Greener

Factory controlled processes reduce waste in time and materials.

Faster

Are more efficient meaning site construction time is greatly reduced.

Smarter

Ensures better construction quality management.

Safer

Eliminates on-site construction hazards

Adaptable

Factory construction allows the same level of flexibility and adaption as a site built project

Here we outline how to take full advantage of employing the wider agenda of MMC in a development project.

1. MMC in appraisal and delivery

Development projects today require design input from many different experts. These include a core team of consultants along with various specialist reports along the way. A simplified project delivery is design led with online co-ordination and planning.

The MMC driven planning and project management systems we use chart a route though the RIBA Plan of Work stages so that everyone involved shares a common goal.  We build MMC into our Appraisal system, the backbone of our project management process from the initial stages of our appointment to client handover.

2. MMC as a design tool.

Our BIM CAD System allows us to easily balance all of the design drivers that we use to conceive and test site constraints to maximise development potential. Core consultants within a design team work on a common online CAD and data file and our clients and investors always have access to our snapshot reporting facility.

All MMC manufacturers have BIM capabilities that talk to our own computer systems. This means we are always fully engaged with industry developments including updates to product performance and specification, and greater efficiency in all areas.

We can specify adaptable factory built systems so that we can create buildings that are of the highest quality, fit for purpose and built to last.

3. MMC in Infrastructure, Ground Works and Contract Administration

Getting out of the ground is a huge challenge in any construction project. Whilst MMC systems on the market today commonly focus on above ground construction with varying levels of completion there are many MMC products and design methods we can employ in, for example, the connection of utilities, landscaping and roads and foundations and below ground structures.

Working with leading Structural, Civil, and Environmental Engineers and through BIM Software we are able to establish a co-ordinated, environmentally sound and cost-efficient construction system for the major elements of a building.  In a large part, we can include elements that are not commonly conceived to lie within the MMC package.

MMC eliminates many of the hazards that befall the construction process when on site and increases the efficiency of contract administration.

4. MMC – Onsite construction, the main systems available

We have written elsewhere about the main systems of MMC available for MMC construction along with their varying levels of completion.   See our blog

‘Transforming construction in the digital age’

Timber framed construction has been widespread in the UK building industry for thousands of years. MMC allows us to create the same structures in a better way, with all components, from insulation to surface finishes, applied in factory controlled conditions.

We work with suppliers and fabricators at an early stage so that we utilize systems that best suit the needs of a site or a building and which champion financial and environmental efficiencies.

5. MMC and the climate emergency

As owners and designers look for more sustainable designs for improved environmental impact, modular construction is inherently a natural fit. Building in a controlled environment reduces waste through avoidance upstream rather than diversion downstream. This, along with improved quality management throughout the construction process and significantly less on-site activity and disturbance, inherently promotes sustainability. High quality, sustainable, innovative, efficient, cost-effective, and shorter time to completion.

Well designed buildings benefit from a connection with the natural environment and have a minimal impact on the circular economy (i.e. they do not need to be replaced or face a major upgrade within a few years).

6. MMC as a positive outcome

As Architects and Project Managers we fully embrace the benefits of MMC to create better buildings and environments. MMC does not mean that all buildings will look the same, factory systems are infinitely adaptable and offer huge improvements to the built environment whether they are residential, public realm, or otherwise.

Through our connections with Max Farrell and the London Collective Douglas and King are currently working on a new town development within the Oxford to Cambridge Arc that is built around a National Centre of MMC Excellence. The MMC Centre will be part of the DNA of the new town and will be a place where leading manufacturers and suppliers, along with academics and designers, can showcase their technology to contractors, stake holders and to end users.

Methodology

We plan the factory production roadmap well in advance of placing an order.  Co-ordinated drawings are passed to the worksop for confirmation of order, price, environmental credentials, and confirmation of delivery schedule.

When the price is confirmed fabrication drawings and specifications are prepared by specialist technicians within our preferred suppliers manufacturing facility and vetted and approved by Douglas and King.

Then the timber frame is produced, insulation and sheathing elements applied and smaller windows fitted. Service zones are installed within walls that will allow electricians on site to route cables and M and E systems.

The panels are fabricated as large as road transport will allow. The modular sections are delivered to site and lifted into place by crane, the whole system sitting on pre-prepared foundations and base slabs.

The panels are fixed together by the MMC Suppliers’ on-site team ready for secondary components, services fit out and internal and external finishes to be put in place by local based specialists.

