as George Cadbury could be expounded without compromise.  In such times individuals rather than government bodies were far more in control of social house provision and that allowed their vision to be bridled only by the funding at their disposal.

The report focuses strongly on the negative role of the motor car when affecting design in both our homes and the spaces around them but it asks for a complete re-think of planning which would be difficult without the virtual eradication of the motor cars.  Without a technological advancement that is quite beyond our current status, the replacement of the car is not going to happen quickly.

Given that the times we live in are so radically different from those of the late 19^th early 20^th centuries, we question whether the approach suggested by the report has any practical relevance to construction today.  It might be suggested that the report tells us nothing that we do not already know and equally gives no real solution, which raises the question, what is the point?  We have included some extracts from it below and would really welcome the comments of those of you who look at our industry from the mud and grit of the construction site rather that what might be seen as the view from ivory towers, where distance blurs the hard edges of reality.

……….It is not often that a government adopts beauty as a policy objective. But such is the remit of this Commission, and we fully endorse the thinking that has led to it. It is widely believed that we are building the wrong things, in the wrong places, and in defiance of what people want. A comprehensive recent study agrees, arguing that about three quarters of new housing developments are mediocre or poor.1 At a time when there is an acute shortage of homes, there is therefore widespread opposition to new developments, which seem to threaten the beauty of their surroundings and to impose a uniform ‘cookie cutter’ product that degrades our natural and built inheritance. People want to live in beautiful places; they want to live next to beautiful places; they want to settle in a somewhere of their own, where the human need for beauty and harmony is satisfied by the view from the window and a walk to the shops, a walk which is not marred by polluted air or an inhuman street. But those elemental needs are not being met by the housing market, and the planning system has failed to require them. The Commission on building beautifully was set up at the end of 2018, asking us to review the planning system that has regulated construction in our country over the last hundred years. Ours is a discretionary system. The right to build has been nationalised. However, it does not proceed by top-down control from government, but by the granting of permissions decided locally. This allows a voice to the many interests involved, including the interests of neighbours, and reflects the historical origins of our legislation, largely introduced under pressure from civic associations motivated by the desire to protect our natural and architectural legacy from thoughtless destruction in the wake of the industrial revolution. It has also meant that, in comparison with many other countries, the planning process as we know it is both uncertain in its outcome and unclear in what it permits, involving high risk for the developer and sparking often fierce resistance from local communities. Large estates of low-quality housing naturally arouse opposition from those whose amenities and property-values they threaten, and precious aspects of our built environment and countryside give rise to a strong desire to protect them from changes that might spoil them. The cumulative effect of this, together with a rise in litigation from developers, has been a stagnation in the planning process, and a sense that – despite the greatly increased wealth that this country now enjoys, in comparison with what was enjoyed by our predecessors in the early 20th century – we are building less beautifully than they, and indeed littering the country with built debris of a kind that nobody will want to conserve. What has gone wrong, and how can we change it? Those were the questions before the Commission, and this report is our answer to them. It is not the final answer; but it is the first step towards understanding the direction in which our planning policy should go…………..

….. Cities built with the aim of accommodating the car therefore have to look very different from the traditional city. If three parking spaces are required per household, as occurs in some local authorities, then terraces, streets, squares and mansion blocks become nearly impossible. The traditional shopping crescents and high streets tend to be abandoned and replaced with out-of-town retail centres, surrounded by fields of cars. Offices and government buildings are transferred to business parks, with their own parking lots. Walkability and mixed-use neighbourhoods are swiftly imperilled. We do not need to imagine this: in much of the United States it is the norm, with residential settlements starting life and remaining as car-dependent sprawls. Once the car starts to take over, the process becomes self-reinforcing: even people who would prefer to walk to the shops have to drive if there are no shops in walking distance……

