The £60k House competition 2006.

LESSONS LEARNT JUNE 2006

Supported by

FOREWORD

Design for Manufacture,our challenge to the housebuilding industry to build high-quality,welldesigned and sustainable homes for a construction cost of £60,000,has shown everyone that the housebuilding industry in the United Kingdom is capable of delivering a world class response to the challenges of 21st Century living.

By using public-sector land and lower construction costs,English Partnerships has also been able to deliver higher than average levels of affordable homes within mixed communities on these sites.

The schemes that have come forward on the nine sites where preferred developers have been selected have set new standards of excellence.The competition also suggests further opportunities to cut costs and improve the design of housing,making it possible to build more affordable homes.

The competition has also led to a greater understanding amongst those involved about the value of teamworking and how different skills and knowledge can complement each other and enhance the end product. Housebuilders have worked closely with architects to maximise the design potential of sites and house type designs.Architects have been talking with the supply chain about the opportunities and constraints of working with different materials or build systems. The end results speak for themselves.

Everybody that has taken part can be immensely proud of what this competition has already achieved,but the prime objective of this document is to share what we have learnt.This document sets out not only the

10 main lessons from the competition,but also gives a wealth of detail about the individual schemes.

But the story doesn't end here.We will continue to follow and report on the progress of these schemes, and the views of the people who live in these homes when they are completed.And,later this year,we will be producing a manual that sets out in detail how other public-sector landowners can run their own competitions to deliver the next generation of affordable high-quality £60,000 homes.At the end of the document,we also outline how we will be taking the competition to the next step and work, together with industry,to tackle the wider climate change agenda and deliver affordable and more environmentally sustainable homes.

Creating sustainable communities can be a complex and difficult process.It is vital that we build on what has been learnt from the Design for Manufacture Competition and bring the lessons from this project through to mainstream housebuilding.Many housebuilders are already taking up our challenge to deliver affordable,quality homes in sustainable communities.We hope the results from this competition will be an inspiration to the rest to aim higher.

The Rt Hon Ruth Kelly MP Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Background image: George Wimpey/Richard Rogers, Oxley Park, Milton Keynes.

WHY ARE CONSTRUCTION COSTS OUTPACING LAND PRICES? WHY ARE THERE SO FEW NEW HOMES FOR SMALLER HOUSEHOLDS AND SMALLER MORTGAGES?

In September 2004 at the Labour Party Conference The Rt Hon John Prescott MP set out a challenge to build homes for £60,000 (£60k). Sceptics said it could not be done and cynics said that it was a gimmick. But the challenge was followed through within the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, hereafter referred to in this document by its new name of the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), and English Partnerships was asked to turn the vision into a reality. Within just over a year of the formal launch of the competition, nine sites have been allocated to the six final winning development consortia. At the time of writing this, four have even won planning consent and two are actually on site with development. The whole industry has responded with enthusiasm and innovation to the challenge. The legacy will be long lasting. This is the story of how it was achieved.

The UK is unique among EU states for relying on a small number of publicly-quoted housebuilders to supply most new housing. In 2004 the 10 largest companies built more than half of all supply for the first time, doubling their market share since 1990. When the 1980s’ housing boom ended in bust, these quoted housebuilders had to revalue their land holdings bought in expectation of ever-rising prices. This led to legendary losses in 1991 for some of the largest housebuilders, leaving shareholders smarting. So City analysts focused attention on who buys land at what price. They trusted housebuilders’ cost estimators to manage build prices.

In 2005 the development plot cost, among the quoted companies, averaged 19.2 per cent of the selling price; housebuilders had won back the City’s confidence about land deals. But conversely, there were new worries about the cost of build, the reliability of labour supply and its impact on build programmes. So serious is the challenge that leading companies

have diverted substantial funds away from land to investing in modernising their build. In some cases this has led to the use of factories to manufacture a major portion of new homes off-site. These housebuilders have secured the potential to increase output, as demand for new homes rises.

As there is concern about cost, so too is there about supply. The Bank of England’s 2005 Housing Supply Review written by Economist Kate Barker showed that recent volumes had already risen by more than 15 per cent, but Barker was calling for much faster growth. She set out different targets for growth in supply, to stabilise house prices at different long-term trends. This anticipated several scenarios with volumes increasing by between 40 per cent and 100 per cent. Government responded on 12 December 2005 by committing to make sure additions to the UK’s housing stock rose by one third to 200,000 net units by 2016.

“The competition has focused our attention on improving the design and delivery of projects in the UK”

Terry Gamble Director William Verry Europe Ltd

WHY ARE SO MANY PEOPLE PRICED OUT OF THE HOUSING MARKET? A KEY MARKET HAS BEEN NEGLECTED, WHICH THE DESIGN FOR MANUFACTURE COMPETITION WILL SERVE. HERE’S HOW.

English Partnerships’ Summit HouseTM at the Delivering Sustainable Communities Summit 2005, Manchester.

CAN IT BE DELIVERED WITHOUT CHANGE?

Skilled trades in market hot spots can pick and choose jobs on price. There are too few available, so site managers can’t fire those who don’t keep to agreed programmes. Build prices are also increasing at two and a half times the rate of the Retail Price Index. This all means that attempts to meet housing demand with increased volumes of supply could backfire in the short term by stretching the capacity of the industry without tackling build costs. The industry needs more new capacity.

THE CHALLENGE

The Design for Manufacture Competition aimed to support industry investment in building more, smaller units in a way that sidesteps traditional methods hampered by build cost inflation. It has promoted research and development in new products and processes. Ten sites were chosen for the competition based on their unique features, such as established Design Codes or other developments already underway. The brief specified that a minimum of 30 per cent of the homes in the winning proposal for each site should be: a two-bedroom home with of at least 76.5 sq m built to a build cost of £60k or less. The build cost of £60k included builders’ overheads, profits and design fees, but not abnormals such as bad ground or site infrastructure such as highways.

The competition has exceeded expectations for the level of industry involvement, the depth of press interest and the potential of the lessons learnt. When The Rt Hon John Prescott MP said he would challenge the industry to build for £60k, some pointed out that smaller less profitable houses were of little interest in any boardroom. But within months companies were unveiling homes that could be constructed more cheaply than the level sought by the competition and by the time the first winning schemes were seeking planning permission, three major housebuilders had announced sites where they were building their new lowbuild-cost, low-sales-price homes.

In 1905 there was a competition to provide low-cost housing for working class newcomers to the world’s first garden city at Letchworth. Many Letchworth homes were built using prefabricated methods and are listed buildings today. The Design for Manufacture Competition is a modern equivalent but with far greater significance for the future.

KEY OBJECTIVES

■ To design and construct 1,000 high-quality homes cost efficiently.

■ At least 30 per cent of the new homes developed on the competition sites were to be provided at a construction cost of £60k or less.

■ Remaining homes on the competition sites to be produced using equivalent processes and cost efficiencies.

OTHER IMPORTANT OBJECTIVES:

■ To demonstrate efficiencies can be achieved by re-engineering the design, procurement and build process to mitigate and reduce the impact of construction costs.

■ To demonstrate that it is possible to build good quality, cost-effective homes without sacrificing sustainability standards and land values.

■ To act as a catalyst for change in direction in the construction industry in the way projects are designed, provided and delivered.

■ To reduce waste/defects and accidents.

■ To embed change into the supply chain to deliver ongoing continuous improvements.

■ Units to contribute to English Partnerships’ First-Time Buyers’ Initiative.

■ BREEAM EcoHomes Very Good award to be achieved as a minimum.

■ Approach is to be replicable on sites outside the competition.

■ To deliver through partnering arrangements.

“The innovative ideas that the consortium partners contributed to the design process enhanced the Association’s mission to provide high-quality, well-designed, sustainable and affordable housing”

Bob Snell Development Manager Kelsey Housing Association Ltd

Background image: William Verry/WeberHaus, School Road, Hastings.

Barratt’s intermediate G2 house type is an upside down home with double height living space on the first floor with potential to create a room in the roof.

Cheap Cottages Exhibition 1905 ©First Garden City Heritage Museum, Letchworth.

Lessons Lea

The Design for Manufacture Competition was devised to bring out the best in the housing sector. It started out with the simple challenge to build good-quality homes for a construction cost of £60k, but it turned out to be about much more than that. Entrants to the competition rose to the occasion in a variety of ways with innovation and new partnerships. The legacy will be long lasting. Here are just 10 of the lessons learnt so far.

4 Quality and cost are compatible

1 Construction costs can be tamed

The Design for Manufacture Competition has shown that total construction costs can be controlled whilst improving quality. Many solutions have been tested, but it seems that those bidders who closely linked their design, suppliers and delivery teams into a single process, found savings that others did not. The Building Cost Information Service (BCIS) has verified the results and their findings suggest that the successful bidders now have achieved something. Bigger savings will naturally come with replication of these approaches and higher volumes but a start has been made of lasting value. Recent forecasts1 predict that construction cost inflation combined with flattening house prices will soon put pressure on house building margins. The competition therefore provides timely food for thought for all involved in the housing market.

High quality has been happily married with construction efficiency. The £60k homes in the competition are at least 76.5 sq m gross internal floor area so cost savings are not being achieved by making homes smaller. The public will be getting better value for money per square metre. Overall, market value has been achieved for the portfolio of sites. No development subsidy has been given by the public sector to these sites, demonstrating that such achievements can be repeated on private land in future.

8 Future proof homes

5 One thousand and one house types

Get the basic structure right and homes can come off the production line looking different on each site – all tastes and vernaculars catered for. Modern construction methods, prefabricated factory-built homes, need not result in boring boxes. All of the winning entries provided several variations on the £60k house-type from the same basic production specification. This is about technology and designs that respond to consumer appetite for choice. It also creates mixed housing and interest in every street that will help create exciting new communities.

The competition has generated many excellent ideas on how to future proof housing so it responds to energy cost increases and the impact of climate change. Flat panel construction has enabled use of large windows in the roof which provide light to all floors of a home. EcoHomes ratings at the top end of the Excellent category are promised for some of the homes and the predicted energy efficiency (u-values) for one overseas supplied home would see annual heating bills for occupiers slashed. The prefabricated construction techniques have also exploited the potential for eco lanterns and eco hats that warm homes in the winter and cool them in the summer by releasing heat. Acoustic features have been built into many designs such as the glazed partition halls that separate one of the designs and an enclosed staircase in another proposal that cuts sound between the ground and first floors. Consumers of the future will be more discerning: they will be seeking out comfort features and improved running costs.

9 Place and product must work together

Some bidders fully understood how individual homes need to work in context to create successful places. Curving linear terraces and crescents have been proposed to create small and distinct public spaces. Kitchens have been placed to jut out of the front of homes to give views up and down the street. Cars have been accommodated carefully in a variety of ways so as not to dominate development. Windows have been cleverly placed to overlook the street and produce natural surveillance and a sense of community. Design for Manufacture has not been about drawing board designs but about creating real homes in real neighbourhoods.

10 Vision

When communities get behind the business of growth and of changing places, development can happen faster and more effectively. It is interesting to see what has happened to those sites in the competition where the best use was made of Design Codes or strong and clear design briefs pre-agreed with the local authorities and local communities: the planning process was completed in under 13 weeks. What is more, some of the most modern houses are going to be built in places that like their traditions, confounding the critics who predicted the ambitions would be watered down along the way. The Design for Manufacture Competition has shown that by working with people at the local level and providing direction at the national level we have been able to make a major leap forward in housing design and construction efficiency. The competition will have a major impact for years to come.

2 Density with houses, not just flats

Efficient land use need not always mean one-bedroom flats. Through this competition developers will be achieving densities of over 60 homes per hectare in suburban locations, mainly with houses. The message seems to be: get the design and development process right and you can have houses with gardens, front doors that open onto the street and even garages. These are homes and communities that people want with no waste of our scarce land supply.

