Scottish Government

CHAPTER TWO RESEARCH FINDINGS

Introduction

2.1 The research findings are presented in 2 chapters, one summarising the outcomes of Phases I and II of the research - as this permits an overview of findings of a broader (questionnaire) and deeper (interview) nature in parallel - and then the Case Studies in chapter 3.

Background information

2.2 Background information on a number of characteristics was collected from each initial survey respondent for a number of reasons. Firstly, this allowed analysis to be carried out based on key characteristics of the companies such as size or location; secondly, it has been used to provide an understanding for whether particular types of firm were adequately represented; and, thirdly, it was used to subsequently direct the selection of the sample of developers in subsequent phases of the research. Key characteristics examined are: firm type - including headquarters location, size, and market segment; and location of activity - where most of the firm's housing development takes place. The firms' approaches to design - perceived importance of design, design awards and design personnel employed and/or contracted in - were also used in selecting the sample of developers for the Phase II interviews and this is analysed below after the general background information.

Headquarters

2.3 The Scottish developer market includes both Scottish based and UK-wide firms. This is potentially an important consideration which may be reflected in the degree of design autonomy exhibited by the company in Scotland. Twenty two of the respondents had headquarters located in Scotland and 5 in England, all of which however had Scottish branch offices. Companies were also asked where their head office or Scottish branch office was located. The answers to this question are shown in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1 Location of head office

Source: E-mail survey
Note to table: Total is 28 rather than 27 because 1 firm had 2 head offices in Scotland.

2.4 With the exception of one Aberdeenshire company and one based in the Scottish Borders all of the firms which identified a Scottish HQ were based in a broadly defined Central Belt. Four were in Glasgow, 4 in Edinburgh and 4 in Perth & Kinross with the rest spread throughout the Central Belt.

Size of Development Programme

2.5 Size of development programme is clearly an important factor for any developer. Firms were asked how many homes their company had completed in Scotland in 2005/06 and their answers are summarised in Figure 2.1

Figure 2.1 Completed units in 2005/06

Source: E-mail survey

2.6 The number of units completed by each firm ranged from 15 to 1,300. The mean number was 270. Figure 2.2 groups firms by output showing around half had completed fewer than 200 units and half more than this. Just over two thirds had completed between 100 and 500 units in the year.

Figure 2.2 Respondents grouped by size of development programme

Source: E-mail survey

2.7 The 3 developers with the largest programmes were English based. The average size of programme for the English based developers was 605 units compared with 193 for those based in Scotland.

Location of Development Activity

2.8 Respondents were asked in which Homes for Scotland regions they had completed developments over the past 5 years. Figure 2.3 shows the boundaries of these regions.

Figure 2.3 Homes for Scotland regions

Source: Region boundaries supplied by Homes for Scotland

2.9 Table 2.2 shows the distribution of development activity amongst the 27 respondents. Most had operated over a number of regions. More had completed developments in the East Central Scotland region than anywhere else, followed by Lothian & Borders and then Strathclyde.

Table 2.2 Regions where company had been active in past 5 years

Source: E-mail survey

2.10 A follow-up question asked in which Scottish region companies were most active. This was an open question and did not direct companies to answer according to HfS region. The responses are given in table 2.3.

Table 2.3 Regions in which firms are most active

Source: E-mail survey

2.11 Several developers said that they were active in more than one region and so a total of 39 answers were given to this question. More firms were active in the Lothians including Edinburgh than anywhere else. The position of the Borders as equal second most active region may be exaggerated as a number of developers said that they were active in Lothian and the Borders which is a single HfS region, and may reflect the higher level of activity in the Lothians. None of the developers were most active in the Highlands or Islands. Attempts were made to broaden the sample to include these areas and some developers operating mainly in Highland and the islands were contacted by telephone and email various times, but ultimately none completed a survey.

2.12 Figure 2.4 shows the average size of development programme for developers who said they were most active in different parts of Scotland. It should, however, be noted that since developers categorized where they were most active in a variety of ways (as discussed above) this figure only gives a general indication of the size of firms in any area.

Figure 2.4 Average developer size by area in which developer was most active

Source: E-mail survey

2.13 Bearing in mind this caveat, the data allows certain patterns to be identified. All of the English based developers were most active in Central Scotland, Strathclyde or Lothian and Borders. Those developers with programmes of over 500 units were building mainly in these areas and Grampian.

Market Segment

2.14 It might be hypothesized that companies targeting different market segments would have a different attitude to design. As in other industries such as car manufacturing, design might be a greater selling point at the luxury rather than the budget end of the market.

2.15 To assist with the analysis of survey responses it was proposed that the questionnaire should group the market into 3 segments: starter homes, mid market and executive developments. Developer members of the Advisory Group agreed that this breakdown would be meaningful to the industry as a whole and all of the respondents were able to answer this question. The results are shown in Figure 2.5.

Figure 2.5 Main market segment for which developer builds

Source: E-mail survey

2.16 The majority of firms thus focused on mid market development, with almost a third aiming mainly at the executive market while 3 built mainly starter homes. One of the firms only built executive homes and none built exclusively for either of the other 2 segments. All but one built at least some properties for the mid market, 23 did at least some executive development and 24 built at least some starter homes. Figure 2.6 shows the size of programme of firms operating in the different segments of the market.

Figure 2.6 Size of programme in 2005/06 by market segment

Source: E-mail survey

2.17 Those firms which concentrated mainly on mid market development tended to have larger programmes, with an average of 362 units, than those which built mainly for the starter market (137 units) or built mostly or solely executive developments (139 units).

Summary of background information

2.18 Summarising background information, some 4 out of 5 responding firms had headquarters in Scotland. Those not based in Scotland tended to produce larger numbers of units than the mean of the responses. The majority of the developers worked in the broadly defined central belt - which mirrors the population distribution in Scotland. Limitations on data make it difficult to draw conclusions about the locational focus of different sizes of developer but most of the largest, including the non-Scottish based tended to operate in the Central Belt. Most firms focused on the middle range, with most also producing at least one other range of houses, with executive houses being favoured over starter homes. This was the case for both Scottish-based firms as well as those based elsewhere in the UK. Those firms concentrating on starter homes or executive development tended to be smaller than those focusing on the mid market.

Value of design and definition of design quality

2.19 This section describes in the first instance the findings from the email survey, which relate to more quantitative types of data, followed by qualitative information revealed primarily through the semi-structured interviews. In the email questionnaire, respondents were asked to define design in an open question to avoid any leading by the Research Team. They then answered a series of mainly pre-coded questions about the importance of various aspects of design.

Importance of Design

2.20 Respondents were asked to agree with one of 4 propositions about the importance of design in their developments and their answers are given in Figure 2.7.

2.21 A majority of developers (15) believed that design was essential to their developments while a third thought it was very important and the remaining 3 considered it important. None indicated that design was "unimportant", the other option in the pre-coded question.

Figure 2.7 Importance of design in developments

Source: E-mail survey

Aspects of Design

2.22 The research wished to explore the relative importance of various aspects of design. Broadly speaking design was conceptualised as relating to different scales and different degree of private and public spheres, and as such it is related to internal design; external building design; estate layout and wider urban design. These concepts were listed without explanation and respondents were asked to rank them from most important to least important. Figure 2.8 shows how frequently each of the design aspects was ranked as the most important.

