Scrapping the Future Homes Standard before it even comes into force. What exactly does that solve?

The Conservative Party’s proposal is being framed as cutting red tape to bring down the cost of new homes, but taking away the standard doesn’t remove the desperate need for better-performing buildings.

All it really does is strip the industry of certainty, reward developers who do the bare minimum, and leave homeowners paying for it through higher energy bills for decades.

If we learned anything from Grenfell and the wider building safety crisis, it’s that standards aren’t the problem, a lack of clear rules and enforcement is.

IMA Chief Executive Simon Storer has written more about why scrapping the Future Homes Standard would be a step backwards, and why you cannot build to a standard that does not exist.

The Conservative Party’s pledge at its recent conference to scrap the Future Homes Standard before it has even come into force has been presented as a way of cutting red tape and bringing down the cost of new homes. It makes an attention-grabbing headline, but it is hard to see what it would actually achieve.

Red tape is what people who dislike legislation call it. For those of us who build, specify and live in homes, a sensible standard is what gives us something to build to, and something to be held to. Nowhere is that clearer than in the fabric of a building, where good performance depends on getting the basics right from the start, and a warm, comfortable home that is affordable to run cannot be left to chance.

It has taken us a very long time to get here. Years of consultation, preparation and investment have gone into the Future Homes Standard, and designers, manufacturers and contractors have planned around it. Take it away and the first question anyone will ask is a simple one: what is this home actually being built to? Without a clear benchmark, responsible builders will carry on doing the right thing, but they will be undercut all the way by those who do not, and buyers will have no easy way of telling the difference. That does not open up competition. It lowers the bar and invites the cowboys in.

We should also remember where building below the required standard has led us before. The lesson of Grenfell was not that standards are the problem. It was what happens when buildings fall short of the standards that exist and nobody checks. The answer to too few inspectors is better enforcement, not fewer standards, which would be rather like responding to concerns about road safety by scrapping the MOT. Everything the industry has worked towards since, from the Building Safety Act to competency and the golden thread of responsibility, depends on there being a standard to be competent against.

There is a quieter cost too. Companies will not invest in training and skills if they do not know where regulation is heading, and quality takes years to build into a workforce. Confusion is one of the quickest ways to undermine it.

Nor does the cost of an inefficient home simply go away. A home that needs less energy to heat is cheaper to run and more comfortable, in winter and in summer. Even if energy were cheap and plentiful, wasting it would make no sense, any more than we would argue for cars that do five miles to the gallon because fuel was affordable. Lower standards do not remove the bill. They pass it on, first to the people who live in these homes and later to the rest of us when it has to be put right.

Whatever the politics of the moment, the principle holds. Standards are not the obstacle to building more homes. They are what make sure the homes we build are worth having. So keep the standard, enforce it properly, and get the fabric right first.

Back to News