6 Innovation is for everyone

3 A home is forever, not just the first sale

Homes are going to be built through this competition which grow as households grow and change as the social patterns change. Competition bidders have shown how a good starter pad for a first-time buyer today can be adapted to become a family home tomorrow or remodelled again for ‘empty-nesters’. The imaginative response by bidders to Lifetime Homes principles has also shown that additional costs can be avoided if they are designed-out early enough. So every home can be a truly inclusive home for people with disabilities or for the elderly or for families with young children. Panelised systems and frame systems without trussed roofs have allowed ‘room in the roof’ possibilities for easy expansion of homes. Most of the homes have internal walls that can be moved or removed to suit different lifestyles. Others have car ports that can be turned into garages with living space above. People’s lives change and markets change and so will the Design for Manufacture homes. The next generation will be thankful for this.

7 New players

Housebuilders have used the Design for Manufacture Competition to show they are capable of investing in more than their land banks. Innovation is clearly a mainstream interest to the biggest and best in UK housebuilding. 53 consortia took the time and trouble to get involved. Many report that their experience in the competition has had a lasting impact on their business approach. Design and construction management teams are clearly working together with the development and sales teams. Design for Manufacture shows that Sir John Egan’s recommendations to the construction industry were not in vain.

Most of the successful bidders did something different with someone new. Some teamed up with housing associations and others created close links with suppliers. There have also been some new names entering the housing market –from the wider construction sector and abroad. International architecture practices more commonly identified with iconic structures have been busy redefining the English suburban home. Some bidders have deployed advisors from the car industry to identify ways to cut waste. Some of those not making it to the final six consortia developing sites have continued their £60k home experiments outside of the competition and are soon going live with their products.

rnt Competition Milestones

Since launching the competition in spring 2005, a great deal has been achieved:

■ Launched in April 2005. ■ Nine winners announced in August 2005.

■ Six developers announced for nine out of 10 sites by March 2006.

■ First four sites with planning and ready to start by April 2006.

■ First homes due for completion summer 2006.

■ More than 1,000 homes to be built in total, over a third for a construction cost of £60k.

S TEP BY S TEP

The competition was subject to the Official Journal of the European Union negotiated procedure. This governed much of the programme’s critical path.

STAGE 1 PREQUALIFICATION

A prequalification questionnaire (PQQ) was sent to all requesting information on the competition on 1 April 2005. Bidders were asked for their technical capacity to be able to deliver projects successfully. Proposals were invited from individual companies or consortia, adequately supported by professional teams or advisers. Where a consortium was proposed, a lead company had to be nominated. 179 individual organisations expressed an interest to participate in the competition. Many of the 179 joined forces to form consortia resulting in 53 formal PQQ submissions.

STAGE 2

Throughout May 2005, these 53 consortia were evaluated and a short list of 33 was produced. These firms or consortia were invited to make proposals on how they would develop English Partnerships’ Oxley Park site in Milton Keynes. The submissions were evaluated by a team from English Partnerships and the DCLG. Assistance was also provided by cost consultants calfordseaden and construction process consultants MTech in the analysis of cost information, lean construction and process mapping.

The evaluation criteria were:

■ Design, specification and quality standards.

■ Contract sum analysis and cost benchmarking.

■ Process mapping, manufacturing, supply and construction programme.

■ Component life, Whole Life Costing performance, sustainability and environmental impact.

■ Continuous improvement and innovation risk management.

■ Health and safety, respect for people.

English Partnerships’ analysis was presented to a judging panel which reviewed the submissions and analysis before recommending which consortia should progress to the next stage. The judging panel members were selected by the DCLG to gain an independent view from a full range of housing industry interests.

Design for Manufacture evaluation team:

English Partnerships: DCLG:

Steve Carr (Chair)Canda Smith

Andrew Appleby

Steve BallRepresentatives from:

Ian Charlesworthcalfordseaden

Kevin McGeoughJacobs Babtie

Paul McGivernMTech

Laura Tytler

Kitt Walker

Judging panel:

Su Bonfanti (Chair)DCLG

Trevor BeattieEnglish Partnerships

David BirkbeckDesign for Homes

Prof Stephen BuckleyUniversity of Reading

Anthea CaseCommission for Architecture and the Built Environment

Dr Angela DumasConstruction Industry Expert

Julie FawcettHousing Corporation

Pam GilderEnvironment Agency

Judith HarrisonConstructing Excellence

Joe MartinBuilding Cost Information Service

Cllr Arthur McCutcheonNorthampton Borough Council

Stage 2 winners selected to bid for sites at Stage 3 were:

Barratt plc

Countryside Consortium

Geoffrey Osborne

George Wimpey/Richard Rogers

Partnership

Persimmon Homes (formerly Westbury)

Redrow

SixtyK Consortium-Crest Nicholson

William Verry/WeberHaus

The judges were keen to emphasise the focus on quality. Seven of the Stage 2 submissions not progressing to bid for sites at Stage 3 were highly commended:

Accent Group

GENTECT Homes

Linden Homes

Persimmon Homes

Taylor Woodrow Developments Ltd

The Forward Group

The Super E® Partnership

“The £60k home competition is breaking new ground, bringing down construction costs and using publicly owned sites for development”

The Rt Hon John Prescott MP Daily Mirror Friday 4 November 2005

George

Wimpey/Richard Rogers, Oxley Park, Milton Keynes.

George Wimpey/Richard Rogers, Oxley Park, Milton Keynes.

Background image: Allerton Bywater masterplan.

STAGE 3

The nine consortia behind the best proposals selected from Stage 2 were then invited to make detailed proposals at Stage 3 in the form of an Invitation to Negotiate. This required bidders to show how their proposed efficiencies would be applied to a full development proposal for their preferred sites. These proposals needed to be sensitive to the local planning and development context of the sites in the competition and include a financial offer.

Stage 3 submissions were evaluated by both the English Partnerships local delivery teams responsible for the site and the Design for Manufacture evaluation team.

The local team often included stakeholders such as local council planning officers. Involvement of the local teams was seen as fundamental for sites to be delivered in a timely and inclusive fashion. Following the English Partnerships’ evaluation an executive summary for each bid was then provided to the judging panel to assist them with their assessment of the submissions.

The contest for sites was split into three tranches for Stage 3 to suit progress for each site.

At each meeting, the judging panel received a presentation from the relevant bidders, followed by a two-way question period. The judging panel will reconvene in July 2006 to consider the final site, Rowan Road, Merton, London.

HOW THE SITES WERE CHOSEN

English Partnerships and South East England Development Agency (SEEDA) provided sites which could be delivered quickly and with most of the following characteristics:

■ Ownership should be freehold title for the entire site including access routes and no restrictive covenants, easements or tenancies to deal with.

■ Sites had to be brownfield or land designated for housing.

■ At least one site in the north and one in the area covered by the First-Time Buyers’ Initiative (FTBI).

■ The site had to be capable of achieving a start of physical works on site by spring 2006.

■ The site required a fair degree of planning certainty – there was a designation within a local plan for housing and no requirement for any major employment uses on site.

■ No major off-site access works or permissions were required or had been commissioned/completed.

■ Site conditions and constraints were clear and fully understood, preferably with a full study already undertaken, and no major remediation or abnormals were required.

■ No major ecological, archaeological or environmental constraints on development.

Background image: George Wimpey/Richard Rogers, Oxley Park, Milton Keynes.

OXLEY PARK SITE 6 MILTON KEYNES

Area 3.26 ha

Homes 145

A greenfield site situated within the designated development area of Milton Keynes. It enjoyed an outline planning permission, which covered the whole grid square and had a Design Code. The brief envisaged a suburban low/medium density development with sensitivity to the local rural ecology and Milton Keynes vernacular. This south-facing moderately sloping site is on the current perimeter of the city, in future to be bordered by expansion development. On-site infrastructure, including sustainable urban drainage (SUDS), and utilities were provided by English Partnerships in parallel with the competition.

FORMER TA SITE OXFORD ROAD AYLESBURY VALE

Area 1.42 ha

Homes 102

A brownfield site acquired by English Partnerships from Defence Estates which has enabled the provision of a new TA centre while creating valuable housing land. The site is within walking distance of the town centre in a former industrialised part of Aylesbury. The site has good public transport and cycling links, and convenient local services that enable a very sustainable development. An outline planning permission existed but with limiting densities. Demolition of existing buildings and provision of advance infrastructure was undertaken by English Partnerships.

“George Wimpey is keen to see the proven benefits of the design of our product once the development of Oxley Park is underway.”

George Wimpey consortium

William Verry/WeberHaus, Oxford Road, Aylesbury Vale.

SITE D2 UPTON NORTHAMPTON

Area 3.08 ha

Homes 165

A greenfield site which is part of the 1,200-home South West District Sustainable Urban Extension in Northampton. It has been incorporated in the adopted plan and has a comprehensive masterplan and Design Code developed through the Enquiry by Design process. The code and accompanying brief required high environmental standards. English Partnerships has provided many millions of pounds of investment for major infrastructure works at Upton, including a pioneering drainage system.

ALLERTON BYWATER MILLENNIUM COMMUNITY NEAR LEEDS

Area 3.2 ha

Homes 151

A brownfield site which is part of the Allerton Bywater Millennium Community, near Leeds and therefore demanded high sustainability standards which are encompassed in a Design Code and site brief. Outline planning permission was in place after a year-long local consultation. The major infrastructure, including SUDS, has been provided by English Partnerships. Remediation of the former coalfield site has been undertaken and designs have had to have regard to foundations, gas supply and more.

Barratt, Allerton Bywater, near Leeds.

Barratt, Upton, Northampton.

SCHOOL ROAD HASTINGS

Area 0.225 ha

Homes 12

A small, steeply sloping former school site that was part of SEEDA’s Brownfield Land Assembly Trust programme (aimed at finding small sites for affordable housing). It offers the opportunity to illustrate that Design for Manufacture principles can be applied to both difficult and small sites. Much local consultation has been necessary as well as the relocation of 350 slow worms.

HORNS CROSS STONE DARTFORD

Area 0.54 ha

Homes 37

A brownfield site purchased from Defence Estates with outline planning permission in April 2003 for 30 flats and seven houses. The Section 106 agreement requires 30 per cent affordable homes to be built primarily for rent. It is anticipated that planning approval will be achieved in summer 2006 with a start on site by the autumn of 2006.

Countryside Consortium, Horns Cross, Dartford.

William Verry/WeberHaus, School Road, Hastings.

Barratt, Falkirk variant ‘A’ Allerton Bywater, near Leeds.

FORMER PARK PREWETT HOSPITAL BASINGSTOKE

Area 3.52 ha

Homes 137

This site is part of a much larger scheme which is included in English Partnerships’ Hospital Sites Programme. Full planning permission was in place but the Design for Manufacture process highlighted the need for better layout so new planning consent was sought.

FORMER LINTON HOSPITAL MAIDSTONE

Area 3.9 ha

Homes 148

A brownfield site in a rural village situated on the perimeter of an existing settlement that is part of English Partnerships’ Hospital Sites Programme. Outline planning permission was obtained in parallel with the competition.

SixtyK ConsortiumCrest Nicholson, Linton, Maidstone.

Persimmon Homes’ Former Park Prewett Hospital site masterplan, Basingstoke.

ROWAN ROAD MERTON

Area 6.05 ha

Homes 180

A former school site purchased by English Partnerships for affordable housing in London. Merton had produced a design brief for the site but the Design for Manufacture team worked on this to improve layouts and increase the density and affordable housing content. The site is the last to be released, with submissions due back in June 2006.