Figure 2.8 Importance of different aspects of design

Source: E-mail survey

2.23 Some respondents ranked 2 or more of the aspects as equally important and therefore the total adds to more than 27 responses. Interior design and estate layout were each considered the most important or equal most important aspect of design by 12 firms. Urban design was considered most important (or equally so) by fewest firms (6).

2.24 The survey then went on to consider why design was important to the companies. A list of potential advantages noted areas, such as marketing, economics, profitability, the planning system and company image, were pre-coded and developers were also given the opportunity to suggest other answers. Respondents to the e-mail survey were able to nominate as many reasons as they wished. Table 2.4 shows the range of answers to this question.

Table 2.4 Why design is important to the company

Source: E-mail survey

2.25 As can be seen from the Table 2.4, there was quite even spread across the suggested attributes of design, with a slightly lower scoring for factors related directly to marketing. Other reasons included concern for the customer's views, customer satisfaction and "pride and enjoyment for our customers". It was seen by one developer to help with regeneration. It assisted in construction and construction safety. One developer noted that bad design cost the firm money. Several considered it important to the company's place in the market. Personal and professional satisfaction was mentioned by 3 of the respondents.

Development Considerations

2.26 Recognising that design is only one factor which will influence development, the questionnaire sought to examine its relative importance compared to other considerations. Respondents were asked to rank the most important 3 considerations from a pre-coded list and once again were given the opportunity to suggest issues which were not on the list. Separate answers were given for each of the market sectors,as shown in Figure 2.9.

2.27 All except 3 respondents ranked the issues as requested. Two identified "other" and that all of the items were equally important or that it was the sum of all the issues considered together which was important. A third also ranked all issues as "1" and stated that they were all equally important.

Figure 2.9 Most important development consideration

Source: E-mail survey

2.28 The most important consideration varied across the 3 different market segments. The sale price, followed by the development cost, was the most frequently mentioned consideration for starter homes, with design quality in the middle range of factors. In the mid market segment marketability was mentioned by considerably more developers than any other factor, with sale price the next most commonly mentioned factor, close in importance to development cost and design quality. For executive housing marketability was the most important consideration followed equally by development cost, design quality and individuality of house design. Design quality was mentioned by as many developers in relation to mid market housing as executive housing but individuality of design was only most important for one developer for starter homes or mid market homes.

2.29 All of the items on the list were seen as most important by at least one of the firms. However local/vernacular design was only seen as important by 2 or 3 firms in any market segment although all of these firms considered it to be the most important issue. Kerb appeal was the least likely factor to be considered most important.

2.30 Figure 2.10 shows the number of developers who rated each consideration as being in their top 3 regardless of whether it was the most important or not.

Figure 2.10 Number of developers indicating issue was amongst 3 most important

Source: E-mail survey

2.31 Development cost was the most frequently mentioned consideration for starter (19) and mid market (20) developments and the second most frequently mentioned for executive development (13). Development cost was the identified as the most important issue by 7 firms in relation to starter homes, second only to sale price. It was identified as most important for mid market development by 5 firms - behind marketability (10) and sale price (6) and equal with design quality. Five firms identified development cost as most important in executive development, the same number as design quality and individuality of design but fewer than marketability (8).

2.32 Marketability was identified as the most important issue more often than any other for mid market and executive development but was only the most important for starter homes for 4 firms. Sale price was most frequently identified as the most important issue for starter homes, and second most frequently for mid market, but was only ranked most important by 4 in relation to executive development (behind 4 other issues).

2.33 Design quality was mentioned as an important issue more often than any other issue for executive developments (14). It was the second most frequently mentioned in relation to mid market development (16) but at 8 was only fifth most frequently mentioned issue for starter homes. Design quality was described as the most important single issue by 5 firms in relation to executive development (equal second for this segment) and 5 for mid market development (equal third). Design quality was the most important issue in relation to starter homes for 3 firms.

2.34 Individuality of house design was only important for 3 developers for starter or mid market developments but was important for 7 firms for executive development. As demonstrated in Figure 2.3, 5 of these firms considered individuality of house design the most important issue in executive development, making it the equal second most frequently identified issue for executive development.

Definition of design quality

2.35 In the semi-structured interviews, the firm's perception of design was explored in more detail, including the relative priority of interior, exterior, site layout and urban design in relation to design quality. When asked to give a free definition of what was meant by design quality, the responses were very varied and, in some cases, the interviewees found it difficult to define design clearly, with branding, usability, affordability, quality of build/lack of defects and reputation being considered to define a quality product. However, the following were raised as key points related to design quality issues.

2.36 Leadership in design. In almost all of the interviews, the influence of management personnel was cited as a key factor in the definition of design quality. A number of the interviewees noted their strong leadership in the development of their product range.

2.37 Firm's reputation. Interviewees noted that care is taken to develop and maintain a particular image and that design quality associated to image is important for an established firm to maintain its position and reputation. This "branding" can also be interpreted by the particular internal layout, or a response to market analysis. A few interviewees equated house design to product design rather than architecture design, and - in particular - drew parallels with car design. This attitude can be evidenced by the marketing brochures which focus on named house types, rather than a specific house, in a specific location. In some cases houses are sold from the product literature and site location alone. A number of the developers stressed the importance of a recognizable product, with consistency helping to establish a brand, - although this is more difficult to control in bespoke development . Most of the developers have ranges which reflect either what they considered to be "traditional" or "contemporary". Most companies indicated they have some form of design ethos, which is based on different types and levels of market research.

2.38 Customer's perception of quality. Developers drew attention to the difference between the designer's definition of quality (which was in some cases thought to be narrow), and the purchaser's definition. House buyers were seen to be more likely to consider quality as an amalgamation of factors, some of which are based on perceptions of feeling good, safe, pleasing to the eye, not too repetitive, and fit for purpose. For many developers, quality is what sells. The saleability of houses is the commercial reality of the industry. Some defined quality as relating to the specification of materials. There was a key split between developers in relation to this. Some saw that the elaboration of the exterior with decorative elements was indicative of quality; others would tend to favour simplicity on the exterior, with quality driven by interior specification of kitchens, bathrooms etc. Specification is clearly linked to affordability for buyers and planning constraints. For most developers the concept of a brand image is also important.

2.39 Buildability. Part of the assessment of the design quality relates to its ease of construction. This is influenced by the procurement method and whether the firm has its own construction staff, but most developers noted that they will edit designs from external consultants in order to make them more efficient to build with a minimum amount of site construction time.

2.40 Internal layouts. As the e-mail survey confirmed, interior layout ranked equally with estate layout in relation to quality. Quality in a house layout was defined in relation to usability but also to trends such as the return to open plan, the balance of space between rooms and circulation making an efficient design, and how the accommodation responds to use - defined as "liveability / usability".

2.41 External building design. This was ranked as of lower importance in the questionnaire in relation to quality. A number of developers spoke of the exterior of houses like clothing or "jackets" that are seen as interchangeable, depending on the quality of specification/ materials, how it fits in the location, and attitudes of planning authorities. Exterior design quality is interlinked with buildability, with complex detailing being modified to minimise future maintenance issues, or to ease site construction due to poor labour skills.

2.42 Estate layout. This is a complex issue and is discussed below in more detail. A few developers noted that house types are not the most important consideration. One suggested that for them, the most important aspect is the quality of the place, which could be made with a restricted range of even poor house types. Conversely, this developer noted, good house types are not always arranged to create a good place. For the majority, it is a question of balancing a sense of place against maximising profit.

