2nd opinion: Nye Bevan's legacy

"We shall be judged in 20 years not by the number of homes we have built, but by their quality." A brave statement by Nye Bevan as minister responsible for housing in the post-war Labour government; he knew very well the pressure to build as many homes as quickly as possible.

People who'd lived through the austerity of the war wanted new homes quickly and which political party would build, or had built, most homes was a major issue at every general election through the 1950s and 1960s. The number of new homes built reached its peak of 370,000 in 1968 – ironically, the year of the collapse of Ronan Point tower in east London, a tragedy that came to symbolise a collapse of confidence in putting numbers before quality.

There is once again the risk that we will make the same mistake. For years, successive governments have evaded recognising the full scale of the housing shortage, but at last that seems to have changed. At the next election, the Conservative Party will attack Labour's housebuilding record and its promise to build 300,000 homes a year. The Barker review of housing supply has been very important in the clear link it makes between too few homes and higher prices; especially telling was its comparison with the experience in Germany, which has built many more homes and the ratio of house prices to incomes is 37% lower than it was in 1970. Housing minister Keith Hill is keen to ensure that as many homes as possible are built from the Housing Corporation's allocation for social housing and he is right to highlight the evidence of inefficiencies in procurement processes.

It is possible to reduce unit costs without reducing quality, but it is not easy. It requires highly focused, determined management effort. Over recent years it has increasingly become practice to force associations to compete for development opportunities, with the winner being the association applying for the lowest level of grant. This stricter financial framework has led to tighter cost control and efficiency savings, and to associations reducing costs by cutting standards and only developing on cheaper sites. This approach enables more schemes to be built from the budget available, but has meant homes are built in less attractive neighbourhoods, at higher densities and without any non-essential features even if they would have enhanced the homes and their environment.

With the tight limits on public funding, councils have been expected to use their planning powers to secure social benefits from private developers. It is clearly desirable that surplus gains are used for community benefit, especially where these are derived from a change of planning use that generates profit. But in practice, if developers are required to cross-subsidise affordable housing, they seek to limit the cost; standards are reduced or homes are built on the least attractive area of the site.

Too often, people pay lip-service to quality, but achieving it goes down the list of priorities. "Design and build" is simpler than using an architect, even one with a record of high quality, value-for-money schemes. Consulting future residents or locals is rejected as too time-consuming; partnerships with self-build groups would risk delays and require too much support.

It is good news that at last there seems to be the political resolve to build more homes. However, if the mistakes of the past are to be avoided, there also needs to be a strong resolve to ensure that the processes for selecting successful bids and allocating money give importance to quality as well as numbers and costs.