FORMER RENNY LODGE HOSPITAL NEWPORT PAGNELL

Area 1.0 ha

Homes 68

A brownfield site, part of English Partnerships’ Hospital Sites Programme, which will form an important gateway to Newport Pagnell from the south. It has been necessary for English Partnerships to undertake a great deal of feasibility work of this site, particularly on archaeology and ecology. The existing outline planning permission also required the off-site highway infrastructure, which has already been completed.

SixtyK Consortium - Crest Nicholson’s approach maximised the new street –public areas are overlooked by kitchens.

SixtyK Consortium - Crest Nicholson creates a grand entrance with flats.

SixtyK Consortium - Crest Nicholson, Linton, Maidstone.

AND THE WINNERS ARE...

Barratt Developments plc

Allerton Bywater, near Leeds and Upton, Northampton

Allerton Bywater, near Leeds

This development on a 3.2 ha site will align with other residential and employment areas being created on this Millennium Community project.

151 homes in total

46 homes to be constructed for £60k

30 affordable homes

Planning achieved

Start on site June 2006

Upton, Northampton

This development will take place on a 3.08 ha site within the Milton Keynes and South Midlands Growth Area.

165 homes in total

50 homes to be constructed for £60k

36 affordable homes

Planning achieved

Start on site June 2006

LEAD MEMBER

Barratt Developments plc

ARCHITECT HTA

MAIN SUPPLY CHAIN PARTNER

Advance Housing Ltd (MMC supplier part owned by Barratt)

REGISTERED SOCIAL LANDLORD (UPTON) Midsummer Housing

OTHER KEY PARTNERS (UPTON) Nottingham University (operations management research) Whitby Bird (environmental consultants)

For both its developments at Allerton Bywater, near Leeds and Upton in Northampton, Barratt Developments is using its own Advance Housing Ltd steel frame system. This construction technique involves factory-produced closedpanel technology, complete with windows, doors, first fix electrical and mechanical services, and internal lining. Bathroom and kitchen pods are also used, along with a concrete ground-floor base.

On both sites, Barratt propose to evolve the home types in three generations from a traditional two-up, two-down leading to an innovative wide-fronted ‘60k Generation 3’ home. This has a room in the roof and a double-height living room or is even adaptable to become an upside down home with a living area upstairs and bedrooms downstairs. Plot build times will eventually be as little as 25 days.

The homes will use cost savings from the efficient supply of fully insulated and weatherproofed units. Wall panels are pre-wired with ‘plug-and-play’ connections.

At Upton, homes will incorporate extra environmental features such as photovoltaic panels and solar water heaters although these are not within the £60k cost.

At Allerton Bywater, Barratt Developments will create three-storey crescent units overlooking the village green. These face onto the existing sustainable urban drainage system, using winter gardens between blocks to maximise the environmental performance of the home.

Allerton Bywater, near Leeds.

Barratt’s homes offer flexibility, first-floor living and room-in-the-roof potential.

Countryside Consortium

Horns Cross, Dartford

Horns Cross, Dartford

This development will take place on a 0.54 ha site within the Thames Gateway Growth Area of Kent.

37 homes in total

13 homes to be constructed for £60k

11 affordable homes

Subject to planning

LEAD MEMBER

Countryside Properties plc with Hyde Housing Association Ltd

ARCHITECT

PCKO

REGISTERED SOCIAL LANDLORD Hyde Housing Association Ltd

MAIN SUPPLY CHAIN PARTNERS

BUMA Free-dom SA (Polish steel frame manufacturers) The Homes Factory (UK timber frame manufacturers)

OTHER KEY PARTNERS

Brand-Leonard (engineers)

Mace (consultants)

Metropolitan Housing Trust

Presentation Social Investment Agency (partnering housing association developers)

Walker Management (employer’s agent)

The Countryside Consortium proposed to make use of both steel and timber frame systems in its development at Horns Cross, Dartford. Homes built using the BUMA volumetric system will comprise a light gauged steel frame and be clad with either render-finished insulated OSB board or metal with a drained or ventilated cavity. The product is already being used in a number of affordable housing projects across London.

Further homes are proposed using The Homes Factory timber frame system. This will reduce design lead times to site from around 14 weeks to just four for a typical residential development.

The consortium proposes an 88 sq m house within the £60k cost target. Each home is entered via an impressive double-height galleried atrium space that creates space and light from the clerestory roof window. A service wall allows the space to be used flexibly. The flats have two bedrooms of 3.5 sq m single span – allowing flexible use.

Countryside’s large £60k home incorporates excellent circulation space.

Horns Cross, Dartford.

George Wimpey plc

Oxley Park, Milton Keynes

Oxley Park, Milton Keynes

This development will be on a 3.26 ha site within the Milton Keynes and South Midlands Growth Area.

145 homes in total

56 homes to be constructed for £60k

43 affordable homes

Planning achieved

Start on site June 2006

PARTNERS

George Wimpey plc Richard Rogers Partnership

REGISTERED SOCIAL LANDLORD

Paradigm Housing Association

PROPOSED SUPPLY CHAIN PARTNER

Metek Building Systems (steel frame)

Wood Newton (panelised closed panel timber frame)

OTHER KEY PARTNERS

Anser Project Managers

Gillespies (landscape architects)

MDA (cost consultants)

NHBC (for warranty consultancy)

PRC (architects ecohomes consultants)

RYBKA M&E (consultants)

The George Wimpey/Richard Rogers Partnership proposed scheme will provide a well-designed urban realm, comprising a series of urban blocks and streets defined by vibrant and active architecture. The scheme illustrates a good hierarchy of space with a thorough understanding of public and private space incorporating communal gardens.

The design of the homes has been developed to be fabricated off-site as panelised or volumetric units, which will be bolted together on site.

The £60k homes recognise the importance of environmental sustainability and maximise the use of light and space. The homes include a pre-fabricated eco hat. This is a roof mounted lantern that combines low energy, whole-house ventilation and supplements heating systems with passive solar air warming.

The homes are designed to NHER 10. The design solution is a kit of parts that can be employed as required to reflect different lifestyles. The homes have excellent surveillance over the entrance and street – maximising the requirements in the brief for ‘Secured by Design’. No rear gardens, front open roads or paths and Milton Keynes policy of high car parking requirements are accommodated without the car dominating the street. On plot car ports and parking courts only serve six homes.

George Wimpey design provides an eco hat and good views of the street.

The George Wimpey designs offer variety and interest.

Persimmon Homes

Former Park Prewett Hospital, Basingstoke

Former Park Prewett Hospital, Basingstoke

This development will be on a 3.52 ha former hospital site, part of English Partnerships’ Hospital Sites Programme, which makes best use of surplus public-sector land.

137 homes in total

42 homes to be constructed for £60k

47 affordable homes

Subject to planning

LEAD MEMBER

Persimmon Homes (using the bid by Westbury)

ARCHITECT

Broadway Malyan

REGISTERED SOCIAL LANDLORD Sovereign Housing Group

MAIN SUPPLY CHAIN PARTNER Space4 Ltd (advanced panelised timber frame manufacturer)

OTHER KEY PARTNERS

Entec UK Ltd (environmental and engineering consultants)

Salford Centre for Research and Innovation (project measurement)

Trench Farrow (project managers)

Persimmon Homes propose to use their Space4 advanced timber frame panel system on their development at Park Prewett in Basingstoke. The system is able to use a variety of cladding options and its modern construction method enables a whole range of homes and apartments to be easily built, delivering benefits in terms of time, cost and quality.

Also incorporated in the proposed scheme at Park Prewett is a second-generation Space4 product, which enables much greater flexibility of internal layout of a home. Thus, a dwelling on one footprint can be adapted by repositioning internal walls to respond to different lifestyle requirements.

Persimmon Homes is creating a new community, not simply innovative house types.

A two-bedroom starter home can be easily adapted to become a three bedroom, five person home for a family.

SixtyK Consortium – Crest Nicholson

Former Linton Hospital, Maidstone and Former Renny Lodge Hospital, Newport Pagnell

Former Linton Hospital, Maidstone

This development will be on a 3.9 ha former hospital site, part of English Partnerships’ Hospital Sites Programme, which makes best use of surplus public-sector land.

148 homes in total

45 homes to be constructed for £60k

38 affordable homes

Subject to planning

Former Renny Lodge Hospital, Newport Pagnell

This development will take place on a 1.0 ha former hospital site, also part of English Partnerships’ Hospital Sites Programme.

68 homes in total

45 homes to be constructed for £60k

38 affordable homes

Planning achieved

LEAD MEMBER

Crest Nicholson plc

ARCHITECT

Sheppard Robson

REGISTERED SOCIAL LANDLORD (LINTON)

Town and Country Housing Association REGISTERED SOCIAL LANDLORD (RENNYLODGE)

William Sutton

MAIN SUPPLY CHAIN PARTNER

Kingspan TEK

(manufacturer of Structural Insulated Panel System (SIPS) based on insulated core timber wall and roof panels)

OTHER KEY PARTNERS

ARUP

(structural engineer, highways and M&E)

Davis Langdon (quantity surveyor)

Macfarlane Wilder Landscape Architects

The SixtyK Consortium - Crest Nicholson’s home designs make use of a structural insulated panel system for the construction of walls and roofs for houses and apartments.

This form of construction supports the sustainable design of the units with the exposed soffits, cantilevered walls and pitched roofs improving solar shading.

At Renny Lodge, Kingspan TEK will carry out the design, manufacture and supply of primary superstructure. It will be delivered in ‘kit’ form that means only joint sealing and nailing will be required on site. ‘Lean construction’ processes and ‘just-in-time’ techniques will reduce waste in panel production and reduce plot build timescales.

All of the homes at Linton will include a pre-fabricated skylight roof lantern unit to help manage heat, make maximum use of solar gain and reduce energy consumption. The construction system has enabled the team to provide a range of house types, which will accommodate balconies, sun terraces, winter gardens and bay windows and provide potential for extensions, such as over garages.

The Kingspan SIPS system allowed open plan designs and light penetration from the roof lantern.

SixtyK Consortium - Crest Nicholson produced strong sustainable housing types with flexibility and adaptability to many urban settings.

William Verry/WeberHaus

Oxford Road, Aylesbury Vale and School Road, Hastings

Oxford Road, Aylesbury Vale

This development will be on a 1.42 ha site within the Milton Keynes and South Midlands Growth Area.

102 homes in total

40 homes to be constructed for £60k

30 affordable homes

Subject to planning

School Road, Hastings

This development will be on a steep 0.225 ha brownfield site overlooking the Ore Valley.

12 homes in total

5 homes to be constructed for £60k

3 affordable homes

Subject to planning

LEAD MEMBER

William Verry Ltd

ARCHITECT (AYLESBURYVALE)

Make with ACD landscape architects

ARCHITECT (HASTINGS)

Radley House Partnership

HOUSING PARTNER (AYLESBURYVALE)

Saxon Homes

MAIN SUPPLY CHAIN PARTNER

WeberHaus GmbH of Germany (manufacturing partner)

William Verry, working with Saxon Homes will use a German modular housing system by WeberHaus GmbH. This timber framed, panelised walling system will be used on both of the sites awarded. The panels come to site with windows, doors, and cladding and render already installed at the factory, ensuring a quick and clean assembly on site in a day.

This method of construction has been used throughout Europe for the past 50 years and with an EcoHomes rating of ‘83’ Excellent they promise to achieve one of the highest environmental performance ratings for new homes in the UK market. Testing in Germany promises substantial reductions on fuel bills.

The Aylesbury Vale site offers low-rise high-density terrace housing, gardens for all residents, intimate crescents, public space and minimal road space.

William Verry has proposed a more traditional layout for the small sloping triangular site in Hastings. They have created a new mews feature, with excellent views over the adjacent Ore Valley, whilst integrating with and being sympathetic to the surrounding environment.