2.43 Urban design. This was less often mentioned in relation to perceptions of quality. For a few, it is the driver, with a wish to create a community. For others, as expressed by one interviewee: "Urban design is an add-on. Urban design may reflect what is trendy with architects now, not necessarily the right design for the right site" Some developers noted that the movement towards "home zones" and a sense of place may suggest higher densities and this can help with increased profitability which, in turn, can allow a higher quality of materials and investment in design.

Summary of the value of design and definition of design quality

2.44 Summarising responses to the value of design, it is noted that the strong positive responses do reflect to some extent the self-selection process of the voluntary responses to the e-mail survey. Nevertheless, it is important to note that a significant proportion of private sector developers do value design for its impact, albeit with significant variation in terms of how they would define this.

2.45 In relation to its function, there was no predominant view regarding the importance of different aspects of design as relating to different scales and different degree of public and private spheres (internal design; external building design; site layout and urban design), with various of these being given equal importance - as was also demonstrated in relation to why design was important in general terms. There was a clearer distinction of the value of design in relation to the development factors, with this being a higher ranking factor for executive homes than mid-market developments and lower for starter homes - with economic considerations dominating in all cases. Of interest is that design quality featured in the mid-range of important factors and was declared of more importance than kerb appeal in all types of development and more important than even buildability and sale price in mid-market and executive homes.

2.46 The general finding is thus that the economics of private sector housing dominates (development cost, marketability and to some extent sale price) - which is perhaps to be expected for a fairly competitive private market; however design quality is a significant factor in the economic equations. A key issue is the role of design in starter homes, although these do not represent a large share of current output.

2.47 In relation to design quality, this was defined using a wide range of factors, with the firm's reputation and customer perception being key issues as well as specifications and buildability. In relation to the internal, external, layout and urban design aspects, there was reasonable clarity across developers concerning how these were defined, but considerable difference concerning their relative importance vis-à-vis the firm's reputation and their perception of customer interests.

2.48 Perhaps the most important aspect to note for this study is that in general, the developers' understanding of the interests of customers does not reflect what they believe designers ( i.e. architects) are predominantly interested in concerning design. A commonly held view was that architects who have minimal experience of the house-building industry will produce designs that are complex and inefficient to build.

Design priorities and integration of design into the development process

2.49 The second theme of the semi-structured interviews was to explore priorities of the company in terms of design and also the various ways in which design is integrated into a development.

Priorities in terms of design

2.50 The main priorities for developers in terms of design relate to a final product that is cost effective but at the same time satisfies market demands. However interviews show some discrepancies with regards to market trends, indicating a changeable environment of demands and priorities. In relation to this, a more open attitude to different "lifestyles" was observed to be part of a national change due to more influences of international trends through TV, travel, and improved access to markets, as well as demographic changes in terms of more "couple houses" instead of "family homes".

2.51 In this context, houses are generally presented to consumers as "products" offering different "lifestyle" options. In relation to this "marketing of lifestyles", the price of houses is determined by demand and not by the actual cost, with some developers expressing that people will "buy as much as they can afford" and location being a key issue in making such decisions. For a small number of interviewees, however, the market has more demands for traditional housing layouts rather than contemporary designs. A successful development in economic terms appears to be one that presents different types and mixed sizes of houses. This is especially the case in the north of the country where the market is not perceived to be steady.

2.52 The nature of the business is fundamental to the development process. The size and structure of the company will have an influence on its priorities, for instance if they are a branch office of a large organisation or an independent, privately owned business. Companies which are responsible to shareholders typically reported that maximising profit is the key priority. Some interviewees expressed that the housing industry will generally focus on making cost savings rather than improving design, and as such, cost was expressed as perhaps the main priority in terms of design as it will determine the economic success of a development.

2.53 On occasions companies expressed a priority to be able to offer a product, which is seen as different from their competitors. Some will base this on the specific needs of customers, taken from feedback, or market research. For others, as noted previously, the influence of the individual managers is key in setting the design aspirations, particularly in the privately-owned businesses. Some of the management staff interviewed had architectural design training, those without training tending to make qualitative decisions based on personal preferences or their interpretation of the market.

2.54 Just under a third of the developers interviewed expressed that houses need to maintain their appeal to consumers over a sustained period to ensure that the investment by the present house buyer is secure.

2.55 In general, design decisions are linked with the needs of a specific sector of the market, often to requirements from planning departments and, in many cases, with the physical particularities of the site and its surrounding areas. In this context, developers expressed that the geographic location of the site could influence their design priorities.

2.56 In addition, an east/west divide in terms of design priorities and demands was mentioned by over a third of the developers interviewed. Within this perspective, the east coast of Scotland is perceived to be more conservative, whereas the west appears more innovative. With regards to land release, differences have also been mentioned with Glasgow having more release of green field land.

Customer feedback

2.57 Some form of customer feedback is undertaken by almost all companies interviewed. Most companies take this feedback very seriously and customer opinions influence design changes. However, there was a range of opinions expressed regarding the value of such feedback, with the current buoyancy of the market - where virtually any house at an affordable price will sell - meaning that some developers do not see customer feedback as a priority, while others make it a specific selling point. Another aspect of feedback is linked to the speed at which houses sell and some companies have monitoring mechanisms to find out which houses sell best.

2.58 Customer feedback takes place through a variety of processes from online surveys to postal questionnaires or personal visits to new owners from sales managers or other representatives of the sales team. These visits tend to occur at variable times but generally just after customers move in and again between six months and a year later. Customers' comments also vary from design related issues to feedback on sales process, general service and quality of printed information. Design related issues may include kerb appeal, elevations, materials, and internal layouts ( e.g. room sizes, kitchens, bathrooms, cupboard spaces, and open plan or subdivisions). Built quality is also a main aspect of customer's feedback.

2.59 One interviewee highlighted that feedback had influenced the development of more affordable housing options in the company's portfolio of products. Feedback on technical issues or defects tends to have a higher influence on layout and design changes. Customer's feedback on site layouts is also important for about a third of the companies interviewed.

2.60 A small number of companies will make changes to the house types in an on-going development based on feedback from the first houses sold. In a minority of companies standard house types are modified following customer feedback and this can be across the market sectors. Occasionally feedback is obtained as a result of comparison with other developer companies, which helps identify what kind of product sells in the area. In some cases developers offer customers the possibility of making design amendments if requested at purchase.

Accessibility

2.61 Accessibility issues have started to influence design because of the new standards in the recently revised Scottish Building Standards (introduced in May 2007). Respondents indicated that this will clearly add cost to houses and developers do not see any clear customer demand from the market for more accessible housing.

2.62 Generally house-builders do not see any need to deviate from the standards set by current legislation. Interviewees expressed that internal layouts can be modified when customers need changes to be made, and this was particularly true for firms who have their own construction division. Developers tend to have the opinion that specific sectors of the market will drive the needs for accessible housing and specialised firms could, and have, provided houses for customers with what are seen as special needs. In addition it was expressed that buyers often do not like features demanded by the regulations, such as access ramps, even subsequently removing these.

2.63 In general there was little understanding of the concept of whole-life houses and most developers consider that people will move if circumstances and needs change. Accessibility is considered as an example that demonstrates strong differences between perceived market demands and building regulations.