Douglas and King have standard fabrication drawings and specifications for all secondary components for use in the DAK House Type and these can be sourced by other manufacturing partners or though a main contractor.

Environmental and Sustainability Targets

The DAK House champions environmental performance in construction and in use. The house type can be aligned to the standards set out in most leading standards including Passivehaus. The building type is designed in accordance with the aspirations of the RIBA 2030 Climate Challenge and the UK GBC, and meets the environmental performance targets detailed by UK Building Regulations.

We calculate the carbon footprint of all of our buildings by adding up the sums of the following impacts:

1. impacts from material extraction and manufacturing processes
2. transportation
3. construction
4. maintenance, repairs, and replacement of materials during the buildings life
5. cycle energy and water consumption in use
6. knock down and end-of-life recycling of materials

The best and most sustainable material for construction remains timber and this is widely used by our suppliers in their off-site construction processes.

We are committed to creating people-centered dwellings that are inclusive where full consideration has been given to the dynamics of age, lifestyle, function, circulation, level, daylight levels, insulation and well-being.

The DAK House and the DAK Development Appraisal

A design led house type development pursues the same appraisal model as would any typical development project undertaken by Douglas and King.  A design led project built around a realistic and coherent business model creates the most successful residential developments.

We assess the risk and plan the extent of investments required and the financial model for the development. We outline how to deliver the maximum development potential through design-led solutions.

We embrace the role of Design Team Project Manager in order to co-ordinate all stages of a project from conception through planning, design, construction and handover. Combining the roles of project manager and architect means we can predict and monitor the project throughout its timeline.

We collaborate closely with clients, fellow design professionals, local planners and building control officers, contractors and suppliers – all of these are valuable partners who collectively deliver the successful outcome of a project.

Join the List – the Offer

If you have a site for development and would like to know how the DAK House might fit within your development plans please contact Martin at our Shoreditch studio – martin@douglasandking.com

We will prepare a draft master plan along with a development appraisal identifying timeline, costs and all stages of the process including vision, planning, construction and occupation.

Design is King

We design buildings that are expressive of their place and context, buildings that reflect the contemporary world.  A building must not just look right, it must feel right. It must be right.

We see the Bigger Picture

We respect the diverse characteristics of the built environment and its historic fabric.  We take a long-term view of the urban legacy we are bequeathing to future generations.

Everything is Design.

We design environments that are livable, workable and sustainable, and yet assert a subtle individuality.  We don’t want to fight for beautiful architecture.

.

In it for the Long Term

We like to work with clients who appreciate our core values and whose vision we can share.   Architecture is about respect.  Respect for clients, communities, people, places, craftsmanship, the planet.

.

Our Culture Breeds Creativity

We design buildings that create conversations not controversy.  We embrace the latest construction technology and the possibilities and solutions it presents.  During the early stages of a project we concentrate on information gathering and this provides a platform for the concept and brief.

We are Natural Collaborators

We collaborate closely with clients, fellow design professionals, local planners and building control officers, contractors and suppliers – all of whom are valuable partners that collectively deliver successful outcomes.

Architecture Pushes Profits

As an added benefit we research and provide you with a comprehensive development appraisal that considers the potential outcomes, risks and capital requirements.  We have an enviable record of achieving difficult planning consents.

Part 1 – The Post Modern Default

Douglas and King are currently involved in the design of new homes in partnership with forward thinking house builders. This article forms part of a wider investigation within the practice that examines the key issues of design authenticity – identity, cost, place-making and the creation of credible neighbourhoods.

In this article we challenge the typical housing typology offered by many house builders today and how this model can be improved upon to create authentic responsive homes.

For many there is a pre-conceived notion of what a traditional house looks like, we can see this evidenced when we ask a child to draw the image of a house. This notion has its origins in the house building projects of the early 20th Century when, as a reaction to the terraced urban slums in industrialised cities, the architects of that time tried to replicate the typologies of medieval and pre-industrial buildings in the creation of new towns and suburbs. These new house types were built with the technologies prevalent at the time, mass-produced load bearing masonry, and so the buildings were, in reality, very different to the historic models.

Since then the understanding of what traditional architecture is has changed. Traditional Architecture has become a multitude of styles and trends including terraced, semi-detached, pre-fabricated, bungalows, town houses, etc, etc.