The homes at Hastings will have access to outdoor space; balconies or roof terraces have been included along with potential future expansion of loft space in certain dwellings. All new homes on this development will benefit from achieving an EcoHomes Excellent rating.

The Aylesbury Vale layout cleverly adapts to the linear site, providing gardens abutting gardens and intimate local neighbourhoods in the crescents of the snaking low rise terrace.

The Hastings development offers balconies over car ports and high environmental standards.

CONSTRUCTION PROCESS

Costs are managed down not by specifying cheaply but by rationalising build.

Barratt , Upton G3 house construction.

DESIGN FOR MANUFACTURE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS: Manufacturing, Supply and Construction Programme

Lean Construction

Continuous Improvement

Supply Chain Management

Innovation Risk Management

Key Performance Indicators and Measurement

The competition brief did not stipulate that bidders should build homes using any particular construction method. So it enabled all types of traditional and Modern Methods of Construction (MMC) because it was feasible to create and develop innovative solutions, processes and even products to transform traditional construction methods. Two bidders, Westbury Homes and the Keepmoat Consortium did just that with the application of a ‘thin joint’ technology for traditional block and mortar construction. There were developments of off-site prefabricated foundation systems and even an on-site factory.

Buildings have to be flexible during their lifecycle entailing creativity and innovation at the design stage. Incorporating the ‘Egan’ principles of the integrated team requires involvement from the manufacturing supply chain at an early stage to inform the design process.

Bidders were encouraged to optimise the use of energy and water and reduce all forms of

pollution and waste,which required teams to research markets and identify supply chain partners with innovative products and processes.

Most entries chose to form a consortium,which included housing associations,members of the supply base and often manufacturers of housing systems as partners,including four such from Canada,Poland, Germany and Scandinavia.

CanadaAccent Homes/Ari Friedman and Kelsey/Allouette PolandCountryside/BUMA

GermanyWilliam Verry/WeberHaus

ScandinaviaScandinavian Log Cabins/Jorntra A

Case study

The Homes Factory for Countryside

The Homes Factory MMC supply to the Countryside Consortium is based on creating a field factory, a mobile facility on a development site where raw materials are received and completed components and systems are produced as they are required.The aim is to assemble the building under factory conditions,right next door.

The Super E® Partnership (Stage 2), using Canadian timber frame supply.

The Homes Factory for Countryside Consortium, Horns Cross, Dartford.

“The competition strengthened our engagement with Modern Methods of Construction.”

Josh Sutton

Project Manager Northern Edge consortium

Case study

Jarvis precast foundation Although not selected to proceed to Stage 3,the Atlas Consortium was commended for its technology.It developed a foundation system that minimised the need for extensive groundworks and preparation,based on a special single piece concrete base and floor beams.These were used in conjunction with bored or driven piles,produced off-site and delivered for assembly immediately prior to the panels for the building being received,greatly reducing time on site and overall cost of construction.

The Atlas bid closely related construction process with development cost to reduce time and overall costs.

The brief expected bidders to develop processes to ensure that all dwellings could be mortgaged and would be insurable.In addition,bidders were required to obtain National House-Building Council (NHBC),Zurich or equivalent EU building war ranty approvals.This required consortia and their

Distribution of proposed technologies

Analysis of proposed systemsPercentage of bids

■ Timber frame (closed panel)31%

■ Timber frame (open frame)21%

■ Use of pods (kitchen and bathroom)12%

■ Light steel frame12%

■ Traditional build10%

■ Volumetric6%

■ Structural Insulated Panel System6%

■ Polystyrene and steel2%

respective partners to have in place or develop a strategy and process to cover new product development and innovation risk.

Bidders invited to develop sites at Stage 3 were expected to assist in the development of data collection,and measurement and analysis of

KPIKPI Objective20032004

Health Measure and reduce our incident rate per thousand employees and & Safety contractors for all reportable injuries7.06.8

Measure and reduce our incident rate per thousand employees and contractors for major injuries1.32.1

Measure and highlight minimum hours of health and safety training required for site management personnel2020

Environment Measure and reduce the tonnage (t) produced per unit of housing completed9.7t9.6t

Measure and maximise the number of homes built on brownfield sites

(Government has set a target of 60% by 2008)67%68%

Measure and increase the percentage of waste segregated on site-83%

Measure and reduce the percentage of waste sent to landfill-35%

Measure and increase the percentage of waste recycled-65%

Customer Measure and increase the percentage of customers who would recommend Care us to friends and family

Measure and increase our overall customer care score as highlighted by customer questionnaire results

Employees Measure and improve staff satisfaction as highlighted by our bi-annual employee survey and measure the percentage of staff who rate us above average or one of the best companies they know or have worked for65%62%

Measure and reduce annual employee turnover22%20%

a range of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that,when applied to current industry benchmarks,will clearly demonstrate the level of improvement in quality, delivery and cost.

KPIs for measuring progress on development sites are to be drawn from:

Housing Forum

Housing Corporation

BRE CaliBRE

BRE Smartwaste

The learning from the analysis of the KPIs will be disseminated across the industry in future publications, national workshops and seminars and exhibitions.

Source: Housing Forum/Constructing Excellence measures were used in the evaluation of bids.

DESIGN FOR MANUFACTURE CRITERIA MANUFACTURING, SUPPLY AND CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMME

Bidders were asked to prepare formal time and activity based programmes for the complete design,procurement and construction phases and to include preliminaries and site attendances for the entire construction team.

Speed of build comparisons

WILLIAM VERRY/WEBERHAUS

All elements of walls,roof and ceilings are factory built in Germany and modular components are complete with insulation and wall finishing including doors,windows and M&E (mechanical and electrical);with each house watertight within the same day of assembly on site.Advice from Porsche Consulting helped supply chain efficiency.

KEEPMOAT (Stage 2)

The consortium proposed an end-to-end design and manufacture process which is controlled through the use of decision point gateways to ensure high-quality output and adherence to programme.

PERSIMMONHOMES/ WESTBURY

Drawing on the expertise of a leading automotive supplier to transfer a process improvement skill into their organisation, Westbury developed a system to assemble a house on site within five weeks.

This reduction in time was most evident when comparing traditional block and mortar shell assembly with off-site manufactured alternatives.The off-site approach mostly enabled assembly of a watertight structure and envelope on site in one or two days, enabling internal fit out to commence on day three and taking external cladding of the house off the critical path.

Submissions presented well thought out plans in terms of strengthening the degree of detail,particularly for resource planning which should lead to a more robust programme.It was noticeable that consortia or organisations that had proven experience of off-site construction and other Modern Methods of Construction were able to maximise efficiency and programme activities for concurrent working.Activities completed in parallel could greatly reduce the time taken from design to completion.

Space4 Factory supplying Persimmon Homes at Park Prewett, Basingstoke.

WeberHaus production leads to houses erected and watertight in a day.

“What we have tried to do on Design for Manufacture is genuinely innovative; we have not simply taken an established supply chain arrangement and repackaged it.”

Michael Hill Director of Countryside Properties

LEAN CONSTRUCTION

The brief defined Lean Construction as:

“The continuous process of eliminating waste,meeting or exceeding all customer requirements,focusing on the entire value stream and the pursuit of perfection in the execution of a constructed project.Lean Construction philosophy requires a continuous improvement focused on a value stream which responds directly to the needs of the customer. Improvement is,in part, accomplished by eliminating waste in the process.Lean Construction can therefore apply right across design, procurement and production processes.”Womack and Jones – Lean Thinking (1995).

SIXTYK CONSORTIUMCREST NICHOLSON

The design of the system utilises a volumetric service wall with fully integrated services to enable the innovative use of bathroom and kitchen pods,facilitating speed of assembly and ease of maintenance.

UK60K (Stage 2)

The consortium have developed strong relationships with Salford University to develop Lean Construction techniques.

BARRATT

The design of the homes is based on ‘invisible standardisation’and external customisation that optimises a small number of components to provide many different options and layouts.

FORWARD GROUP (Stage 2)

The proposed process in use across the integrated supply c hain utilises recognised Japanese manufacturing principles including the late configuration of finishes enabling accurate and timely delivery to site of volumetric modules.

Submissions tended to refer to Lean Construction and the definition in the brief.A key lesson arising from this is that firms could achieve greater efficiencies within their organisations if they were to implement the principles of Lean Construction as specific tools and techniques and defined processes.

Kingspan’s TEK2 panelised system for SixtyK Consortium - Crest Nicholson.

SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT

It was expected that the bidders would provide details of how the effectiveness of the integrated team would be measured and the extent of the benefits provided in relation to the delivery from the design to construction.

KEEPMOAT (Stage 2)

The consortium nominated their supply chain for all finishing trades.

ACCENT (Stage 2)

Supply base is involved in concurrent working practices across the various tiers,all practising partnering principles and open book costing.The panel supply from Canada is fully co-ordinated via site production call-off and sea container delivery.

KIER HOMES (Stage 2)

The lead member of the proposed consortium has a comprehensive Supply Chain Management process in place, featuring regular reviews and mutually agreed targets across a multi-tiered supply base,with appropriate feedback loops that inform the design process.

The competition asked that open book costing,target costing,supply chain mapping, partnering,gainshare mechanisms,problem escalation processes and co-located cross functional teams would be discussed in submissions.These issues were dealt with by bidders to varying levels.Some did not,or could not,provide information on the modern business processes.

“We have adopted a more partnering and less competition oriented approach to our supply chain.”

Tony Bunney Regional Business Development Manager Lovell Partnerships Ltd

Bidders with existing off-site supply partners better understood efficiency and cost control.

CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT

Bidders were invited to provide a method statement and supporting evidence detailing their approach to Continuous Improvement (CI) and how it would be implemented across projects and organisations in the extended supply chain.

CI is a business excellence concept originating from Japan where it is known as Kaizen.It is concerned with the constant focus on business objectives,learning what is wrong and what is right in a process,correcting processes, using external and internal validation and customer feedback.(See Constructing Excellence website www.constructingexcellence. org.uk).

Businesses with CI cultures make better partners and deal with customers better.

BARRATT

Across Barratt and the jointventure company Advance Housing there is a formal CI structure based on a Define, Measure,Analyse,Improve, Control cycle.

WILLIAM VERRY/WEBERHAUS

Manufacturing partner

WeberHaus sought the assistance of automotive sector company Porsche Consulting to assist them in setting up their production engineering and CI process which focuses on delivery of lean principles and year-on-year improvements in quality,delivery and cost.

OSBORNE (Stage 2)

They are a European Foundation for Quality Management Company and co-sponsors of the Bath University Agile Construction Initiative for construction CI.

TAYLOR WOODROW (Stage 2)

Across the company and immediate supply chain they operate a formal Project Ideas and Evolution Process based on analysing issues and concerns and seeking process and product solutions to them.

“Following on from the Client’s response to the Stage 2 submission,focus has been given by the team engaged in the supply of MMC on clarifying the current status of CI within the project.

“The review concluded that whilst all of the principles of CI strategies are upheld by the Company,…,many of the improvement methods and measurement techniques have not been linked together under a formal arrangement.It is (now) clearly recognised that by adopting a more rigorous approach to these,significant benefits can be realised at various levels of the business leading to more efficiency,less waste,improved safety,higher levels of customer satisfaction together with better value and quality within the whole supply chain.

“It is acknowledged that the competition has raised the awareness of these important issues and enabled us to review our business tools and techniques with a view to enhancing them to become a dynamic part of our business.”

