Latest:
Prescott's efficiency drive: private and social housebuilders are... - Split down the middle
00:00 02 Dec 1998
|
Tomorrow, the second phase of Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott's
drive to improve the efficiency of the construction industry takes
centre stage with the launch of the Housing Forum.
The Forum will formulate ways by which the housebuilding industry can achieve the performance targets set out in Sir John Egan's seminal report: Rethinking construction.
But unlike the first phase of the reformation process which got underway on 3 November with a spirit of unanimity (see CJ - 4 and 11 November), the Housing Forum is set to divide the housebuilding industry. The line has already been drawn between social housebuilding firms who believe in Egan's message and private sector housebuilders who think that more important issues need to be addressed if inefficiencies are to be driven out of housebuilding.
Cold Shoulder
Twice previously, private housebuilders have cold-shouldered Egan. At the launch of Egan's report in July, the immediate response from the House Builders Federation was to call the report a "missed opportunity." The HBF argued that the most important way to improve housebuilding performance was via reduced inefficiencies in the planning process. HBF chief executive Roger Humber said: "The biggest issue is planning and Sir John Egan has missed this central point."
Humber said inefficiencies in the planning process delayed construction, meant that housebuilders had to hold on to more land than was necessary because of the time it took to receive planning permission, and stifled innovation and design because of the conservative approach adopted by some planning authorities. Instead of Egan, the HBF said it was looking towards Lord Rogers' Task Force as the means for getting its views heard over planning issues. Lord Rogers' report, which covers urban regeneration and the greenfield versus brownfield debate, is due to be published in interim form in mid-January (see box). The full report is promised by April/May.
The second snub came on 3 November at a conference when construction firms were asked to nominate projects that could meet the performance criteria set out in Egan's report. Of the 82 demonstration projects announced at the conference, only seven were concerned with housing and none were connected with private sector housing.
The third snub will come tomorrow because few housebuilders, outside of those who undertake social as well as private housebuilding are likely to attend.
Contract Journal understands that pressure has been brought to bear on the HBF to become more involved in the Egan programme. Graham Watts, chief executive of the Construction Industry Council remarks: "I would have thought there must be some sort of project for 'Eganising that the private sector could put forward."
The fact that it is only the social housing providers who have come forward has been put down to the wrong signal being sent out when the Housing Corporation was named as the co-ordinator for the Forum. One industry observer remarks: "It was a bad decision to hand it to the Housing Corporation. It would have been better to appoint a group of people with links back to the rest of the industry."
Another industry leader thought likewise. "I get the impression that Egan concentrated on the major clients and housing was almost an afterthought. It was then left to Anthony Mayer [chief executive of the Housing Corporation] to get on with it but there is nowhere near the same momentum for change as there is the rest of the industry."
Contract Journal has it on good authority that 2000 Homes, a pan-industry impartial organisation that promotes best practice and innovation in housing, will take over the secretariat of the Forum and also provide executive resources.
Chief executive of 2000 Homes David Crewe would not comment on whether his organisation would act as the secretariat but he does concede that there has been a cool reaction to the Forum by private sector housebuilders. However, he remarks: "It is not a matter of private builders being left out of the process. A number of private housebuilders are working at the leading edge and we want to get them involved."
Crewe adds: "While we recognise planning is an issue, there are also questions that the Forum will be addressing, such as sustainability, quality and energy efficiency."
Even if private housebuilders don't get involved, Crewe believes that the work of the Forum "will percolate through to the private sector."
Michael Hill, director of social housing provider Countryside Partnership, concedes that there are different business drivers between the social and private camps. "For us, construction cost is all important. For private housebuilders, construction cost is just one factor and there are other considerations such as the cost of the land and added-value items."
Countryside also has a private housebuilding arm and Hill says it will be "looking to see what we achieve on the social side - likewise we are keen to learn what they are doing."
Hill adds: "A lot of the problems that occur in social housing are the same as in the rest of construction, a preponderance of competitive tendering, convoluted procurement routes and a lack of any real standardisation on design, specification and contract documentation."