Sustainability

2.64 Awareness of the need for sustainable provision was declared by most developers interviewed. Some companies understand sustainability as part of a wider policy of "corporate social responsibility". For most, it is part of a number of considerations related to the operation of the firm, such as waste management, and sourcing of materials as well as the design and specification of the houses. Sustainable solutions also include the provision of public spaces, access to public transport and sustainable drainages. Some developers also linked sustainability with building in rural locations, brown field sites, refurbishing existing buildings and providing social housing.

2.65 Most interviewees highlighted that the Scottish Building Standards are increasingly having an impact on sustainable design and energy efficiency. Design briefs from some local authorities are also increasingly incorporating sustainability concerns, such as use of materials and renewable energy. More than half of developers have taken part in courses or seminars related to sustainability and it is widely perceived that regulations will soon include more specific requirements in this respect. Solar gain, thermal mass, reducing the carbon print, and energy efficiency in construction, are issues being considered by almost half of developers interviewed. A few developers are in the process of designing prototype environmentally efficient houses that may become mainstream in the near future.

2.66 A large number of interviewees, however, have the opinion that until developers are obliged by regulation, sustainable solutions will not appear naturally in housing developments. Nevertheless, it was highlighted that incorporating sustainability in housing would make houses more expensive. In addition the use of new materials, which generally have not been tested before, could have technological problems and result in future customer's claims. Interviewees also expressed that some regulations from local authorities in terms of land use, requiring more garden space, more parking areas and therefore fewer units to the acre, can make developments potentially less sustainable.

2.67 Sustainable housing thus was seen as not tending to be a requirement of the market and customers do not approach developers asking for more sustainable buildings; however sustainability was regarded by a minor number of interviewees as a sales strategy, which is increasingly being considered by the market.

Urban design

2.68 Respondents indicated that, whereas urban design has not been a priority historically, this is increasingly having more focus due to recent planning policies and advisory documents published by the Scottish Executive. These documents are seen to show possible solutions in terms of urban design which could influence the achievement of better quality for the development as a whole, however some of them are regarded to be very loose in terms of information and they do not seem to have more specific suggestions such as garden sizes, backyards, possible street layouts, etc. The opposite - overly specific requirements from planning departments - are seen to be too prescriptive, however, and possibly a constraint for achieving better design quality. In addition there is a perceived gap between SE suggestions on design guidance and the skills of planners to recommend specific solutions.

2.69 Urban design is considered to be closely linked with road design because the latter has a strong influence on what can be done in terms of site layout, which will influence wider urban design. Respondents also perceived urban design quality to be linked with planners' recommendations for higher levels of density. In this respect it was mentioned that urban design requirements tend to vary in different local authorities. Aspects of urban design quality mentioned in relation to housing development were that the area can be perceived as if it had "grown naturally", and in the way that a development suits the nature of its location such as edge of town, inner urban location etc. Also important for urban design quality is the topography of the site and interviewees perceived that urban design issues are in general focused on a plan view rather than in terms of how the place would feel. The general lack of flexibility in relation to standards of accessibility and gradients on sloping sites, for example, was thought to be inhibiting good urban design.

2.70 Most developers expressed the need for more in-depth masterplan proposals as key to better urban design. Masterplans need to indicate policies with regards to land uses, character of areas, road layouts and public spaces.

Land supply

2.71 Land bids. In every case, the developers noted that the integration of design into the process is dependant on land supply issues. There was clearly a fundamental difference between developments on land which had been part of a competitive bidding and that which was part of an existing land bank.

2.72 In the case of competitive bids, most interviewees described the short timescale in which an outline layout has to be produced, and then analysed and amended to maximise the floor area of the proposed house types - and hence the impact on design. An optimum layout will be a balance between the market research for what is likely to sell, an efficient layout that will maximise floor area, and the cost of the site (residual land value). In such competitive situations, and particularly as land is generally scarce, the urban design and quality of place will be tempered by the commercial reality of wishing to be able to secure the site by outbidding competitors.

2.73 Most developers tend to use in-house designers, planners and sales staff for this process, partly because of the speed of the process, and partly because they wish to retain full control over commercially sensitive information. A few, who always employ external architects, will provide an outline brief, allow the architects to develop a proposal then test this in-house to check its viability. Tight control over external consultants is exercised to balance the design with commercial constraints and the process is dominated by the need to get the bid right for the site.

2.74 In general, it was found that competitive land bids are more likely to result in "run of the mill" housing because of the need to maximise the value of the land bid.

2.75 Land banks. In locations where the site has been purchased privately, or is part of a land bank, there is less pressure on time and cost. Larger, more established developers who have developed such land banks thus benefit by being able to develop sites at an appropriate time and can more easily absorb delays in obtaining consents. Small and newly established developers have to develop sites as quickly as they can to get a return on their investment and they cannot afford to take time to perfect a layout and are particularly vulnerable to delays. As such, they are much more likely to take their lead from the planning officers in an attempt to smooth the process.

2.76 Land release policies were criticised by a number of the interviewees who noted that if land is released in parcels, without an overall strategy or masterplan, this is likely to result in cul-de-sac developments, incremental development and poor infrastructure. One interviewee noted that the small to medium sized companies are now competing with the larger companies for smaller sites that these bigger firms would not have been interested in a few years ago and thus fear they may be increasingly priced out of the market.

Green field versus brown field /urban

2.77 There was a notable distinction between the way in which green field, brown field, and urban sites are designed. In most cases, a green field site will utilise standard house types, and in most cases they will use in-house teams for design. Market research will be carried out to establish a house mix based on an analysis of demand and this is developed into a brief. Developers who always engage external consultants will commission a feasibility design, may ask for standard layouts to be used, but may permit some minor modifications to the external appearance.

2.78 In general, in brown field and urban sites it is more likely that the planning constraints will dictate that a bespoke development is required. In this case external consultants are more likely to be used, either to develop a completely one-off design, or to adapt standard layouts tailored to the site.

2.79 Where affordable housing is to be provided, most developers will also employ external consultants as these are generally developed as bespoke designs.

Summary of design priorities and integration of design into the development process

2.80 A major finding here is that design quality of the housing product is subordinated to the process of marketing lifestyles, which follow wider cultural changes vis-à-vis housing. This has led to firms developing a range of different house types to cater for distinct markets: whether "traditional" or "contemporary", to some extent also overlaid with regional preferences. Location is thus a very important aspect of marketing, as is the firm's reputation and "brand".

2.81 As noted previously, in general the private sector nature of developer activity focuses on economic returns, however there appear to be some differences in approach between firms with shareholders, who would appear to be even more cost-oriented, reducing costs to the minimum. However "buildability" is an industry-wide focus.

2.82 Despite the clear market-orientation of all activity, the current high demand in relation to supply seems to mean that some firms are less concerned with customer feedback, however most take this very seriously, although methods to assess customer demand is usually fairly informal post-factum and not a priori market research, except in terms of general market assessment. Feedback covers many issues, including product and sales processes, but probably has less effect in changing standard types.

2.83 In relation to design issues concerning accessibility and sustainability, developers perceive limited demand for the former and hence follow the requirements of regulations, noting that this raises house prices for all - there is no real perception of providing homes for life. Concerning sustainable issues, there is a wider acceptance of the importance of this, with most companies investing effort in making at least some activities more sustainable; however more sustainable houses were not seen by the majority as being a customer demand, although a minority of firms are aware that this will become more so in future and are including sustainable issues in both their supply and marketing.