English Partnerships sought evidence of formal CI processes and allocated resources from bidders.In some circumstances the detail was lacking whilst others such as Barratt,SixtyK Consortium - Crest Nicholson and William Verry’s partner Weberhaus,seemed to have embraced CI throughout their organisations.An observation arising from the competition is that CI is predominantly a reactive response in many

organisations,based on a problem to solve or a request from a client,whereas in other sectors such as food retailing,consumer electronics and automotive,CI is seen as proactively planned strategic methodology designed systematically to eliminate all forms of waste.This continually provides improved performance in quality,shorter delivery times and reduced cost of output year-on-year.

SixtyK Consortium - Crest Nicholson, Renny Lodge bid

“We are also endeavouring to produce dwelling types and layouts which are… highly efficient for manufacture and assembly, thereby minimising wastage and unnecessary cutting of materials.”

Dennis Seal Managing Director Kier Partnership Homes

INNOVATION RISK MANAGEMENT

Bidders were expected to produce a statement or schedule which clearly identified the measures proposed for testing new products and processes through an Innovation and Risk Management protocol.

PERSIMMON HOMES (Stage 2)

The bid said the company has a research and development centre for Modern Methods of Construction products.

KEEPMOAT (Stage 2)

The consortium has a development programme with Loughborough University to study and evaluate information relating to off-site and modular construction.

GEORGE WIMPEY

The first houses built at Oxley Park,Milton Keynes,will be the show homes built as the working prototype for the development.

In the main,bidders provided adequate information and demonstrated processes that covered construction risk. Certification,mortgageability and insurability were provided for in proposals that utilised existing methods,products and materials.But where new technologies and systems were proposed,in particular where consortia had elected to use suppliers from outside the UK,it was apparent in some cases that formal processes for Innovation Risk could be strengthened. English Partnerships had to seek written confirmation from several bidders that insurability and mortgageability could be provided.Failure to satisfy this requirement may necessitate changes to the constitution of winning consortia and their supply chains.It is possible that changes to the proposed construction methods could occur not only due to lending and insurance issues but also as a result of technical and contractual negotiations that may be occurring at the time of writing this publication.

“Our suppliers Metek Building systems have developed new finishes (claddings) to buildings, not previously used.”

Josh Sutton Project Manager Northern Edge consortium

Persimmon Homes Space4 module (Stage 2 commended bid).

Persimmon Homes construction (Stage 2 commended bid).

Persimmon Homes bathroom pod (Stage 2 commended bid).

HOW MUCH HOME CAN YOU GET FOR £60,000?

COUNTING THE PENNIES

Mortgage money has been cheap for a decade. The Halifax’s lending rate averaged 6.7 per cent from 1997-2001 and then 4.89 per cent from 2002-2005. This created the climate of confidence for house buyers to buy new homes and upgrade existing ones through renovation and extension. That in turn has driven demand such that build costs first outstripped and then began to accelerate beyond other inflation indicators:

■ Over the last 10 years building costs rose 70 per cent while retail prices rose 30 per cent.

■ Over the last five years building costs rose 40 per cent while retail prices rose 15 per cent.

Recent data by EC Harris and Savills estimate that increases in build cost to 2014 will run at around 5 per cent a year whilst house values are set to rise only 3.5 per cent a year (Property Week, 13.04.06).

The drivers behind price rises are complex but availability of labour has been significant. Several housebuilders have tried to limit their dependence on skilled trades: both the number of persons and the number of hours each works per home. Those that have not tackled labour costs are perhaps looking to materials manufacturers that have been developing innovative variants to reduce labour charges incurred on site and, in some cases, the need for skills and years of experience. This happened first with plasterboard and push fit plumbing, and is now spreading to masonry with large format blockwork, panels of brick slips and clay rainscreen systems and electrical works with plug-and-play wiring.

The other response – the cynical one – is to give customers less for their money: tiny starter homes as small as 38 sq m, that cost more per square metre to purchase yet achieve no construction cost savings. Sadly, that response in UK housebuilding is all too common. The Design for Manufacture Competition sought to change all that.

Fig 1 Building costs and inflation

In organising a competition that concentrated on cost as well as design, English Partnerships and the Government have given impetus to these initiatives and helped promote the possibilities to a much wider audience.

The target cost of £60k is challenging relative to the standards of specification and design contained in English Partnerships’ competition brief. Consequently English Partnerships investigated the robustness of the submitted costs to establish the reasonableness against existing cost data in order to verify that winning bids were in fact replicable. In addition, analysis of the non-£60k homes was undertaken to ensure that they were complying with the same cost efficiency and that there was no cross-subsidy involved in achieving the target cost.

DEFINING THE TARGET

The competition brief specified that the target cost included:

■ The cost of each home superstructure as supplied/delivered, constructed/erected and fully finished on site ready for occupation and use.

■ Provision for the cost of standard foundations.

■ Provision of the service connection points and services provided within each home included in the proposal.

■ Design costs, preliminaries, fees, overheads and profit attributed to each home.

Excluded from the costs were:

■ Additional costs of dealing with any site abnormals such as demolition, land remediation works and any extra depth or other non-standard foundation treatments (other than those intrinsic to the standard proposal), removal and disposal of contaminated material and importation of clean fill.

■ Landscaping, boundary, car parking provision, roads and sewerage provision costs, access and amenity provision and any plot/scheme finishing treatments other than are specifically relevant to the direct development costs of the home superstructure.

■ Any requirements imposed (such as by planning briefs or Design Codes) which go substantially beyond the provision of the defined minimum standards expressed in the brief.

■ Development finance, sales and marketing costs.

A minimum of 30 per cent of the homes were required to be constructed for £60k each, or less. These homes had to have a minimum gross internal floor area available for occupancy and use of not less than 76.5 sq m, which equates to Housing Corporation scheme development standards for a two-bedroom home for four occupants. Several bidders beat this cost barrier whilst also providing larger homes up to 88 sq m.

(Source: BCIS Tender Price Index and General Index of Retail Prices)

SETTING THE CONTEXT

Figures 2 and 3 above show the distribution of cost per square metre of a Building Cost Information Service (BCIS) sample of recent housing and flats schemes compared with the £60k target of £784 per square metre. The vertical axis shows the number of homes and horizontal axis the cost per square metre ranges.

The BCIS survey adjusted to match competition requirements suggests that only 40 per cent of houses and 20 per cent of all flats would fall within this cost. So the competition target was challenging but attainable. But the competition is very definitely not about reducing the specification of homes to reach lower build costs, as can be seen with the inclusion of various design and sustainability features in the brief e.g. Lifetime Homes and EcoHomes. The expectation was that even when designing to a tight budget, rationalised construction arising from closer working with the supply chain would improve value.

STAGE 2 COMPETITION BIDS

At Stage 2 some bidders failed to meet the cost target set out in the brief. Others passed the cost criteria with flying colours but unfortunately did not meet other criteria – especially urban and house type design quality and deliverability.

All the proposals that met the £60k criterion offered at least 30 per cent of the units for this price. Again some that failed to proceed scored highly on this criterion, because of house type and urban design limitations. The Forward Group and GENTECTHomes offered at least 50 per cent of homes under £60k –a remarkable achievement.

One of the Stage 2 commended bidders, GENTECT Homes, demonstrated excellent cost savings way above other bidders.

Fig 2 Survey of houses (Based on a survey of BCIS data adjusted for coverage and fees)

Fig 3 Survey of flats (Based on a survey of BCIS data adjusted for coverage and fees)

Figure 4 shows the spread of cost for the £60k homes in the Stage 2 bids.

GENTECTHomes Stage 2 bid.

STAGE 3 COMPETITION BIDS

All Stage 3 participants met the £60k target. All but one met or exceeded the 30 per cent requirement for £60k homes in the development. Where a bid did not meet this standard then the consortium either changed their proposal or were not awarded a site.

The cost of the £60k homes in the winning submissions ranged from just over £57,000 to £60,000. This represents a 5 per cent range. A £3,000 saving on an individual home is significant.

PRESENTATION AND BASIS OF COSTS

All bidders were required to present costs in an elemental breakdown for each unit type and identify the costs for the £60k homes so that comparisons could be made. Most bidders attempted this. In some cases these appeared to be notional costs. For the proposals using off-site manufacture, the costs of the manufactured units had to be allocated between elements. This led to some large variations in costs between schemes at the element level. There was a greater degree of consistency at the group element level such as superstructure, substructure and services.

RICS Business May

Figure 5 shows the cost of the £60k homes in the winning submissions.

Fig 4 Cost of £60k units in Stage 2 submissions

Fig 5 Cost of £60k house in winning submissions

“The competition will be for the best home for the price, and it will be about ‘designing up’ rather than ‘designing down’ to meet the financial constraints.

Joe Martin – BCIS

2005

GROUP ELEMENT COST COMPARISONS

Group element costs (substructure, superstructure, etc) from the winning submissions are very similar to general housing but there are minor differences:

■ Competition costs excluded abnormals (costs arising from difficult ground conditions which affect in particular brownfield sites) so would be expected to be lower than a sample of actual schemes.

■ The higher proportion of superstructure and lower amount of services in the competition schemes may result from the level of off-site manufacture in the winning schemes. Off-site manufacturing, as product substitution, tends to be more expensive but does not necessarily result in more expensive schemes as savings are made from the increased speed of construction. There may also have been some difficulty in allocating costs where manufactured parts, such as ‘living walls’, included services.

Figure 6 shows the average group elemental breakdown of the winning Stage 3 bids and a breakdown from a large number of housing schemes.

The pattern of costs for the individual winning bids was fairly consistent. The superstructure costs for the schemes with a high level of off-site construction are higher but are distributed throughout the range of total costs.

Figure 7 compares the cost per square metre costs for each element from the nine winning bids to enter Stage 3.

PRELIMINARIES, OVERHEADS, PROFIT AND DESIGN FEES

The £60k target required the inclusion of the costs of preliminaries, overheads and profit, and design fees. All bidders generally complied but did not always show them separately from elemental costs. Some bidders included much of these costs across the building work elements.

Generally contractors’ fees on design-build schemes average 2 per cent and client’s consultants’ fees 8 per cent. The fees shown in winning bids ranged from 2.5 per cent to 9 per cent but in two instances were included in the building work costs.

Bidders were provided with a detailed template for preliminary costs (the site set up and management costs of the project), which made it clear what costs to include in the bid. Few priced it in detail. Preliminaries as a percentage of building work ranged from 6 per cent to 27 per cent. This again demonstrates how some costs were included in building works.

In most cases profit and overheads were not shown separately. Where they were, they ranged from a little more than 1 per cent to 13 per cent. The lower the percentage, the more likely that some profit and overhead were in the building cost elements.

Fig 6 Comparison of winners and general housing (Taken from the BCIS study of average group element costs for estate housing)

ANALYSIS OF PRICE AND SUCCESS IN OTHER CRITERIA

There seemed to be no particular correlation between the construction cost and the success in the other evaluation criteria.

Evaluation Criteria

■ Urban design

■ House type

■ Costing information

■ Manufacture & construction

■ Whole Life Costs & performance in use

■ Continuous improvement approach

■ Innovation risk management

■ Sustainability approach

■ Replicability

Analysis of the winning bids for each site has shown that the majority of winning bidders scored highest for ‘House Type’ and ‘Replicability’ (i.e. the repeatability of the system and process), supporting the emphasis put on design quality and its potential for roll-out beyond the competition.

Further analysis shows that putting cost focus first did not help consortia win sites. However, the quality of the costing information provided; the emphasis put on Whole Life Costs and performance in use; the approach of the winning consortium to CI and the urban design context of the homes all appear to have been given similar high weighting by the judging panel.

It should, nevertheless, be emphasised that the decision on the finalists for each site was not only assessed on the information given on the above criteria at the stage of submitting a written proposal, but was also supplemented by information provided by English Partnerships on local issues appertaining to particular sites. The deliberations and final decision of the judging panel were based on all these factors, as well as on the results of the interview process itself.

