32 C O N T E X T 1 1 0 : J U LY 2 0 0 9 provides lessons not only in what might be achieved in future housing provision, but also in what might be better avoided. The shared challenge – for housing providers, funding bodies, local authorities and the heritage sector – is to ensure that the affordable housing of the future builds on the best of this tradition. It should be sufficiently well designed to sit comfortably in the historic core of our settlements, becoming part of the cherished local scene, rather than always being relegated to its edge. Design should draw on local traditions and approaches. It should avoid importing the urban and suburban characteristics that are so damaging to the distinctiveness of rural areas. But it should avoid the off-the-peg adoption of designs from schemes elsewhere – no matter how accomplished or celebrated – which will simply lead to a different form of homogenisation. Increasingly, affordable housing schemes are successfully making use of local materials, but design often fails to address other aspects of local historic context.These include issues such as detailing, finishes, patterning and paint schemes, as well as the treatment of views, streetscape, car parking, surfaces and boundaries. Good design should consider the positioning of the building within its surroundings, as the distinctive plan form of a rural settlement is often a significant contributor to its overall character. The English Heritage guidance provides some pointers on these issues, and is intended to complement other design guidance such as that published by Business in the Community and the Prince’s Foundation (2006). Guidance can go only so far, however. The main requirements for housing providers planning a scheme in a sensitive location should be to consider their choice of architect with great care and, wherever possible, to consult with their local authority historic buildings conservation officer at the earliest opportunity. Alongside sensitive new building in historic areas, English Heritage would also like to see more consideration given to the adaptive re-use of redundant and at-risk historic buildings for the provision of affordable homes. Research we commissioned to support the drafting of our guidance (Forum Heritage Services 2008) suggests that projects of this type are a rarity. Clearly, cost factors and historic sensitivity may make this impractical for some types of historic structure. The market value of most historic barns, for example, puts them beyond the budget of housing associations, but other types of historic building may be more suitable for this purpose. Our guidance signposts some case studies. For example, the reuse of redundant church buildings may provide opportunities, if treated carefully. The recent publication Faith in Affordable Housing (Housing Justice et al 2009) includes successful examples of two such schemes. The historic environment sector must not be naive about the scale of the challenges facing housing providers. Affordable housing is inevitably constructed on tight budgets and, in the current economic climate, these could become tighter still. While schemes may often fall short of perfection in the eyes of the most rigorous guardians of the heritage, the case studies in our guidance demonstrate that much can be achieved in terms of good design on a limited budget. Nevertheless, traditional materials such as building stone and roofing slates inevitably add to project costs, and there will always remain a tension between what is desirable and what is practical. Importantly in this context, the report by the Affordable Rural Housing Commission recognised that many potential development sites in the countryside would be sensitive. It suggested that bringing forward successful schemes on these sites, particularly where they have capacity for a small number of units, could be more expensive than typical urban schemes. The ARHC recommended that the Housing Corporation should identify these additional costs in its allocations to housing providers (ARHC 2006, page 4). It is to be hoped that the newly founded Homes and Communities Agency, which became operational in December 2008 and now acts as the principal funder for housing associations in England, will also recognise this challenge and carefully consider the commission’s recommendation. This would be an important step in trying to ensure that the rural affordable housing of today can become the cherished historic buildings of tomorrow. References ARHC (2006) Affordable Rural Housing Commission Final Report (Goodman), London, Affordable Rural Housing Commission Business in the Community and the Prince’s Foundation for the Built Environment (2006) The Prince of Wales’s Affordable Rural Housing Initiative, Creating a Sense of Place: a design guide, London, Business in the Community Barker, K (2004) Review of Housing Supply Delivering Stability: securing our future housing needs, London, Affordable Rural Housing Commission Forum Heritage Services (2008) Affordable Rural Housing and the Historic Environment Project Report, client report prepared for English Heritage Housing Justice et al (2009) Faith in Affordable Housing: using church land and property for affordable housing, www.fiah.org.uk Taylor, M (2008) Living Working Countryside: the Taylor review of rural economy and affordable housing, London, Communities and Local Government Stephen Trow is head of rural and environmental policy at English Heritage. The English Heritage guidance was prepared by Bob Edwards and James Webb (Forum Heritage Services), Shane Gould, Stephen Trow and Sarah Tunnicliffe (English Heritage). Affordable Rural Housing Commission final report report fina
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=