……… The government of Harold Macmillan did oversee the rehoming of vast numbers of the poorest families out of inner-city slums into the ‘fresher air’ of the new housing estate; arguably the highest annual delivery of new homes we have seen in this country. However, what happened next was cheap system-building, often corrupt procurement, the ‘vertical slums’ that were poorly constructed and often equally poorly managed, leading to isolation and crime, that and were a far cry from the neighbourliness and family life they promised. We have learnt from these mistakes. Over more recent decades, new affordable housing has often been built by housing associations and councils to higher space and design standards than much of the housing for sale that this Commission has seen. As landlords, housing associations and councils have a long-term stake in these places and a commitment to the people living there, to offer the best quality of life they can. However, the severe shortage means that opportunistic developers can abuse permitted development rights to produce accommodation of the lowest quality to house those with no alternative. As the TCPA’s Raynsford Review pointed out, there is no beauty in a child having to use a car park as a play area or being housed in a glorified shipping container next to a flyover, on the argument that it is better than nothing. We believe that all homes – new build or conversions – should meet minimum standards for space, amenity and comfort, as well as the safety of the people that live there…..

Living_with_beauty_BBBBC_report

2019 raised the awareness of climate change, and it also saw an increasing number of holidaymakers opt for a staycation in the UK.

The government has been behind an initiative to support eco homes with its cleaner heating scheme (part of the Future Homes Standard) planned to be in full operation by 2025.

Offering attractive, eco-friendly and energy efficient homes is also appealing to furnished holiday let landlords and investors, with a growing number of guests looking to do their bit for the planet and holiday in the UK.

Julian Walker, director at the agency Spot Blue International Property, comments: “For anyone in the market for a holiday home this year, buying an eco-friendly property in the UK and letting it to the domestic market, so guests don’t need to travel far, makes a lot of sense.”

In June last year, the UK became the first first-world country to pass laws that should end its contribution to global warming by 2050. The new target is to bring all greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050, compared with the previous target of at least 80% reduction from levels in 1990.

Property investors look to greener options

Julian Walker adds: “We anticipate that the UK’s furnished holiday lets market will continue to become a popular investment choice. The fact that holiday lets produce far higher weekly rental yields than long-term lets is not the only advantage for investors and landlords.

“Undoubtedly, 2019 was a turning point in the global drive to raise awareness of climate change.

“This is thanks largely to the likes of David Attenborough, Greta Thunberg and Extinction Rebellion, who continue to keep the issue firmly on the agenda while forcing many of us ordinary people to ask questions about our own energy use and carbon footprint.”

Energy efficient modular building

The concept of modular design and construction methods in the residential development sector has been gaining traction in the past few years. At MIPIM last October, Esther McVey, the UK Housing Minister, spoke about the benefits: “Industry has told us some homes built using modern methods can have 80% fewer defects and heating bills up to 70% lower. Homes built using modern methods can be of higher quality, greener and built to last. I want to see a housing green revolution.”

This efficient and fast way of building lends itself to holiday homes. According to Spot Blue International, the amount of waste over the building phase in comparison to traditional housebuilding methods, according to specific measurements, is reduced by large levels. Labour time is reduced and this reduction in man hours results in decreasing travelling time to and from site, which helps reduce the carbon footprint further.

Walker says modular homes’ green credentials start before they’re even built. “And they continue for decades, even centuries, after they’re built,” he adds, while modern modular homes are also built to last a lot longer than traditional homes.

Modular homes adapt well to the holiday letting market; cutting-edge insulation materials mean they retain heat and landlords benefit from typically around 60% less going on utility bills than traditionally built properties.

By becoming more widely available, having these options is expected to “encourage UK tourists to travel less, thereby reducing not only the owners’ but the nation’s overall carbon footprint”.

Source: Buy Association

An investigation by Tom Calver

An Englishman’s home may be his castle, but for an ever growing number of buyers, that may mean a property less than 37 square meters – or the size of a tube carriage. High demand, skyrocketing prices and lifestyle shifts have led to the rise of the micro-property – but what does this mean for buyers today?

The UK property market boasts an increasing number of homes smaller than 37sqm, the minimum studio floor area under national standards. Almost 8,000 new micro-homes were built in 2016, the highest number on record, according to Which? analysis of Land Registry data.

As developers rush to use more flexible planning laws and carve up office blocks into homes, prospective buyers should be cautious: our research suggests micro-homes don’t necessarily grow in value like their larger counterparts, while some mortgage lenders won’t lend on them at all.

In this special investigation, we explore:

The growing prevalence of micro-homes

The areas with the most micro-homes

How micro-homes increase in value compared to larger properties

The mortgage providers that won’t lend on small properties

How common are micro-homes?