The image above is typical of a new house type that is often championed by private developers.  A few observations reveal a number of shortfalls:

1. Houses are generally not orientated to optimise what can be achieved by topography, outlook, sunlight and daylight provision at different times of the day, insulation, winter wind factors

2. The traditional features are not drawn from a local vernacular but from a preconceived notion of what a ‘traditional house’ might have looked like

3. Windows and doors are downsized and not positioned to maximise outlook or the amount of daylight that can enter the building

4. The architectural features are an eclectic composition of different types. For example the entrance porch is from an agricultural building, the chimney is a fake, the gable ends are from a post-industrial architectural language and the dormer windows at first floor level are out of context.

5. In order to reduce costs and in part due to the lack of available craft components, the brickwork of the exterior is either bland or poorly patterned in order to add complexity to what would otherwise be a featureless exterior.

6. The building is likely to have been constructed by a system building process i.e. an offsite construction system such as pre-assembled timber frame in order to reduce building costs. The building suggests that it is of a loadbearing masonry construction – it is not

7. Internal and external facias, rainwater pipes and other secondary components are camouflaged plastic

8. The plan of this building does not allow for adaptability or flexibility. The ceiling heights and room sizes have been drawn up to conform to the minimum standards allowable under the building regulations

9. All houses in the 21^st century are built with modern technology whether they are dressed and decorated with historic style references in order to create a safe, recognisable language to the building or whether they are built as an honest response to the vernacular architecture of the region.

10. Running parallel is the maxim that many developers use when planning a new ‘estate’ of houses.  Maximise the development potential by squeezing as many units as possible into a plot of land to the extent that it looks like a ‘barracks’ and simultaneously present the prospective purchaser with little or no diversity.

11. Maximising the flow of natural light through orientation, a relationship with the landscape, privacy and community interaction are not priorities.  Behind ‘fake’ facades the ceiling heights are of the minimum standard set out in the Local Plan, doors and other internal finishes are of an acceptable quality (just about) and kitchens/bathrooms are typically standardised.

12. It is often not a priority to respect to endorse the fundamental principles that to create a credible and functioning community it is essential to design for the long term, for mixed occupancy, an authentic sense of community and the changing narrative of a family and street.

Whilst we continue to discuss the key drivers of successful housing elsewhere, it is worthwhile flagging up a seemingly simple question, but one that is often asked:

“can we have a traditional house…… or can we have a modern one or both?”

It’s actually a very difficult question to answer against a backdrop of what are essentially pre-conceived and over-simplistic ideas of what ‘traditional’ or ‘modern’ architecture actually is. Below we try to throw some light on these within the context of a broader and important issue – ‘authenticity’:

1.  all buildings built today are modern as a result of the technologies and materials used in the construction process

2. a modern building can have an authentic historical theme, what architects call a Genius Loci or ‘spirit of place’

3. well-designed buildings are highly functional, energy efficient, maximise the daylight orientation and give a higher level of user satisfaction than historic re-interpretations

4. authentic modern buildings that reflect a local architectural language will use substantial elements of factory construction and therefore yield the best value for money in terms of building costs

5. authentic modern buildings will find favour with prospective buyers when their aesthetic quality is marketed positively resulting in superior sales to a fake attempt at a historic architectural language

6. modern family living requires homes that are flexible and adaptable beyond one or two generations

7. Authentic architecture is responsive to the environment and to sustaining it

For many the notion of ‘modern architecture’ brings to mind cold, unwelcoming buildings with hard edges and straight lines. This view is largely encouraged by the ‘brutalist’ buildings of the mid-20th century that attempted to proclaim in a new way the artistic principles of form aligned with texture, materials and spatial arrangements.

The exemplars of this ‘brutalist’ building style are now buildings listed for their architectural merit as examples of the International Modern Movement.  Unfortunately, the UK largely passed this by with a few honourable exceptions.

What went wrong, and further compounds the mis-reading of this style, were the poor interpretations of this architectural language in the creation of low cost and mass housing in the ‘50’s, 60’s and 70’s.   These interpretations were adversaries to the movement and their legacy lingers on.

The notion of ‘traditional architecture’ when applied to housing is almost always perceived as it is interpreted by mainstream developers and house builders.  It can be neo-classical, country house, cottage style, or a hybrid of them all – whatever the resulting ‘design’ the house will be ‘modern architecture’.   Architects call this interpretation of traditional architecture the ‘post modern’ and the greatest myth is that ‘post modern’ homes are the preference of potential occupants.