2.84 Improved urban design is seen by developers as being also largely a regulatory-focussed issue, although some specifically see the role of developing "lifestyles" as linked to successful "place-making". The main influences on urban design are road layout regulations affecting site layouts and planners' attitudes to approvals, including conflicting requirements for higher densities and yet larger gardens etc.

2.85 Land supply was seen by all developers as key to the overall development process, and hence affecting the role of design within this. Where land is sought competitively - due to limited and/or fragmented release processes - the design part of the process tends to become "squeezed" and standard solutions applied. Masterplans are generally welcomed as a way to improve quality in urban design.

2.86 The approach to design in brown field and more urban sites is quite different due to the nature of land supply and planning and more likely to result in bespoke design. The nature of in-house or contracted designers also tends to vary across green field sites (predominantly in-house and standard designs in some form) and brown field /urban sites (often contracting in external design consultants) - the latter also being the case for provision of affordable housing.

Design staff and training

Types of staff employed

2.87 The email survey included a table setting out a range of design-related and other staff who might be employed by developers or whose services might be bought in as part of the house-building process. Table 2.5 indicates average number of staff that firms employed or bought in in each role.

2.88 Where it would be meaningful, figures are given for all those who indicated they had staff in a particular role and for the sample of 27 firms as a whole. This distinction is important and can be illustrated with reference to consultation to archaeologists. Only one firm employed archaeologists in-house and it employed 4 but since no-one else employed these specialists in-house the average for the sample as a whole was only 0.1.

Table 2.5 Average number of design and other staff

Source: E-mail survey

2.89 Eighteen firms employed architects directly and 22 bought in architect services. Only one firm had no internal or external architects. Amongst all 27 firms, the role of architects was the fifth most common behind quantity surveyors, building design technicians, project managers and engineers. Architects were the second most commonly bought in professionals behind engineers and followed by building design technicians, landscape architects and traffic engineers. Town planners were the sixth most common in-house profession and seventh most common bought-in service. Figure 2.11 shows how the number of in-house architects varies with the size of development programme.

Figure 2.11 Number of in-house architects and size of development programme

Source: E-mail survey

2.90 Figure 2.11 shows a general trend where firms with bigger programmes tend to employ more architects. The figure also shows that this is not a consistent trend and notably, that across a range of sizes 9 of the firms have no in-house architects. However, 22 firms bought in architect services and figure 2.12 highlights the trend in architects used (in-house and bought-in) in relation to programme size.

Figure 2.12 Number of in-house architects and bought-in architects and size of development programme

Source: E-mail survey

2.91 Figure 2.12 shows that there is a more consistently upward trend in numbers of architects with increasing size of development programme. Nevertheless, it is clear that there is by no means a direct relationship between size of programme and number of architects used by firms.

2.92 All but one firm had sales/marketing staff. There were typically more sales staff than any single category of design-related staff, but there were more design staff than sales staff overall. On average, firms had 15 design staff and bought in the services of another 27. Seventeen firms said that they employed manual staff and each of these had an average of manual 42 staff. The numbers of manual staff ranged from 0 to 210.

2.93 Respondents were asked how the number of design-related staff employed or bought-in by their company had changed over the last five years. The results are shown in Figure 2.13.

Figure 2.13 Trend in employment of design staff

Source: E-mail survey

2.94 Over the last five years there had been a marked trend to increase the number of design staff, whether employed directly or bought in as consultants. Twenty one firms had increased the number of design related staff they employed, only one had reduced the number and for 5 the numbers were unchanged. Twenty two firms had increased the number of bought-in design-related staff, 2 had decreased the number and 3 were unchanged.

The use of external consultants

2.95 The semi-structured interviews allowed a deeper questioning of the way in which different skills are employed in the process. The previous section noted the influence of land supply and location on design. The other major factor referred to, was staff resources. The research investigated some developers who carry few staff and always use consultants, as well as others who very rarely use consultants because they have access to skills in-house or within a larger parent company. Employing external consultants is seen as useful because of the fluctuations of the market. Many of the interviewees noted that there is a general shortage of both professional and construction skills, and in line with findings above on site location and design, different sites are seen as requiring different skill sets.

Experience versus qualification

2.96 There was a widely held view that prior experience in the house-building industry is highly valued for staff. A number of interviewees commented that architects may have greater design training, but building design technicians are seen as more likely to provide designs that are buildable and cost efficient. There was also evidence of a loose use of the title "architect" within the industry. If particular design skills offered by qualified architects are required, they can be bought in for specific projects, and this is perceived to be cost effective. Some developers noted that architects may be willing to work "at risk" if presented with continuity of work in a partnering relationship. In a few more sensitive sites, the planners may suggest the use of well known, or locally based, architects and a design competition may be held. However, there is generally a wariness of employing architects who have no experience in the private house building industry. The key aim noted was to balance in-house experience (vis-à-vis marketability, function/practicality) with design "flair".

2.97 As was evident in the quantitative survey, many different professions are employed to suit the site ( e.g. archaeologists, flood engineers etc.). A few developers, who have employed external consultants, will use this in their marketing material as a selling point and some noted that this could become part of the expectation of their brand.

Design Training

2.98 A significant minority of firms, 12 out of 27 firms, make building design training available to their staff. One other firm said the amount of training given had increased despite saying that it did not provide training, so it is possible that they ticked the wrong box and that in fact 13 firms (about half) provide training. Of the 12 who said they provide training, 11 indicated that the amount of training had increased in the last five years and one said that it was unchanged.

2.99 Firms were also asked about the availability and quality of building design training and as shown in Figure 2.14, their views were generally not very positive. A slight majority of firms thought that the availability and quality of building design training was inadequate, with just under half rating the quality as adequate and only one rating the availability as better than adequate.

Figure 2.14 Rating of building design training

Source: E-mail survey

2.100 In general, thus, interviewees felt that there was inadequate provision of appropriate design training. Each developer provides access to training for technical standards, health & safety and planning policy but they would value access to CPD in architectural design and planning skills. One interviewee noted that there is insufficient integration between academia and practice and argued for part-time architectural design courses.

Influence of procurement / construction route

2.101 Almost all developers noted that the skills shortage in the building industry is a major concern. This is having an influence on the methods of construction with a move to greater off-site fabrication to try to ameliorate the lack of traditional construction skills. This move to outsourcing of construction and the increased use of standardisation is partly caused by the skills shortages and generally poor knowledge, skills and understanding of construction across the building industry. Those who have their own construction staff, and those who have long term partnering arrangements with construction firms, tend to have policies on apprenticeships.

Summary of design staff and training

2.102 Summarising responses on design staff and training, all but one firm of the respondents used architects as part of their design operation, with this varying considerably between firms concerning whether they were employed in-house or bought-in services. However in general there was quite a loose use of term "architect" with this not necessarily referring to architects registered with the Architects Registration Board. The number of architects was limited in relation to other design-related staff however, such as building design technologists, and considerably less than other technical staff less directly involved in design ( e.g. quantity surveyors, project managers and engineers); however it was higher than other specialized skills such as town planners and landscape architects. There was some tendency for firms with higher output to use more design staff but there were many exceptions to this trend.