A ‘micro-property’ has no strict definition, but typically, the term refers to properties with a floor area below 37sqm – which is the minimum size for a studio under the government’s national Technical Housing Standards.

However, these standards aren’t legally binding. Where there are housing shortages, developers can apply to local authorities for permission to build smaller homes and councils cannot reject properties on grounds of size alone.

In 2013 the Government introduced so-called “Permitted Development Rights” (PDR) which allowed builders to convert offices into residential homes without submitting planning applications. Since then, the number of new micro-properties has rocketed.

Developers have been purchasing disused office spaces, like this one in Croydon, and splitting them into many small studio and one-bedroom flats.

This trend isn’t confined to the London suburbs. Our research showed high numbers of micro-properties are being built in urban areas like Leicester, Liverpool, Cambridge and Bristol:

Source: Department for Communities and Local Government

The term ‘micro-property’ covers a broad spectrum of homes, including poorly thought-out flat conversions with toilets in the kitchen or showers in the living room. But many of the new properties produced under Permitted Development Rights use space in an intelligent way, according to developers who spoke to Which? For instance Inspired Homes who boasts a property with a separate bedroom – yet has just 31.5 square metres of floor space:

Gwyn Roberts, of housing charity BRE, says size is less important than innovative and practical design: ‘Small homes that are not well-located, have poor indoor environment and are generally designed and constructed poorly would not reach [our standards].’

“[However], many micro-flats are well located, have communal space inside and out and are well designed to have property ventilation, sound insulation and more.”

Martin Skinner, chief executive of Inspired Homes, suggests younger buyers in particular tend to have lifestyles that suit smaller apartments, citing the ‘growth of the sharing economy and more possessions like music and film collections stored in the Cloud.’ He says that many of their PDR properties have opted for ‘flexible furniture solutions’ – including desks that transform into dining tables.

Do micro-properties grow in value?

It’s not hard to understand the attraction for some buyers, especially as rising prices in some regions price many people out of the market. Often, micro-properties offer a cheaper alternative to regular houses. In 2016, properties in London smaller than 37 sqm cost just £279,000, according to Land Registry data. Though not exactly cheap, it’s less than half the average price of a London home sold in the same period (£580,000).

While micro-homes are a cheaper way of getting onto the housing ladder, it’s important to consider whether your investment will grow in value over time.

As part of our investigation, we combined information on property sizes from the Department for Energy with house price data from HM Land Registry, covering nearly 3m properties. We then compared the average price of properties sold in 2016 with those sold between 2013 and 2015 to measure the price growth of different-sized homes.

Our analysis showed properties with floorspace of between 50 and 120 sqm had the best price growth in the period.

However, homes smaller than the national minimum space standards did not perform as well; price growth for properties smaller than 37 sqm was 6.9%, compared with 8.7% for homes larger. This is despite almost two-thirds of these smaller properties being located in London and the South East, which have seen massive rises in house prices in recent years.

That trend continues for even tinier homes: properties smaller than 30 sqm grew just 5.4% in value between 2013-15 and 2016.

In London, micro-homes did slightly better: properties smaller than 37 sqm grew 11.8% between 2013-15 and 2016. However, this was still much less than the 14.5% growth for all other properties in the capital.

How big is 37 sqm?

We Brits have some of the smallest homes in Europe, at an average of 76 sqm – that’s a slice larger than a squash court (62.4 sqm). By comparison, the average size of a property in Denmark is 137 sqm, according to research published in 2014 by Find Me A Floor.

National space standards suggest that a one-person dwelling can’t be smaller than 37 sqm. That’s about the same internal space as a tube carriage, and a fair bit larger than the average Travelodge room, which is 28 sqm.

However, we’ve found many newly converted office developments with floor areas of 16 sqm. For reference, that’s smaller than the size of a sumo wrestling ring.

Barnet House is currently being converted by Meadow Residential into flats. We found one studio in Brent that was just 8 sqm – more than 3.5 sqm smaller than the average UK parking space (11.5 sqm) and only 1 sqm larger than a prison cell. A three-bedroom house was converted into six studio flats, but in 2015 Brent council since ordered the development to be turned back into a house.