These typologies are rapidly being built all over the UK as part of the response to the national housing shortage.  Invariably, they represent a missed opportunity to create high quality homes that are both respectful to their location and its history but also to the aspirations of the people who will live in them.  All too often developments of 120 houses or more maximise density without acknowledging the need for homes and neighbours to have a respectful distance between them as well as a meaningful relationship with each other and to the landscape in which they are being built.

In another article we discuss the importance of ‘place-making’ and how it must be considered as a primary factor when planning volume new-build housing schemes.

Part 2 – Investing in the Design Process – Positive Partnerships – Authenticity and Diversity.

There are exemplary examples of recent new housing developments where a full awareness of the local vernacular is employed to create modern homes that interpret a traditional architectural language. It should be said that homebuilders, including those behind some of the housing typologies outlined above, are making some efforts to improve the quality and design authenticity of their model.  The 2020 Open Design Competition was an initiative by Taylor Wimpey and the RIBA find a more appropriate model for the aesthetic house style and plan.  All the shortlisted proposals were for buildings that were adaptable, responsive to their location, were nuanced in their relationship to each other and considered the living experience of the occupants. The image below is of the winning entry by Openstudio Architects.

Below are further examples of authentic housing which exemplify the ways in which the vernacular architecture of an area can be ‘borrowed’ rather than ‘faked’.  These have all been commissioned by mainstream house developers and demonstrate the ways in which an intrinsic ‘sense of place’ can be at the heart of the development.

Part 3 – Conclusion

A successful design in any form of building type is measured by the enjoyment of its occupant(s) and their response to its environment and aesthetic.

In designing homes there is a strong argument for an authentic approach and the key aspects of this are as follows:

1. They are designed to reflect the local architectural heritage

2. Employ a common set of components to keep costs down but are arranged in a unique way to respond to their setting within a site and their occupancy

3. They are adaptable and flexible

4. They are not inappropriately decorated

5. Their exteriors are finished in high quality materials such as timber cladding or textured brickwork

6. They have a respectful distance between neighbouring homes and a meaningful relationship to the landscape in which they are being built

Further Reading

Let’s Share the Vision

Here we explain why Douglas and King, as architects, believe that housing serves a fundamental human and social need.  We believe that incisive knowledge and insightful management of the dynamics of integrating Affordable Housing and For Profit housing can maximize investment value.

We advocate responsible real estate strategies that create positive social impact alongside strongly performing investment models.  We understand the importance of the sustainability of an asset and yet within this model create aspirational communities.

We are experts in managing the financial model of a project at all stages and are 100% happy with a profit driven motive.  However ‘maximising profits’ at the expense of delivering good quality buildings and community focused environments is at worst anti-social and at best discriminatory. A good investment strategy must incorporate environmental and social issues alongside traditional economic considerations.

We as architects strive to create the best possible solution for the people that will live in the developments we design yet are equally committed to ensure that the funding partners receive resilient profits on their investments.  Responsible investment requires anticipating and managing all risks to maximize returns, not only the absolute but also the anticipatory.

Introduction

There have been updates in policy regarding Affordable Housing in respect of small residential developments and the purpose of this blog is to clarify to private sector developers who are building or planning to build on a small sites what it is, when it applies, what the contribution might be and the processes involved in agreeing and delivering a contribution either on site or offsite.

Many planning authorities (and in particular the GLA) are enabling smaller sites to be developed for housing delivery by altering planning guidance to a ‘Presumption in Favour to Grant Planning’. The Mayor of London has identified through a SHLAA, Strategic Land Availability Assessment, that small sites providing between 1 and 25 homes could deliver a large percentage of the annual need for new homes in London.

This is good news for small-scale residential developments as they are far more likely to gain successful planning in the future but what is not entirely clear is whether or not there is a liability for Affordable Housing within the development, depending on the number of units proposed.

Furthermore, private sector developers are unsure, apprehensive and sometimes unclear about the impact of this legislation and what obligations it entails. Uncertainty often arises when the site size and constraints indicate an ideal layout that is potentially above the AH trigger point of 10+ new residential units.

The diagram above shows how new housing delivery shifted almost entirely to  private sector developers in the 1980’s leaving a large gap in affordable or social housing provision.

What triggers Affordable Housing contributions in a smaller development?

Local authorities have adopted differing thresholds and different criteria to trigger affordable housing contributions and to what extent the contributions should be applied.  Nationally the NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) states the following:

Affordable housing should not be sought on residential schemes that are not major developments. Paragraph 63 of the 2018 NPP confirms the Affordable Housing threshold as 10 or less dwellings or a combined floor space of 1,000sqm, with an optional lower threshold of 5 or less dwellings in designated areas.