2.103 Whether a firm used in-house or external design staff also depends on the nature of the site - as noted above, there was found to be a relationship between the type of site and the way in which design staff are used, with in-house staff more often used in green field sites, and external architects are more often employed in urban, brown field and affordable housing sites. However due to fluctuations in demand for design skills, many prefer to buy these in as needed. External design skills can also be brought in on the advice of planners and in some cases through competitions.

2.104 Concerning the nature of design skills, developers value prior experience in the development sector, and consider this crucial to economic aspects of design such as "buildability". In general developers were increasing their staff (in-house and external) in design, and were prepared to support design skills acquisition; however they often found building design training was inadequate.

Influences on design in the development process

2.105 The survey included a table with a list of factors, which might potentially influence a company's ability to produce high quality design either positively or negatively. For each the respondent could tick whether it assisted, inhibited or had no impact on their ability to produce a high quality of design in their developments (they were also given the option of "don't know"). Table 2.6 shows the number of answers to each option. These are grouped by type of issue: planning, other local authority departments, Scottish Executive architecture and urban design policy, other statutory bodies/areas of interest, legislation and other issues. Table 2.7 then highlights those factors which on balance assisted design quality.

Table 2.6 Impact of different factors on the ability to produce high quality design

Source: E-mail survey
Note: rows will not always sum to 27 because "Don't know" was an option in questionnaire.

Table 2.7 Factors which were believed to assist by more firms than believed they inhibited design quality

Source: E-mail survey

2.106 As can be seen from the above, Masterplans/Urban Development Frameworks were believed to assist in delivering quality by the largest number of respondents. Other guidance documents such as PANs, development briefs and SPPs were also seen in a positive light. However, opinions were fairly evenly divided over whether Scottish Executive policy guidance and Architecture & Design Scotland were positive or negative; with the Architecture Policy being a little more positive than the others. Consumer preference was the only non-policy factor which was seen as tending to assist design quality.

Table 2.8 Factors which were believed to inhibit by more firms than believed they assisted design quality

Source: E-mail survey

2.107 Table 2.8 above shows the factors which more respondents thought inhibited rather than assisted quality. A much larger number of factors were seen to inhibit rather than assist quality and the consensus that some of them inhibited quality was much stronger than around those which assisted. The issues which inhibited design quality most appear to relate to the operation of the planning system as a whole and particularly lack of resources within this, the time taken by the planning system and its inflexibility. The involvement of planning committees is also seen negatively by most respondents.

2.108 Local authority and statutory authorities such as Roads, SEPA and Scottish Water are seen to inhibit quality of design. Legislation and regulation, including changes to the building regulations, are also viewed negatively.

Main positive and/or negative influences on design quality

2.109 Opinions on the main positive and negative influences on design quality were examined in more depth during the interviews. In general the planning system is perceived as inhibiting design quality; however some developers expressed the opinion that planning legislation can have a positive influence on some schemes. Schemes which may otherwise lack design quality can be improved by the influence of a well informed planner. At least one developer noted that planners' opinions tend to make "bad housing less bad". Some contradictions can be identified between prescriptive legislation with inflexible planning policies and freedom of interpretation with flexibility. In general developers who have a strong design ethos prefer policies that are non-dictatorial while others prefer certainty and would favour more prescriptive policies and clear development briefs to speed up planning consent. Some development frameworks were seen as useful in the bidding process if they define a clear set of criteria.

2.110 The length of time in obtaining planning consents has also been mentioned by almost all interviewees as having increased in recent years. Most planning approval processes tend to ask for too much information and a high level of detail when an application is registered. In addition some developers observed that planning regulations and design frameworks tend to lack commercial realism.

2.111 Overall under-resourcing in planning authorities is consistently seen as a major issue. Some developers noted that they have gone so far as to suggest that they might fund extra planners in local authority's departments. Training of planning officers was also criticised on occasions with some noting a reduction in the skills recently exacerbated by retirements of senior highly experienced planners. The poor image and rewards for planners were seen as a problem in recruitment and retention. A number of developers would like planners to have the conviction to take the lead in design issues and give a clearer statement of the vision, which is perceived as rare. Inconsistency between local authorities and between stakeholders is a major concern cited by almost all participants. Additionally the relationship between planners, councillors and politicians is a constant issue with councillors making decisions which can deviate from planning policies. In general, external planning consultants, landscape architects and urban designers are seen as enhancing design quality and contributing to a positive result in the planning process.

2.112 Roads, technical departments and building control were highly criticised by more than the half of interviewees. It is generally claimed that these departments are inflexible and councils have no mechanisms to coordinate road and planning policies. In general the perception is that departments within local authorities do not interlink or interchange ideas.

2.113 With regards to local community consultation, this is often perceived as inhibiting design quality because it tends to reflect subjective and narrow viewpoints.

2.114 Most developers were aware of design guidance, policies and advisory documents published by the Scottish Executive and other public organisations. However, these were perceived by almost half of the developers interviewed as not having a strong impact on design quality. CABE documents are seen to be only relevant for England and PAN documents give broad advice but nevertheless some firms see these documents as helpful. With regards to A+DS, the interviews showed varied responses, with some who saw it as helpful but found the lack of resources a problem. As a result, the inconsistent availability of advice on projects was noted as a problem.

2.115 The ways in which SEPA and Scottish Water are perceived to inhibit design quality were elaborated in the semi-structured interviews and most interviewees expressed that the lack of consistency and coherence between these bodies and coordination with local planning departments has been a severe problem in recent years. Some noted that this is slowly improving but policy is still inconsistent and unpredictable.

2.116 In relation to Building Standards, these are seen as driving the cost of housing up, mainly for first time buyers. However, most developers interviewed welcome Building Standards as providing a "level playing field" with competitors.

2.117 Reinforcing what is reported above, more than the half of interviewees expressed concern at the lack of skills in trades and the building professions with the suggestion that some form of apprenticeships would help to achieve better design quality.

2.118 As noted previously, land release, supply and price are inhibitors to design quality, as were insurance considerations.

Key factors that could assist achievement of greater design quality

2.119 Time is seen as a key factor in development generally. At present the timescales involved are unbalanced with lengthy periods relating to land purchase and statutory permissions. As a result design times tend to be squeezed in order to minimise the time between land purchase and start on site. A better balance between these key stages would improve design quality.

2.120 Developers generally expressed that it would be useful to have more defined expectations from planning and development departments and - above all - more consistency between local authorities and other organisations. In this context a clear set of criteria was seen as necessary to be agreed between SEPA and Scottish Water as well as more coordination between these organisations.

2.121 Providing training for planners in design issues was also seen as necessary to assist achieve better design quality. Increasing planners' ability to identify design solutions was considered to be essential, as planners are key in driving the design quality agenda. In addition the need for developing more clear and consistent design codes for each region was mentioned. Planning departments should be clear on what is "good" and on identifying the design expectations in a housing development. However there needs to be more flexibility in terms of design from other departments such as roads, as well as more resources in place for speeding up and improving the planning process. In this context it was suggested that splitting large and smaller sites in the process of planning analysis could help.

2.122 There was a demand for more investment of time and resources in developing masterplans, because at the moment there is a patchwork of individual developments. With regards to master planning and design vision there needs to be a balance between economic reality and planners aspirations.

2.123 Customer feedback was also identified as a key element for achieving better design quality. In this context developers believe that the market shows increasing awareness of design issues and space quality. Looking abroad for design solutions was also mentioned by some developers as a mechanism for improving design quality.