CONCLUSIONS

■ The pattern of costs for winning bids was similar to those in general housebuilding but consistently lower than the norm and at a significantly higher specification and quality.

■ Innovation has been achieved within the challenging cost target set.

■ Strong focus on house type and replicability were key to being allocated sites – not just cost. (Three of the nine winners participating in Stage 3 were not allocated sites).

Fig

Winning bids £/sq m group elements (£ per sq m with preliminaries, profit and overheads, and fees allocated by cost)

MAKING PLACES OUT OF PRODUCT

Stage 2 bidders had to illustrate their proposals within the context of the Milton Keynes Oxley Park site. Most competitors struggled to create interesting and continuous streetscapes, accommodate car parking or deal with Secured by Design. Moving on to Stage 3 of the competition, a step change was required to apply architectural concepts to real sites. It required a full understanding of urban design.

Urban design is about grouping together buildings, spaces and landscapes to create a unique and identifiable place. It is often thought that construction efficiency means standardisation and in turn uniformity and monotony. The challenge of the competition from a design perspective was to prove that good urban design and construction efficiency – art and science – were not mutually exclusive.

Bidding consortia were asked to respond to detailed design requirements of sites ranging from small and medium sized infill sites at Hastings and Aylesbury Vale, to specific phases of development within larger schemes such as Upton and Allerton Bywater where existing Design Codes were in place. Design statements accompanied all bids. Design statements were also used to justify and illustrate deviations from briefs or codes where the design teams believed their approach optimised the potential of the site to a greater extent than the brief or code, such

as at Aylesbury Vale and Oxley Park, where the contemporary was accepted over the more vernacular brief and code.

The challenge posed by each brief or code required the input of skilled design professionals, a multidisciplined team involved in the art of urban design including engineers, landscape architects, planners, public artists and architects, skilled in the art of place making. The value of good designers was most evident in the William Verry/ WeberHaus submissions, where the employment of two creative teams saw them transform their efficient concepts into exciting designs that met local needs and took maximum advantage of the features of individual sites. In doing so they secured preferred developer status at Hastings and Aylesbury Vale. High-density housing was achieved in Design for Manufacture – mainly by efficient plot use. The William Verry/WeberHaus proposals at Aylesbury Vale will achieve 72 homes per hectare, mostly via houses – with all homes having a garden or share of garden.

English Partnerships uses Design Codes where appropriate to improve quality and speed up planning on larger projects and to help maintain clarity and consensus between phases of development. The use of Design Codes divides opinion, however the competition proved that a variety of positive solutions could be derived from codes when used by talented and creative designers. Where codes were flexible enough to accommodate variations, they improved the overall design. Allerton Bywater is a good example of how Design Codes can challenge architects to be uniquely creative yet link to the overall development. Richard Rogers Partnership challenged the Oxley Park Design Code’s detailing of character and materials, but kept within the urban design framework that tied the competition phase of the development with the rest of the development.

Proposals have extracted an appropriate rhythm and colours from the local context, however they have been re-interpreted in a contemporary way using modern materials.

APPRECIATING THE CONTEXT

The site briefs and Design Codes highlighted key project objectives, as well as site constraints and planning restrictions which consortia had to deal with.

Schemes were assessed according to how well they had understood the brief and how creatively they overcame constraints.

Several entries made impressive detailed assessments of the local context with photographic analysis showing the qualities of towns and villages in the area, which influenced the design proposals without resorting to pastiche.

A sweeping curve of glass and stone overlooks the sustainable urban drainage system at Allerton Bywater, and acts as a gateway into the Millennium Community, clearly announcing a new type of development within the Yorkshire village (Barratt).

IDENTITY

Good urban design involves working with existing urban fabric. This does not mean encouraging imitation, rather the promotion of familiar built forms, the reinstatement of historic routes and an identification of uniqueness.

Many submissions successfully exploited existing physical and landscape features; difficult site topographies were exploited to create imaginative and unique places.

The submissions were full of imaginative proposals for introducing variety and 21st Century images to the street, whilst still remaining appropriate to the historic local context.

A study of Georgian/Victorian Northampton indicating an appropriate rhythm and proportions for development. Close scrutiny of local building materials, helped identify an appropriate palette of materials (Barratt).

The industrial legacy of existing gasometer that dominates the Aylesbury Vale site has been celebrated, and formed the inspiration for the sinuous and dynamic site layout (William Verry/WeberHaus).

The steep topography of the site at Hastings has been exploited to create an interesting and dynamic silhouette onto the adjacent streetscape (William Verry/WeberHaus).

STRUCTURE AND LAYOUT

Places should be easy to get to both physically and visually. Users should always be aware of where they are, where they want to be and how to get there, using legible markers to connect one place to another.

Proposals have generally followed urban block principles outlined in the English Partnerships’ Urban Design Compendium, with streets being punctuated by a hierarchy of spaces, each with a distinct character.

Orientation into and through schemes have been enhanced by locating distinct landmark buildings at the most important corners. This has been achieved by terminating views with feature buildings or existing features, and by using colour, material and height to distinguish them from their surroundings.

The principal corner of the site on Crawley Road and London Road has been punctuated by an additional storey height and a glazed clerestory in the SixtyK Consortium - Crest Nicholson bid.

The existing church at Linton has been used by SixtyK Consortium - Crest Nicholson as a gateway feature, and to enclose the entrance space within the site, exploiting character and aiding orientation.

Barratt’s changing of the roof profile, and using strong colours, which contrast with the remainder of the street, announce important corners at Upton.

MIX OF TYPES AND TENURES

Good place making promotes a variety of uses and users to stimulate vitality and variety throughout the day. Site briefs required competitors to avoid ghettos of dwellings in terms of types and tenure.

Competitors managed to weave together different building forms, uses, tenures and densities within sites creating visual interest to the streetscape and encouraging a greater social mix throughout. Affordable homes and £60k units for sale were provided throughout the entire site in small clusters.

The potential of mixed use throughout the sites is limited due to the scale of proposals, however, every opportunity has been taken to encourage its potential over time, through innovative solutions such as higher ceilings at ground level, space above garages, and home offices.

A view down a typical street includes houses and apartments of varying sizes at Renny Lodge, Newport Pagnell. Social housing units and £60k homes are indistinguishable from their neighbours in the SixtyK Consortium - Crest Nicholson bid.

Illustrations highlight the potential for exploiting the space above garages to provide home working space, which will in turn animate the street during the day. George Wimpey/Richard Rogers, Oxley Park, Milton Keynes.

“The competition will produce some long term tangible benefits providing vibrant communities.”

Gleeson Regeneration Ltd

Barratt’s proposals fronting the village square at Allerton Bywater have high floor to ceiling heights, which allow use for commercial purposes when demand increases.

SECURED BY DESIGN

Some 70 per cent of people interviewed in a recent study (Quality of Life, University of Strathclyde) indicated that crime and fear of crime attributed to their assessment of their quality of life. The competition explored methods to help foster a sense of safety through design by maximising natural surveillance, creating defensible space, and encouraging community interaction.

The challenge is to balance the privacy required within the dwelling with the need to contribute vitality to the streetscape. Competitors clearly understood the relationship between inside and outside, letting light flow into the homes through bay windows and glazed corners, while allowing homeowners to view the street and its activity.

Blank streets were designed out, and a continuity of streetscape maintained, with windows to all sides. Large balconies encourage people to sit out during the day, providing vigilance when many people are not at home.

Balconies and terraces to all homes, located at corners help provide surveillance over communal spaces and the street. William Verry/WeberHaus, Hastings.

The kitchens of the £60k home projects into the street, and together with first floor balconies help encourage natural surveillance. Northern Edge consortium of housing associations were commended for this innovation.

Glazed corners at the threshold to homes, help the occupiers see who is coming in advance of opening front doors. George Wimpey/Richard Rogers, Oxley Park, Milton Keynes.

Building Review of the Year

16 December 2005

DEFENSIBLE SPACE

Most successful bidders understood the need to separate public from private spaces. One concept achieved this through the architecture of a dividing wall between houses and flats.

Most of the winning Stage 3 bids opted for some planted borders between the footpaths and house frontages to maintain reasonable privacy.

Homezones at Allerton Bywater are conceived as outdoor space where neighbours can get to know each other and children are encouraged to play. Northern Edge responded well to this brief.

COMMUNITY INTERACTION

Through the design of streets, squares and homezones, many approaches have used the space between buildings in a positive way, accommodating the movement and parking of vehicles while promoting the space for people to interact.

All winning schemes have provided highquality hard and soft landscaping within the heart of developments, which encourages people to get to know their neighbours, which in turn fosters a sense of community and sense of safety – where people are aware of who are visitors and who are residents.

“That £60k house, promoted this year through English Partnerships’ Design for Manufacture Competition, can’t come soon enough.”

Public hard edge of access roads, courts and parking are kept to the front of dwellings and are clearly separated from private green space using the sinuous wall of housing. William Verry/WeberHaus had a very efficient approach to this linear site.

PUBLIC REALM AND LANDSCAPE

Winning competitors have optimised the potential of sites, exploiting innate characteristics and natural climatic assets. Amenity values have been maximised and environmental impact minimised.

The major strategic and detailed contribution from the landscape architects to the projects was refreshing. Their input to the environmental planning, hard surface detailing and development of green street frontages lifted many entries.

Public realm has been a key design generator rather than an after thought; children’s play areas have become the focus of many sites rather than being something remote or hidden.

Successful implementation is dependent on quality of ground preparation, specification of stock and enough maintenance to ensure survival in our increasingly dry conditions.

The skill of the landscape architects has been exploited to create integrated streetscapes incorporating roads, pavements, parking, play and street furniture into one seamless design. SixtyK Consortium - Crest Nicholson, Linton, Maidstone.

The use of green ‘growing walls’ and eco hats enhance the streetscape. High-quality road materials suggest a pedestrian and cyclist friendly environment. George Wimpey/Richard Rogers, Oxley Park, Milton Keynes.

“Our unsuccessful Stage 2 bid led us to fundamentally re-examine our approach to urban design.”

Dennis Seal, Managing Director Kier Partnership Homes

William Verry/WeberHaus, Oxford Road, Aylesbury Vale.

STREET AND CAR PARKING

The needs of pedestrians and cyclists were generally well catered for in the final winning schemes, with appropriate constraints on the car. A wide range of ideas were explored to reduce the impact of cars on the environment and reduce their speed to make shared surfaces safe in use.

A poor response to car parking layout in Stage 2 of the competition was overcome with many interesting and appropriate responses in Stage 3.

Competitors were challenged to reduce the impact of parked cars on streets while allowing residents to have convenient access from car to home. Garages have been recessed well behind the building line and house frontages have been pulled close to pavement in many cases.

On-street car parking has been encouraged; well designed and integrated to the street without dominating it. The impact of parked cars has been reduced by the use of street trees. Empty spaces are less obvious when they are constructed of high-quality materials such as granite setts.

Rear car parking courts have been discouraged, and kept small at six spaces where possible.

The inclusion of wide frontage units, with the option of living spaces on the first floor is a useful aid to layout. They help to achieve economic enclosed courtyards with parking overlooked by living spaces.

High-quality road and paving materials help to control parking without resorting to kerbs and tarmac. Street trees and furniture help to animate the street in the Persimmon Homes proposals for Park Prewett, Basingstoke.

Space above garages can be used as roof terraces or adapted at a later stage for additional accommodation, reducing the impact of cars. William Verry/WeberHaus, Hastings.

Double fronted house units allow car parking to be kept close to the home at the side, maximising convenience but also allowing an active streetscape. Northern Edge, Allerton Bywater, near Leeds.