Hill understands why private housebuilders are concerned about planning and says that he feels this issue will also be addressed by the forum. "There will be no point if we can reduce construction time by two weeks if planning is taking 16 weeks rather than eight weeks.
planning
Andy Hill, chairman of the social housebuilding arm of Willmott Dixon, believes the rumpus over planning has overshadowed one of the main purposes of the Forum, namely "sharing best practice and driving waste out of the system." Hill feels that private housebuilders argue that they need changes to the planning process in order to meet customer demands. He says: "I know we give more choice to our customers in social housing than you would get with a private housebuilder. I think private housebuilders have a lot to learn from social housing providers."
Hill, like his namesake at Countryside, thinks that examples of best practice will filter through to the private sector.
Both Hills are in agreement that the movement for change has to be led by housing associations. Countryside's Hill think that the virtual dominance of social housing in the Forum isn't a bad thing. He opines "Let's not diffuse the issue by widening it to private housing. The main reason why I want to restrict the Forum to housing association work is because we want to focus on that and be able to get on with what we do. This does not preclude the private housebuilding industry from adopting a similar approach."
Willmott Dixon's Hill agrees: "Housing associations are the biggest procurers of housing and should be leading the way." He says that for the Forum to succeed it needs a certain volume of work and that can only realistically come from large providers like the housing associations."
Countryside's Hill adds: "I believe that it is absolutely vital for the housebuilding industry to achieve the targets that Egan has set. These targets can't be achieved by the housebuilders alone - they have to be done in conjunction with the housing associations. The housebuilding industry as a whole has got to get its act together. Housing associations can't do it alone."
Whether more than a token number of the private housebuilders will play ball is still uncertain. The HBF says it will have representatives at the Forum conference and that it will continue to be involved in 2000 Homes initiative.
However the HBF clearly feels that its best course of action is the Rogers' Task Force. HBF spokesman Marc Cranfield-Adams says that the federation has "made a very comprehensive submission" to the Task Force. Exacts details of HBF's submission will be revealed in about two- to three-weeks' time, yet as Cranfield-Adams confirms: "Planning is still the key."
Although planning is on the agenda of the Task Force, one observer remarks that Rogers may well decide the issue is too complex and riven with too many legal difficulties to warrant making any firm recommendations. If that happened, it could mean that the private sector housebuilders have backed the wrong Task Force.
The Forum will formulate ways by which the housebuilding industry can achieve the performance targets set out in Sir John Egan's seminal report: Rethinking construction.
But unlike the first phase of the reformation process which got underway on 3 November with a spirit of unanimity (see CJ - 4 and 11 November), the Housing Forum is set to divide the housebuilding industry. The line has already been drawn between social housebuilding firms who believe in Egan's message and private sector housebuilders who think that more important issues need to be addressed if inefficiencies are to be driven out of housebuilding.
ADVERTISEMENT
Cold Shoulder
Twice previously, private housebuilders have cold-shouldered Egan. At the launch of Egan's report in July, the immediate response from the House Builders Federation was to call the report a "missed opportunity." The HBF argued that the most important way to improve housebuilding performance was via reduced inefficiencies in the planning process. HBF chief executive Roger Humber said: "The biggest issue is planning and Sir John Egan has missed this central point."
Humber said inefficiencies in the planning process delayed construction, meant that housebuilders had to hold on to more land than was necessary because of the time it took to receive planning permission, and stifled innovation and design because of the conservative approach adopted by some planning authorities. Instead of Egan, the HBF said it was looking towards Lord Rogers' Task Force as the means for getting its views heard over planning issues. Lord Rogers' report, which covers urban regeneration and the greenfield versus brownfield debate, is due to be published in interim form in mid-January (see box). The full report is promised by April/May.
The second snub came on 3 November at a conference when construction firms were asked to nominate projects that could meet the performance criteria set out in Egan's report. Of the 82 demonstration projects announced at the conference, only seven were concerned with housing and none were connected with private sector housing.
The third snub will come tomorrow because few housebuilders, outside of those who undertake social as well as private housebuilding are likely to attend.
Contract Journal understands that pressure has been brought to bear on the HBF to become more involved in the Egan programme. Graham Watts, chief executive of the Construction Industry Council remarks: "I would have thought there must be some sort of project for 'Eganising that the private sector could put forward."