2.124 The "Modernising Construction" agenda, including the use of more off-site fabrication is interpreted as a positive influence for better design and this has an input in developing and testing new products and construction systems. In general this is seen as giving better performance in terms of U-values through the use of timber frame, and achieving better design of construction elements such as bay windows, dormers, etc. Off-site construction of kitchens and bathrooms is also seen as positively influencing design quality.

2.125 The new Building Standards, which have an approach to building design as being "fit for purpose", are therefore less prescriptive and could have a positive influence.

2.126 A consistent affordable housing policy is perceived as essential by some developers. This is linked to a call for identifying housing needs across different regions of Scotland. The creation of a political body such as a housing ministry which could take decisions on housing needs was identified as benefiting housing design.

2.127 More research into specific sustainable construction techniques and design development criteria such as renewable energy and reducing the carbon foot print is essential.

2.128 One developer noted that the increase in house prices and land value have allowed them to improve the specification, and to add more detailed components to the exteriors of their standard house types, such as porticos, turrets and string courses, that give greater individuality.

Summary of influences on design in the development process

2.129 Summarising responses concerning positive and negative influences on design in the development process, the developers have responded more strongly on inhibitors to design quality in the development process, and less strongly on assistance. The main inhibiting factors are within planning and other regulatory bodies, although some aspects of planning such as masterplans, design briefs, etc (and to a lesser extent guidance and policy) were seen as assisting.

2.130 There seems to be an opportunity for mechanisms to oblige developers to think more about design, with planners being key to drive the design quality agenda. However this would entail more clarification on what design quality means, expanding on the general guidance and advice, without being overly explicit in all situations. In this context masterplans and design briefs can help. Most importantly is the need for better design training for planners and consistency in approach to design issues across developments, planners, other Council officials, departments, and Councillors. Clarification on desired design quality could also speed up the approval process, as could processes distinguishing between size of developments. Overall key issues are resources, experience and knowledge.

2.131 In general, there needs to be better understanding in regulatory bodies of the development process and the economic realities which face developers in the process of design and production.

2.132 Although most of the above issues are within the remit of Councils, clear and consistent "higher level" guidance is needed.

Modernising construction, sustainability in construction, variation and standardisation in design

Modernising Construction

2.133 There have been significant changes to the construction industry in the United Kingdom over the past decade. These changes, coming under the banner of "Modernising Construction", have aimed, amongst other things, to improve the efficiency, profitability and quality of the sector. Some measures of changed processes relating to modernising construction were investigated in the research. The areas examined were off-site fabrication; local sourcing of materials; use of recycled materials and registration with Constructing Excellence, an umbrella body promoting improvement and innovation. Two of these issues, recycling and local sourcing, are also closely associated with sustainable construction.

2.134 Eighteen firms indicated that the way they operated had been influenced by the Modernising Construction agenda, while 6 said it had not and 3 did not know or did not answer. However, only 3 firms stated that they were registered with Constructing Excellence, 17 said they were not and 7 did not answer this question.

2.135 Figure 2.15 shows that a majority of firms have increased the amount of off-site fabrication they undertake in the last five years.

Figure 2.15 Changes in the use of off-site fabrication

Source: E-mail survey

2.136 Only 2 companies responding to the survey said that they did not do any off-site fabrication. Figure 2.16 highlights views on the impact of off-site fabrication on design quality.

Figure 2.16 Impact of off-site fabrication on quality

Source: E-mail survey

2.137 Twenty two respondents expressed an opinion on the impact of off-site fabrication on design quality. The most commonly held opinion (10) was that quality was improved by off-site fabrication but 7 thought that its impact could be both positive and negative and 5 believed that it had no impact on quality. No-one believed that off-site fabrication reduced design quality.

Selected Sustainability Issues: Locally Sourced Materials and Recycled Materials

2.138 Under the general heading of Modernising Construction, two issues with a bearing on sustainability were explored. Whilst sustainability is a complex area, the two issues considered here, recycling and local materials, were selected for the relative ease with which answers could be given in a survey of this kind. Although these two measures give some indication of current practice, they give only a very partial insight into sustainability amongst this group of developers. Figure 2.17 shows how the use of these materials has changed over the past five years.

Figure 2.17 Change in proportion of recycled and locally sourced materials over the last 5 years

Source: E-mail survey

2.139 Twenty six developers gave responses to each of the questions on use of more sustainable materials. A majority (15) had increased the amount of recycled materials, with only one having decreased and 10 having had no change. A majority of firms (14) had not changed the amount local sourcing but more had decreased (8) than increased (4) their use of local material.

Variation and standardisation in design

2.140 Questions on variation in design were introduced to the e-mail questionnaire to establish the degree of variation in products and to identify firms who might be candidates for interviews exploring the impact of one-off design on standard products. A mix of answers to question 6.2 "Does your company use standard house types?" and 5.2 "If you have some individually designed developments, do these designs influence your more standard products?" formed the main selection criteria (see questionnaire in Annex 1).

2.141 However, the more detailed question 5.1 on the degree of design variability within a developer's programme proved difficult to interpret within the constraints of an email survey where there was relatively limited space for explanation. It was evident from the answers that a variety of interpretations were placed on pre-coded options presented to the respondents. For example, some respondents answered both that design usually "varies minimally" and that there are usually "significant design differences". Responses to question 5.1 are shown in table 2.9.

Table 2.9 Variation in design between company's developments

Source: E-mail survey

2.142 Given these concerns over interpretation, care should be taken not to overly analyse the responses on this in the questionnaire, but rather rely on responses in the follow-up qualitative interviews to explore these issues in more detail, as reported below. Nevertheless, 2 points can be drawn out with some certainty. The first is that almost all of the developers believe that there is some variety in design between their developments, and the second is that all of those who answered believed that they had some individually designed developments - however, it is not possible to know how each respondent was interpreting the term "individually designed". Overall, just under half of firms (13) stated that individually designed developments (however defined) influenced their more standard products, as expanded on below.

Standard House Types

2.143 The use of standard house types was initially explored in the Phase I survey. Although generally broadly understood, the term standard house type does not have a precise, commonly agreed meaning. It was therefore defined on the survey form as a term "commonly used to describe housing where one or all of the following are repeated from a standard template by a developer: floor plan; elevations; finishes; site design and layout. The developer may sometimes refer to a standard house type by a name for marketing purposes."

2.144 Twenty four firms indicated in the e-mail survey that they used standard house types, and a large majority of these (20) usually included standard house types on their sites, with another stating that they always used them. Four of the 5 non-Scottish based developers usually used standard types and the fifth always used them. Only 3 of the respondents indicated that they never used standard house type.

2.145 Those developers who use standard house types use them on average on two thirds of their developments with a range from 20% to 100% of developments. The non-Scottish based firms used standard types on between 50% and 100% of sites. The 22 firms who indicated the percentage used were divided shown in Table 2.10.

Table 2.10 Proportion of sites on which firms use standard house types

Source: E-mail survey

2.146 Firms were also asked if the proportion of sites on which they used standard house types had changed. Figure 2.18 indicates that there had been some movement towards less use of standard house types.

Figure 2.18 Change in proportion of sites where standard house types are used over last 5 years

Source: E-mail survey
Note: one company did not answer this question.

2.147 More firms (12) were using standard types less frequently now compared to five years ago and had increased the number of sites where they used them (4). A substantial minority of firms reported no change in the past five years.