THE INFLUENCE OF CONSORTIA THINKING ON

DESIG

Property development is too often done in silos. A developer employs a contractor to build an architect’s design using a construction method chosen on price. The architect designs to planning rather than the construction stage. Developers complain that architects don’t think enough about how their designs will be built. Manufacturers complain that the potential of their systems are rarely exploited because the technology is shoehorned into a design predating the choice of construction method. The Design for Manufacture Competition sought to bring down these barriers.

Background image: George Wimpey/Richard Rogers, Oxley Park.

The Design for Manufacture Competition sought to break down the barriers within the development process by asking developer,consultant and building materials supplier to come together to maximise each others potential.The competition encouraged consortia.The brief called for clear evidence of supply chain involvement in the design. How the homes would be built was treated with equal weighting to design which led to a distinction between this and other competitions,where the response focuses exclusively on the choice of the architect.

This was most evident in analysis of the Stage 3 bids for each individual site when evidence of close working between client, design team and supply chain were looked for.

Barratt owns a 50 per cent share in its chosen supplier,Advance Housing Ltd.It has existing products to offer,but asked HTA Architects to rework them.During evaluation,it was clear the consultant had spent enough time with Advance to understand how to exploit its panelised construction,updating the existing plan types called Generation 1(G1) to deal with the Design Codes at Allerton Bywater and Upton and adding a G2 and a G3,which proposed plans with upper floor living accommodation and even a mezzanine level offering more space and natural daylight.The client and presenting architects developed a phased construction programme which took account of the time required to rejig the factory for a new house type.So G2 was proposed as an intermediary step until a G3 was feasible.Design for Manufacture therefore pushed forward Barratt’s existing innovation investment.

“The 76.5 sq m requirement enabled us to introduce design features that would enhance the internal layouts, quality of space and natural ventilation.”

SixtyK Consortium - Crest Nicholson

Barratt’s architects, HTA, included a side-fronted version of the £60k home producing excellent plot efficiency.

In the same vein,relations between PCKO Architects,Countryside Properties, Hyde Housing and the Krakov-based volumetric manufacturer BUMA Free-dom SA,which predate the competition,gave the consortium confidence to develop what they already knew.This resulted in further efficiencies in the construction such as the concept of ‘the golden span’, the 3.5m width module,a dimension selected for efficiency.Their experience of designing apartment blocks also led to the emergence of a £60k studio house. Between Stages 2 and 3,construction of this house was improved as the team learned that instead of stacking two modules on top of each other front to back in deep-plan terraced units,they could turn the first floor modules at right angle to cross-span a run of three terraced units. This meant the module had to be increased in length from 11.4m to 14.7m but for every seven houses the consortia were now buying five first floor modules instead of seven first floor units (see image above).For the consumer,the gap between the upper floor modules created a non-structural infill which can be glazed to daylight below, solving one of the drawbacks of deep-plan terraced units.

Consultant architect Sheppard Robson Architects,engineer Arup and cost consultant Davis Langdon had been developing a six to 10-storey steel frame housing system for the metal panel division of Kingspan at the time of the competition’s launch.Kingspan had also been consolidating its housing operations by bringing its TEK SIPS manufacturing operation into the same business unit to target two to four-storey developments and so asked the same group of consultants to enter the competition.Sheppard Robson then invited Crest Nicholson to join them while Kingpsan accelerated the development of its second generation SIPS,TEK2.So by the time of the Stage 3 Maidstone bids,the design team were achieving EcoHomes Excellent ratings with an updated SIPS which informed much of the design.The structural integrity of the SIPS allowed the design team to cantilever panels.Several house types do this with the roof,and nearly all also create volumetric spaces beneath its exposed soffit.This sense of space is further developed in the £60k home by the use of the roof lantern which lights a central stair well.There are also large roof overhangs to the front of the £60k home offering significant shelter and shading and the party wall is expressed,a detail which conceals the rainwater goods.

In the tender evaluations for the individual sites,the consortia outperformed the single supply bidders.This was particularly evident with the William Verry and WeberHaus bids where the addition of consultant architects,in the case of Make for William Verry’s Aylesbury Vale bid,remodelled the supply chain types to create a potential landmark.

But all these consortia’s advances would still usually be exposed to the landowner,therefore accepting a bid without regard to issues of quality,such as space standards or energy efficiency.Here English Partnerships insisted that bids conjoined both design and financial criteria.

“The design approach developed to suit multiple technologies has produced real advantages in terms of flexibility of approach to construction.”

Michael Hill Director Countryside Properties

Two basic house types at over 88 sq m and 76.5 sq m by Countryside Consortium, Horns Cross. Option for a small third bedroom/study where the straight flight stair is used.

WHAT WILL THE HOUSES BE LIKE TO LIVE IN?

There were several themes appearing in more than one design that offered attractive variations on how most homes perform today.

The most visible change was the proposal for first-floor living.This has long been common in three and four storey properties,such as the piano nobile in grander town houses:designs had this in two-storey houses.Although not to everyone’s tastes there are advantages such as light and views. The Allerton Bywater site even sought to elicit these in the brief and Design Code so that occupants would have a panoramic vista from the crescent.

There is also a benefit to urban design of first floor living as occupants see more of the street from a raised level,which helps to protect pedestrians and cars.Some people prefer to sleep on a floor higher than ground level especially single occupancy households.The reverse side of this,according to estate agents,is the property type always in short supply:the bungalow.

The other advantage of first floor living is natural light.Very simply,you get more light as you climb from the ground:away from shadows,trees or buildings.Many architects put lights into the roof to flood the room,with fenestration at an angle in line with the average roof pitch,allowing much more light in than windows perpendicular to the ground.Fixing lights in the pitch of the roof allows the use of roof panels or purlins rather than trussed or attic rafters.In turn this allows the roof soffit to go into the ceiling creating room heights climbing to the full height of sheltered space.The mix of light and additional headspace will flatter any room dimension and in the case of the homes where minimum dimensions had already been specified in the brief,will increase the sense of generous spatial provision.

Two of the designs also used eco hats or lanterns in a variation on the roof light.In the case of the SixtyK Consortium - Crest Nicholson £60k house,this extended to natural lighting in a central stairwell which divided bedroom from bedroom at first floor and living room from kitchen/dining room at ground.Entering a house not to find the stair access immediately to left or right will be a surprise to many.But the design is one of several concerned with circulation in smaller houses.Journeys within the home between rooms should be short and direct,but pleasant. Putting the stairs centrally within a lightwell will make it an experience.

Persimmon Homes deployed technology with no internal structural walls and flexibility in building regulations and fire controls gained by sprinkler systems to allow flexible adaptation of the £60k home – “a home that grows with you.”

ADAPTABLE/FLEXIBLE PLANS

Initially conceived in the 1960s,the adaptable house is alive and well with MMC technology reinvigorating the possibilities.Designs in this competition illustrate how a house can change over the life cycle of the family or respond to markets and demographic change.Add on components are realistic options if manufacturers can sustain long-term development and availability.These are homes that ‘grow with you’and are responsive to the demands of future generations.

Terraces over garages can be infilled to provide an extra bedroom/bath. Plan gives flexible options on the second floor. William Verry/WeberHaus, Hastings.

Shows a range of additional components for bays, bin stores, winter gardens and a garage/living extensions. Sheppard Robson for SixtyK Consortium - Crest Nicholson, Renny Lodge, Newport Pagnell.

Kit of parts proposed for extra bedroom, office/conservatory, terrace and carport. George Wimpey/Richard Rogers, Oxley Park, Milton Keynes.

2ACOUSTIC PRIVACY AND CIRCULATION SPACE

House plans need to recognise the noise levels created by different generations as part of family life.Acoustically separated spaces to allow noisy activities in one area without disturbing concentration in another are harder to achieve with open plans and double height spaces.Some schemes addressed this problem with careful layouts and others achieved reasonable sound reduction by using heavier doors and airseals to bedrooms.

Small houses cannot afford wasteful circulation areas. These need to be minimal spaces which address the practical issues of noise and draught lobbying.They should also be pleasurable spaces to move through.

The enclosed staircase allows acoustic separation between ground and first floors.

Also possible to achieve some reduction with sliding screens between living room and dining room.

George Wimpey/Richard Rogers, Oxley Park, Milton Keynes.

In the George Wimpey/Richard Rogers home, the organisation of flat and monopitched roof forms provides high-quality day lighting and provides clerestory lighting to first floor spaces.

3

DAYLIGHTING AND ECO/LANTERN DESIGN

Good daylighting has not been helped in recent years because of the obsession with past cottage styles,featuring small, badly sited windows.Several designs in the competition show the value of combining top and side lighting in key living areas.Flat panel methods have helped the reintroduction of the clerestory window.Difficult to curtain and clean,but a valuable way of lighting inclined ceilings.

Metro Type A Illustrates the daylighting quality generated by the rooflight over the central gallery. Penetrates to ground floor. PCKO design for Countryside Consortium, Horns Cross, Dartford.

4

IMPACT OF TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION METHODS ON PLANS

Some plans have been well organised around the concept of grouped services on the party walls.These service zones are also occupied by kitchen fittings and equipment as well as bedroom cupboards on the first floor.They make sensible provision for future upgrades with new technology.The zone also addresses the environmental challenge of the recycling bins and façade meters,too often seen on street frontages.

Very workable innovative schemes could be achieved by designing them from the start with full knowledge of the applicable technology.Factory-assembled grouped services and new methods of dealing with ventilation,solar heating and cooling were well integrated into the plans,which improve their performance without compromising amenity.There were many illustrations of very enjoyable spaces to live in.

Rational plans with serviced spaces and equipment grouped on party walls. George Wimpey/Richard Rogers.

Concept sketch for mechanical and electrical off-site fabrication. Sheppard Robson for SixtyK Consortium - Crest Nicholson.

‘Living wall’ accommodates horizontal and vertical services and ventilation system. PCKO design for Countryside Consortium, Horns Cross, Dartford.

5

DETAILED DESIGN

Competition entries show the value of multi-disciplinary group submissions covering strategic and detailed design. Results included an impressive range of fresh ideas which could not have been adequately covered in a quick summary. To achieve the qualities suggested by the entrants the designers needed to continue their role in the ‘detailed design’ stages and possibly beyond.There is wider recognition of the benefit of this input beyond planning consent to achieve the objectives.

More ‘add on’ predesigned components, including corner windows. George Wimpey/Richard Rogers.

Some ideas included: Strip rooflights in bathroom for sun and moonlight. George Wimpey/Richard Rogers.

Car ports with planted ‘green gates’ to the frontage George Wimpey/Richard Rogers.

Uplighting at front doors with mirrored canopies to reflect light for entrance path at night. George Wimpey/Richard Rogers.

Restatement of the modelling value of deep window reveals. George Wimpey/ Richard Rogers.

Consideration of Lifetime

detail,

6 ACCESSIBILITY

There was a wide variation in the response to the brief requirement for reasonable standards of accessibility.Some schemes committed to Lifetime Homes standards and consultation with the Centre for Accessible Environments. Too few considered what it would be like to live there with any mobility or visual impairment.

The Times (Bricks & Mortar)

10 February 2006

Homes

showing reinforced handrail for heavier use by wheelchair bound.

Shows consideration of Lifetime Homes, wheelchair access in a home which adapts to mobility and life cycle of its occupants. HTA Architects for Barratt.

“The competition has pushed developers to think creatively about design and construction methods.”

Savings can be made with cross span modules at first floor (over three frontages) using infills for floor and roof. Countryside/PCKO.

7

VOLUMETRIC AND PANELISED TECHNOLOGY

Factory assembled modules for each floor with options for the roof – flat,mono or duo pitch – featured in many submissions.To gain real benefits from continuous production lines reductions in the wide variety of plan types would be of value.There is a unique opportunity for teams to co-operate in order to build more viable programmes across the sites although this was not part of the brief.