The fact that it is only the social housing providers who have come forward has been put down to the wrong signal being sent out when the Housing Corporation was named as the co-ordinator for the Forum. One industry observer remarks: "It was a bad decision to hand it to the Housing Corporation. It would have been better to appoint a group of people with links back to the rest of the industry."
Another industry leader thought likewise. "I get the impression that Egan concentrated on the major clients and housing was almost an afterthought. It was then left to Anthony Mayer [chief executive of the Housing Corporation] to get on with it but there is nowhere near the same momentum for change as there is the rest of the industry."
Contract Journal has it on good authority that 2000 Homes, a pan-industry impartial organisation that promotes best practice and innovation in housing, will take over the secretariat of the Forum and also provide executive resources.
Chief executive of 2000 Homes David Crewe would not comment on whether his organisation would act as the secretariat but he does concede that there has been a cool reaction to the Forum by private sector housebuilders. However, he remarks: "It is not a matter of private builders being left out of the process. A number of private housebuilders are working at the leading edge and we want to get them involved."
Crewe adds: "While we recognise planning is an issue, there are also questions that the Forum will be addressing, such as sustainability, quality and energy efficiency."
Even if private housebuilders don't get involved, Crewe believes that the work of the Forum "will percolate through to the private sector."
Michael Hill, director of social housing provider Countryside Partnership, concedes that there are different business drivers between the social and private camps. "For us, construction cost is all important. For private housebuilders, construction cost is just one factor and there are other considerations such as the cost of the land and added-value items."
Countryside also has a private housebuilding arm and Hill says it will be "looking to see what we achieve on the social side - likewise we are keen to learn what they are doing."
Hill adds: "A lot of the problems that occur in social housing are the same as in the rest of construction, a preponderance of competitive tendering, convoluted procurement routes and a lack of any real standardisation on design, specification and contract documentation."
Hill understands why private housebuilders are concerned about planning and says that he feels this issue will also be addressed by the forum. "There will be no point if we can reduce construction time by two weeks if planning is taking 16 weeks rather than eight weeks.
planning
Andy Hill, chairman of the social housebuilding arm of Willmott Dixon, believes the rumpus over planning has overshadowed one of the main purposes of the Forum, namely "sharing best practice and driving waste out of the system." Hill feels that private housebuilders argue that they need changes to the planning process in order to meet customer demands. He says: "I know we give more choice to our customers in social housing than you would get with a private housebuilder. I think private housebuilders have a lot to learn from social housing providers."
Hill, like his namesake at Countryside, thinks that examples of best practice will filter through to the private sector.
Both Hills are in agreement that the movement for change has to be led by housing associations. Countryside's Hill think that the virtual dominance of social housing in the Forum isn't a bad thing. He opines "Let's not diffuse the issue by widening it to private housing. The main reason why I want to restrict the Forum to housing association work is because we want to focus on that and be able to get on with what we do. This does not preclude the private housebuilding industry from adopting a similar approach."
Willmott Dixon's Hill agrees: "Housing associations are the biggest procurers of housing and should be leading the way." He says that for the Forum to succeed it needs a certain volume of work and that can only realistically come from large providers like the housing associations."
Countryside's Hill adds: "I believe that it is absolutely vital for the housebuilding industry to achieve the targets that Egan has set. These targets can't be achieved by the housebuilders alone - they have to be done in conjunction with the housing associations. The housebuilding industry as a whole has got to get its act together. Housing associations can't do it alone."
Whether more than a token number of the private housebuilders will play ball is still uncertain. The HBF says it will have representatives at the Forum conference and that it will continue to be involved in 2000 Homes initiative.
However the HBF clearly feels that its best course of action is the Rogers' Task Force. HBF spokesman Marc Cranfield-Adams says that the federation has "made a very comprehensive submission" to the Task Force. Exacts details of HBF's submission will be revealed in about two- to three-weeks' time, yet as Cranfield-Adams confirms: "Planning is still the key."
Although planning is on the agenda of the Task Force, one observer remarks that Rogers may well decide the issue is too complex and riven with too many legal difficulties to warrant making any firm recommendations. If that happened, it could mean that the private sector housebuilders have backed the wrong Task Force.
ADVERTISEMENT
Most Viewed Articles
ADVERTISEMENT