2.148 Information was sought on the number of different house types firms were using. On average firms use 23 different standard house types each with a range of 8 to 45 standard house types used by any one firm. Figure 2.19 highlights changes in the use of standard house types.

Figure 2.19 Change in the number of different standard house types used in last 5 years

Source: E-mail survey

2.149 A majority of firms (19) had increased the number of different standard house types they used. Only 2 firms had decreased the number of standard house types.

Benefits of Standard House Types

2.150 Twenty three respondents expressed opinions on the impact of standard house types on design quality. A majority (14) thought they improved quality, 6 did not think they had any impact and none believed that standard types reduced quality.

Bespoke or "one-off" design

2.151 As part of the interviews a selection of the developers who responded concerning "one-off" design in the questionnaire were asked a set of additional questions to understand if their standard house types are influenced by one-off designs, and establish how and why this takes place. The developers interviewed, tended to use the term "bespoke development" to describe a development that has been designed using non-standard house types rather than using the term "one-off" designs. It became clear that it is rare for such bespoke designs to be adopted as a standard product, but this does happen from time to time. Most often, bespoke designs are a solution to particular site conditions, either due to complex topography that entails difficulty in the use of standard types, or alternatively that the site location, market response and/or planning policy demand a more specific bespoke response.

2.152 Developers try to strike a balance concerning individuality of exterior treatment and building houses that are similar but different enough that the house buyer can feel it is their own home. Some of the smaller developers, and in particular those who also construct, noted that they can accommodate some individual tailoring internally if the customer approaches the firm concerning this early on. In this case, standardisation comes with the detailing and choice of materials rather than the layout.

2.153 Developers were strongly of the opinion that bespoke designs may produce better urban design, but that the houses themselves are likely to be less well produced as they are, in effect, untested prototypes. They will also generally take longer to build and may require more skilled trades inputs. Standard types, that have evolved over a period of time and have been modified to make them more buildable and efficient internally, are generally thought to provide a better quality solution and a better value product for the customer.

2.154 The research did identify occasions when a bespoke design has been developed in response to topography, or by an external architect who has introduced a fresh approach and this has then been re-used on later sites, perhaps with some minor modifications. One interviewee noted that their firm has adopted some innovative aspects from working on affordable housing and applied more generally. Concerning external consultant designs, some developers noted that they retain the copyright to external architects' designs and so are free to adapt these later as they wish, including in standardisation.

2.155 In general developers had no plans to increase the proportion of bespoke developments and, in fact, most would like to reduce the number of standard types they have. One developer noted that as the land supply decreases and the proportion of urban sites, or sites that were previously rejected, begin to be developed, the proportion of bespoke designs will increase. This has happened in England and the resultant move to employ more external consultants for these bespoke developments has had a knock-on effect on the structure of house-builders who have downsized in-house technical staff. Developers noted that the policy of higher density developments with a mixture of apartments, terraced and detached houses and townhouses has forced an increase in standard house types. This appears to be stabilising and each developer will make use of a balance of external consultants and in-house staff as noted previously.

2.156 There were a few, high profile developers, who tend to operate in the executive market, who always commission one-off or bespoke designs. Such higher design development costs can be recouped more easily than in the mid market or starter home ranges, where cost and quality are the main drivers for standardisation.

Standard house types

2.157 As reported above from the email survey, most companies interviewed use some form of standard house types. Interviews confirmed that firms might have from around 15 to 40 different standard layouts. These standard types are regularly reviewed in most companies and can be modified in relation to planners' recommendations, new building regulations, market trends, customer feedback and occasionally the requirements of a specific client. Therefore many of the interviewees noted that there is a misunderstanding on the whole issue of standardisation, and they would feel more comfortable with using terms such as "standard layouts" or "standard footprints" rather than "standard house types".

2.158 In general standard products are seen as improving quality of build due to repeat construction and evolution. The use of standard plan layouts also occurs because of the confidence that these house types present to the market place, as products that are known to sell. A small number of interviewees noted that they tend not to use standard products and rely on external consultants who are commissioned to design each specific development. However even these firms tend to have standard specifications for different market levels.

2.159 The design process for standard products is similar for most firms interviewed. Sales managers tend to advise on which standard types are likely sell in the particular location and considering the specific conditions and type of site (urban, suburban, village, etc). Standard products are more likely to be used where the site has been scheduled for housing on the local plan. Planners may suggest modifications in standard house types, such as the insertion of gable windows to give more character to gables, or to give overlooking to otherwise dead areas. Chimneys may be added or a change in the exterior materials to suit the perceived local vernacular. Planning guidance also tends to include ratio of house to garden size, back to back distance, front gardens, etc. Most companies tend to modify existing standard layouts in the first instance, and if there is a requirement from the planning department for using a new type, then the firm commissions alternative design options. Around half of interviewees undertake this in-house whereas the other half uses external design consultants, but, as noted earlier, the location, priorities of the developer and the way in which the land has been purchased can all affect the decision to use standard types.

2.160 The idea that standard house types undertake a process of "jacketing" - or modification of the external design while retaining standard internal layouts and specifications - depending on site location or planning requirements, was a commonly held view. Flats tend to be one-off designs because they are generally located in urban areas and linked to the particularities of a constrained site, but some developers will also use standard apartment layouts, modified to site requirements.

2.161 New building regulations are a common reason for reviewing and modifying standard house types. New materials such as new types of insulation also influence changes in standard layouts. Differences in sizes, materials and internal layouts between houses in England and Scotland have been noticed, mainly by those companies interviewed that have headquarters south of the border. For example room sizes are smaller in England and one developer noted that their standard English three bedroom house can only be sold in Scotland as a two bedroom house with a large storage space.

2.162 Among the advantages that interviewees expressed concerning standard house types are: operation at scale; helping to ensure that houses will sell; links with building a brand; and determining specifications according to different levels of affordability.

2.163 In general, the updating of the range of house types is carried out by in-house design staff. A few developers operate a clear research and development programme in which standard products are updated through regular cross-disciplinary meetings between design, technical, sales staff and land purchasers and construction managers.

Summary of responses on modernising construction, design variation and standard house types

2.164 Concerning modernising construction, most firms indicated this trend had affected their operations although few had registered with Constructing Excellence - perhaps because many respondents are actually not builders but developers. Off site production was a growing phenomenon, generally seen to improve quality of the housing product.

2.165 In terms of sustainable construction, the re-cycling of building material had increased but the local sourcing of materials had generally not increased, but decreased.

2.166 Summarising responses on variation in design, all developers believe that there is some variety in design between their developments and hence the term "one-off" design is not really applicable in any situation as all developments may have both individually designed aspects and standard design elements. One way this is applied is in "jacketing" a standard internal layout with different external treatments - quite possibly adapted to fit planning requirements or market research as to demand for a firm's standard products.

2.167 The way in which modifications are made to designs was explored in the semi-structured interviews. Most firms do use some form of standard house type, but in general complete house standardization was considered to be diminishing. However most developers believed that repetition of design in some form of standardization - whether in house design or component design - led to benefits in improved quality as well as buildability and hence costs and these are highly valued factors for developers.

2.168 Designs which are predominantly individual - "bespoke designs" - tend to be used as solutions for specific sites. Most developers did not consider such designs to be essentially better in terms of the individual houses but that they are more likely to improve the sense of place and urban design; in fact standardisation was believed to give better quality in terms of liveability, usability, and build quality.