Panel Technology methods are useful in applications where roof volumes are to be utilised and where voids penetrate several floors,for example continuous party wall panels have a good acoustic track record.

Many of the technologies in the submissions showed a welcome movement away from the gang nail roof truss design, which is hard to convert as accommodation and hardly usable as storage.Earlier purlin or attic truss roof designs provided these benefits and the panel solutions offered adaptable practical benefits.

The double height space under a continuous rooflight with a straight flight stair. An enjoyable internal environment with clip on packages for conservatory, etc. Countryside/PCKO.

Shows the principles of volumetric and panel construction and use with the ‘living wall’ concept. Countryside/PCKO.

8

ECOHOMES

Building for a Future Autumn 2005

The brief required ‘Very Good’or ‘Excellent’ratings on some sites.This generated a very positive response and most entries presented well-researched studies and dwelling types which reached these standards.It is worth noting that several standard house type plans undermined good energy conservation by opening front doors direct into living spaces without lobbies.

The William Verry/WeberHaus home was tested in Germany and promises substantial reductions on fuel bills. The SixtyK Consortium - Crest Nicholson house runs off one radiator and a bathroom towel rail.

Priority is given to achieving EcoHomes ‘Excellent’ with a high performing thermal envelope. It maximises air tightness and minimises use of cold bridging. SixtyK Consortium - Crest Nicholson/Kingspan TEK2.

“It should be acknowledged that the competition has brought forward, for a wider audience, some of the innovative design ideas that some architects have been trying to achieve recently and it stimulating a healthy debate.”

HOW TO WIN AT HOUSEBUILDING

A TOOLKIT FOR LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND OTHER PUBLIC-SECTOR LANDOWNERS

The team behind Design for Manufacture are keen for the best of the competition to be replicated wherever new homes are needed. We are now working on a new toolkit for local authorities and other public-sector landowners to continue the quality and efficiency challenge – How to Win at Housebuilding. Those local authorities and other public-sector landowning bodies which run suitable competitions for sites or for partners across portfolios of sites, will be eligible for support from the Design for Manufacture team and will be able to use the Designed for Manufacture licensed logo.

The purpose of the toolkit is to promote the principles of the Design for Manufacture Competition so it can be run again and again on different sites, sensitive to local needs and constraints. The £60k homes have captured imaginations. One particular inspiration is the introduction of the idea of low-rise, high-density housing – for mixed-income communities –housing schemes which respond to the needs of first-time buyers and young families without segregating them into exclusive low cost or social housing developments.

The How to Win at Housebuilding toolkit will give a step-by-step guide on how to get the best from the housebuilding industry. It will cover issues such as:

■ how to find and prepare suitable sites that developers will respond to

■ creating density and good plot-use without resort to high rise flats and micro apartments

■ judging housing proposals by their internal efficiency, accessibility and adaptability, not just by the external design features

■ how to assess £60k homes to ensure efficiency has been gained

■ getting the right land value so design and quality standards are designed into good commercial practice and not totally subsidised by the public landowners

■ creating mixed tenure by integrating affordable and low-cost housing

■ the benefits of using Design Codes and design briefs to shorten formal planning stages

■ how to encourage integrated design and development teams from developers

■ encouraging efficient construction methods that cut out waste and speed up delivery times

■ running competitions for sites and partners – briefing and selection criteria and using OJEU rules

The How to Win at Housebuilding toolkit will be available later this year from the English Partnerships website (www.englishpartnerships.co.uk).

How to win at Housebuilding – prepare sites, provide infrastructure, ready to go. English Partnerships site at Aylesbury Vale.

Look inside the box – how much home is your new community getting for its money and will it outlive the first sale residents? Barratt’s wide fronted G3 home grows and adapts: plot No 067.

Good density, mixed housing with gardens and car parking space can be achieved with efficient plot use, urban design and clever internal floor plans. William Verry/WeberHaus, Hastings.

Rebirth of the terraced street – cars and people share space, kitchens at the front. Northern Edge’s commended bid was witty and wise.

Investment by English Partnerships in flood prevention and attenuation works at Upton, Northampton opened up extension lands and a new community.

HOUSE AT THE BUILDING CENTRE

English Partnerships and the DCLG ran a week-long exhibition at the Building Centre, London in May 2006 inviting members of the public and construction experts alike to comment on the winning designs. The exhibition was well attended with around 4,500 visitors. An overview of feedback is given here.

YOUR PLACE YOUR VOICE

You don’t need statistically robust market research to know what people want from their homes: space, daylight, security, amenity and community. That’s what rose to the top when English Partnerships interviewed dozens of people from pensioners to primary school children around England. The chief surprise was a young primary school girl demanding “plankton TV” – until she remembered the word plasma.

Other vox pops hit again and again on “more space inside”, “more space outside”, “more cupboard space”, “more natural daylight”, “more light”, “more feeling of space”, “the feeling of space around”. It’s a reflection of the qualitative gap people recognised between tight spaces with poor daylighting and good space naturally illuminated. Without any training in design, people still recognise this is key to their home. So these features were also key to how the Design for Manufacture’s judges chose the winners, to the point that failing to meet the space standards set in the brief was regarded as a disqualification and schemes that worked on daylight rose to the top.

The vox pops uncovered environmental concerns and some willingness to pay a premium. “There’s a cost attached to make a building more environmentally friendly,” said one respondent, offering to pay. Others spoke clearly about the value to them of the public realm, “to enjoy the experience of moving from space to space within a place”. Several of the

children interviewed were clearly living in bedrooms in converted attics as they spoke about how it was “cool” to have raked ceilings and windows at that height.

But the strongest secondary theme to emerge was the desire for community. Those approaching pensionable age feared a development remote from community facilities, those already of pension age spoke longingly of being able to access leisure facilities, those with families recognised their interdependence with other similar families. “I feel that my home is the people around me…” said one. Another spoke freely about how design could nurture community: “If the environment in which you live encourages communication, you get a better community…” Several talked about the necessity of new developments having a focal point for the community – “a pub, a medical centre, a community centre, ideally all of them and certainly one of them”. Residents were seeking private space within a community functioning around shared space: not private space at the expense of amenity.

CHILDREN’S CHALLENGE

The Design for Manufacture Competition brief inspired designers and developers to build homes with future residents in mind. The 76.5 sq m minimum floor layout demanded an efficient layout. How can circulation space be minimised yet interesting? How can the windows overlook the street? How can people with disabilities be considered? How can areas be divided to create privacy?

English Partnerships invited a group of primary school children from Hackney’s Queensbridge School to the exhibition and asked these questions. To make things interesting, each child was asked to design for a well-known celebrity. English Partnerships’ Trevor Beattie opened the proceedings by inviting the children to create a home for The Beckhams. The floor plan would need to include a bedroom each for Brooklyn, Romeo and Cruz. There would also have to be a large play area for David Beckham himself to practise ‘bending it’, a court complete with thrones and antechamber where Posh and Becks could receive the world’s media. The kids were inspired and enthused. So much so, that Trevor was encouraged by the Queensbridge staff to abandon the world of regeneration to pursue an alternative career in primary education.

The children then came up with their housing ideas for Spiderman – windows capable of being opened from the outside. Girls Aloud would want a home with lots of single beds and a massive dressing room. The Daleks would have no need for stairs – or a toilet.

But homes alone do not make a sustainable community so it was then who should live next door to each other. James Bond would become neighbours of Dick & Dom. One child proposed that the Prime Minister could move out of Downing Street, swapping his current neighbour at No 11 for SpongeBob SquarePants. The cartoon sponge prefers to live under a giant pineapple – an ‘eco-home’ par excellence and a surprising omission from the formal entries to the Design for Manufacture Competition.

YOUR VIEWS COUNT

Visitors to the exhibition were able to fill in post cards and fix them to the wall for all to see. This proved to be a very popular form of feedback. Most people went for a sharp one liner. The most frequent was: “Where do I buy one?” annotated with an email address. The other most popular comment was that the “homes built for £60k should be sold for £60k”, some hopefully identifying how much they personally could afford.

Some postcards wanted even more than had been achieved by the designs: “Why doesn’t it have a green roof?” This is something that the bidders to the follow-up initiative to the Design for Manufacture Competition will doubtless be now considering.

Many of the comments were highly constructive, with illustrations and suggestions for improvements to the designs. The Broadway Malyan design for Persimmon Homes received lots of praise for its possibilities to evolve as a home over 50 years. The exhibition generally was congratulated for modernising the debate. One postcard summed up the competition rather more succinctly than the technical brief was able in suggesting that a Plain English slogan for the competition should really have been: “Cheaper housing for all. Cheaper but no less quality.”

NEXT STE

The Design for Manufacture Competition, as the Millennium Communities programme before it, has successfully challenged the industry to raise environmental and design quality, whilst achieving cost effectiveness.

Such initiatives are setting benchmarks and many are or have been incorporated into mainstream Building Regulation and planning standards.

We now intend to roll out what has been achieved into development opportunities in the market. Working with the industry we aim to illustrate how

sustainability, quality and affordability can be pushed to new even higher levels. The focus will be on homes that respond to future climate change, the pressures on energy cost, demographic change and work with the surrounding environments and ecology.

The challenge to the industry is to build upon all of the exemplars and pilots the Government has already initiated for sustainable communities and move to a new level with affordable, high-quality and sustainable developments. English Partnerships will be promoting through

its development programmes the new benchmarks for environmental performance on all public-sector projects and once again encourage the private sector to innovate on processes and supply chains, and identify mechanisms and technologies that will help to deliver these standards as cost effectively as possible.

The Design for Manufacture Competition has shown that the industry can meet the challenge of cost and innovation. The industry and government must now work together to tackle the wider climate change agenda to deliver environmentally sustainable homes.

ENGLISH PARTNERSHIPS

Design for Manufacture Design for Manufacture

Corporate TeamSites Team

Andy ApplebySimon Bandy

Steve BallIan Charlesworth

Trevor BeattieErica Davies

Steve CarrSteve Greener

Robin EarlSayeed Hafejee

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS PS

Helen GoddardGraham Hyslop

Dennis HoneJonathan Martin

Georgina LawsonIrina Merryweather

Tessa LyonAnne Peacock

Kevin McGeoughMark Pople

Paul McGivernSimon Powell

Karen MuirEleanor Purser

Mike ScottLauren Strange

Laura TytlerKitt Walker

Tabitha WilsonPaul White (SEEDA)

DEPARTMENT FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Mark Cousens David Edwards

Donald Crowter Helen Egar

Inderjit Dhooper Canda Smith

Alastair Donald

SUPPORTING TEAM

Sarah Allen – Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment

Peter Barber – Peter Barber Architects

Clive Clowes – Housing Corporation

Stephen Cotterell – calfordseaden

Martin Goss – MTech

Fiona Khosla – Jacobs Babtie

Andy McCosh – calfordseaden

Karin Stockerl – Housing Corporation

David Thomas – MTech

JUDGING PANEL

Su Bonfanti (Chair) – Department for Communities and Local Government

Trevor Beattie – English Partnerships

David Birkbeck – Design for Homes

Prof Stephen Buckley – University of Reading

Anthea Case – Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment

Dr Angela Dumas – Construction Industry Expert

Julie Fawcett – Housing Corporation

Judith Harrison – Constructing Excellence

Joe Martin – Building Cost Information Service

Cllr Arthur McCutcheon – Northampton Borough Council

Further information can be obtained from:

Paul McGivern

Best Practice Manager

English Partnerships

110 Buckingham Palace Road

London SW1W 9SA

T 020 7881 1649

F 020 7881 1666

E designformanufacture@englishpartnerships.co.uk www.designformanufacture.info

Supported by