Who’s buying micro-properties?

Micro-homes are cheaper, usually closer to city centres and often too cramped for families with children. For those reasons, it’s not surprising that they’re mainly bought by first-time buyers, according to Inspired Homes. CE Martin Skinner says ‘these buyers are typically single professionals in their early thirties or young couples in their twenties combining salaries to purchase together. We also get a lot of siblings who team up to purchase the two-beds’. However, he adds that it’s investors who get the first dibs, with many reserving early to benefit from capital growth. In fact, plenty of micro-properties are listed on property portals as ‘Investor Opportunities’, offering ‘guaranteed’ gross rental yields.

Are micro-properties un-mortgageable?

Why don’t micro-properties grow in value like regular sized properties? A simple reason might be that many buyers aren’t eager to sacrifice space for convenience.

Another reason, however, could be the ability to borrow to buy them. If most buyers cannot easily get a mortgage on the property, this may limit price growth over the long-term.

We asked six major mortgage providers whether they had special criteria on lending for smaller homes. While HSBC didn’t comment, Lloyds Bank, Barclays and Santander all said they didn’t have a specific size limit, but that they lend on the basis of a professional valuation. For example, Barclays said it requires flat conversions to have been developed with ‘reasonably sized rooms’, but said that this is ‘down to the valuer’s professional opinion.’ However, Nationwide and RBS wouldn’t lend on properties with floor areas smaller than 30 sqm. RBS added that smaller properties run the risk of ‘restricted demand’ and ‘volatile pricing on resale’. David Blake from Which? Mortgage Advisers encouraged buyers to do their research, saying: ‘I would suggest anyone thinking about buying a small flat should speak to an independent mortgage adviser to understand their options, but also think about the re-saleability of the property and if demand is likely to remain strong for that type of property in the future.’

The future of property?

With modern facilities and intelligent space solutions, the micro-homes of today are a far cry from the inner-city studios of old where you could touch the toilet from your bed.

Demand for cheap, inner-city housing, coupled with rising prices, have driven up the supply of this type of property. But it remains to be seen whether they offer viable returns to owners – or prove to be homes that people actually aspire to live in.

Source: Which?

Peder Vejsig Pedersen from European Green Cities focuses on Building Integrated Photovoltaics technologies in Denmark

This article presents results in connection with RTD work supported by the Danish EUDP programme and Nordic Innovation funding. Since 2014, there has been ongoing cooperation taking place with the companies Cenergia and Solarplan and Danish manufacturers and suppliers of Building Integrated Photovoltaics (BIPV) technologies to develop new electricity-producing active roofs and facades, where BIPV can be a real alternative to normal roof and facade materials.

Here, completely new and innovative coloured BIPV solutions have made it possible to present roof and facade designs which can be accepted by architects, builders and the general public.

Since 2018, it has been possible to realise a new BIPV Demosite at The Technological Institute in Tåstrup west of Copenhagen, where you can see more than 20 different BIPV solutions in practice. This is an initiative coordinated by architect maa. Klaus Boyer Rasmussen from Solarplan.

At the same time, there has been cooperation with Solar City Denmark and European Green Cities/FBBB, on dissemination work in the form of brochures and thematic magazines.

When it comes to new and innovative BIPV solutions, it is especially relevant to highlight the Danish Solar Energy company, with its HEM-CFR BIPV modules that are produced in 11 different colours and come with a 25-year yield warranty. The coloured BIPV modules have an efficiency which is 85-95% of normal non-coloured PV modules.

At the BIPV Demosite, you can see a BIPV roof solution in the same colour as red tile roofs and a facade design with two light grey BIPV modules placed between two Rockpanel-antrasit facade panels.

Another unique technology comes from the Danish company SolarLab, which delivered 12,000 chromatic blueish BIPV modules for the Copenhagen International School. The BIPV Demosite demonstrates tilted BIPV modules for facades or gables.

It should also be mentioned here that the Danish company Solartag can deliver BIPV modules that exactly matches roof or facade modules from the Norwegian company STENI.

The company VELUX also has an interesting BIPV solution presented at the BIPV Demosite. It is the VELUX Modular Skylight roofing system, that can be purchased with integrated monocrystalline PV modules.

Source: Open Access Government