34 INDUSTRY VIEWFINDER: STRATEGIES FOR MEETING THE FUTURE HOMES STANDARD


costs for occupants and do more to reduce both fuel poverty and carbon emissions, while also supporting the decarbonisation of the grid. Strangely, the Government itself has given no indication which option it would prefer or recommend – something that


CHALLENGES Which of the two ‘notional home’ options in the Government’s consultation would you prefer to pursue?


many have criticised as it makes the process of planning for changes more diffi cult, with no clear guidance on what eactly is required. It’s little surprise that just under half of respondents to our survey said they only ‘partially understand’ the requirements of the FHS.


While it undoubtedly could have presented more ambitious targets in the consultation document, The Future Homes Standard as currently proposed presents a host of challenges for housebuilders and developers. Despite the stepping stones of Parts L, F and O having been negotiated, many developers are uncertain over how the full FHS will impact their business, development plans, strategies, and customers. With the lack of any further updates or guidelines since the release of the consultation in December 2023 it’s not surprising that 44% of our respondents said they only ‘partially understand’ the requirements. When comparing this with our 2023 survey on Parts L, F and O, a much higher percentage said they either ‘mainly’ or ‘completely’ understood each Approved Document (60%, 53% and 49% respectively) – indicative perhaps that the lack of guidance on the FHS in comparison to the information available on Parts L, F and O is causing much more confusion for developers. It could also be a demonstration that Parts L and F at least were evolutions of pre-existing standards, whereas the actual practicalities of the FHS remain something of an unknown quantity. Only 20% of respondents said they ‘completely understand’ the requirements of the FHS – somewhat alarming given the supposedly imminent launch of the standard (while it may take years to come into force), but also not surprising. When asked if they were prepared and ready for the FHS if it were to be introduced in early 2025, 53% of our respondents said they weren’t. When ranking the FHS’s associated challenges,


87% said the ‘time available to reach the 2025 deadline’ was either ‘very’ or ‘quite’ challenging from a fabric point of view, and 69% on ‘renewables & heating.’


COSTS


ndoubtedly one of the biggest challenges with any signifi cant change in regulations is the associated cost – particularly for s, who are likely to fi nd it more diffi cult to absorb increased costs within their businesses.


When asked how much they estimate the FHS will increase their build costs (based on a three bedroom home), 26% said £1,000 to £5,000, and a further 26% said it would cost between £5,000 and £10,000 extra. A further 28% said between £10,000 and £30,000, with the overall estimated average per unit coming out at £11,120. In our 2023 survey the average estimated cost increase (due to Parts L and F) was £6,020 – almost half the increase developers are anticipating this time round. When we split the FHS requirements into the categories of ‘fabric’ and ‘renewables & heating’ and asked respondents how challenging certain areas are (ranking each area from ‘very challenging’ to ‘not at all challenging’), cost came out on top in both instances. A total of 87% said it was either ‘very’ or ‘quite’ challenging from a fabric point of view, and 83% said ‘very’ or ‘quite’ challenging from a renewables and heating perspective. Where developers are anticipating an increase in build costs, there are naturally questions around how those costs will be


PRODUCED IN ASSOCIATION WITH


WWW.HBDONLINE.CO.UK


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76