The paradox is that a glossary within in the revised NPPF states that major developments are designated to be 10 dwellings or more, or sites over 0.5 hectares in size.  This differs from the previous PPG guidance (which has yet to be updated).

So it would seem notionally that the threshold has dropped by one unit: AH is now at 10 dwellings rather than 11 and the 1,000sqm trigger has been replaced with a site size trigger of 0.5 hectares instead.

Some local authorities may apply the 10 unit, 1,000sq m threshold.  Others, however, may apply the threshold to 10 unit projects within revised policy guidelines.

Planning applications are considered by local authorities in line with the guidance contained within their own adopted Local Plan. Local Plans are based on policies set out in regional and national guidelines. The discrepancy arises when Local Plans do not comply with National Planning guidance and there has been a great deal of discussion and legal representation by councils and developers in order to challenge and clarify inconsistent policy.

How is this applied in London – The New London Plan 2019

Policy H2 of The New London Plan introduces a ‘presumption in favour of small housing developments’. Small sites are considered to be ones that deliver up to 25 homes, or are less than 0.25ha.

Policy H5 of the strategic plan targets 50 per cent of all new homes delivered across London to be affordable.

Policy H2 notes that London boroughs wishing to apply affordable housing requirements to sites capable of delivering ten units or fewer and which have a maximum combined gross floor space of no more than 1,000 sqm should only require this through a tariff approach to off-site contributions rather than seeking on-site contributions. Boroughs are strongly encouraged to provide the flexibility for payments to be collected prior to the occupation of development, rather than prior to commencement of development.  The New London Plan, however, does encourage London boroughs to set policies at the local level which require cash payments in-lieu from sites of ten units or less.

However there are inconsistencies in the way London boroughs are interpreting policy, e.g.

The London Borough of Islington notes that ‘Following the publication of the revised

NPPF (2018), it will continue to seek financial contributions towards the provision of affordable housing from minor applications involving the creation of net additional residential units in line with Core Strategy Policy CS12 Part G and as outlined in the Council’s Small Sites Affordable Housing SPD (2012)’.

Islington goes on to note that, Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 both emphasise the primacy of the Development Plan in determining Planning Applications. Whilst the revised NPPF (2018) Paragraph 63 constitutes an important material consideration, it is the Council’s position that in the light of the unique circumstances of the borough and objectively assessed need for affordable housing, that NPPF Paragraph 63 does not outweigh or override Policy CS12 Part G and the requirement for minor applications (sub 10 residential units) to provide a financial contribution towards the provision of affordable housing elsewhere in the borough.

Clearly Islington’s position is not compatible with national or regional policy and is therefore vulnerable to legal challenge.

Looking at a local authority elsewhere in the United Kingdom, Taunton Dean Borough Council have adopted Policy CP4 (2014).  This aims to ensure that affordable housing is provided as integral to all development schemes which provide five or more net additional dwellings. The policy states that 25% of all new housing should be in the form of affordable units.

Takeaway Advice

The NPPF notes that planning applications should be front loaded in terms of design development, this means that the liability for affordable housing is agreed during the pre-application or planning development process rather than in the decision making process post-submission. The first action is to check the status of local authority policy outlined in the Local Plan, and whether the policy is compliant.

In order to make an assessment for an initial appraisal Douglas and King follow the procedures below:

1. Assess the Local Plan to check the specific requirement for Affordable Housing contributions
2. Determine whether the Local Plan is compliant with regional or national policy
3. Check the local SHMA and SHLAA
4. Review recent locally-based planning applications to evaluate how AH policy and contributions are being applied/have been applied to similar sites
5. An Affordable Housing Contribution strategy is then built into the project’s development appraisal.

At Douglas and King we do much more at the concept design and appraisal stage.

6. Douglas and King have contacts with Housing Associations and other housing providers and are in a position to discuss and negotiate on-site provision at an early appraisal stage
7. We work with a number of AH consultants to assist with the prediction and negotiation of a suitable off-site construction contribution
8. There are obvious variations and differing interpretations being adopted by local authorities toward their individual AH policy and we identify these
Legislation and policy is in a process of change and is therefore subject to differing interpretations.  We double-check policy at all levels
9. We evaluate the AH contribution carefully and take advice if necessary. Each development project should be assessed within the context of the particular local authority.

The Architect led teams must design in a realistic and relevant AH Contribution at the concept and appraisal stage.