The government has committed to delivering the most ambitious housebuilding programme in two generations. This is a welcome and important initiative. However, in constructing 1.5 million new homes, we must ensure that this new generation of properties deliver homes which embed the necessary performance to be truly sustainable. The recent impacts of Storm Bert have highlighted the urgent need to put climate resilience at the heart of our built environment.

A high-quality home should be standing for well over 100 years, and in a circular economy we will need to keep structures in use for as long as possible – so they need good bones. Housing must be easy to maintain and adaptable to our changing needs and able to cope with whatever the current and future weather throws at us, whether that’s flooding, hotter summers or wild fires. With this in mind I welcome the recent efforts of the UKGBC to develop a UK Climate Resilience Roadmap, and I was pleased to be able to contribute to some of its working groups.

Reducing the carbon footprint of new construction has rightly become a priority in recent years to mitigate climate change and meet net-zero commitments. But we have to make informed choices about building for a net-zero future, we must apply metrics of quality alongside carbon data in order to avoid letting actual performance and wider quality considerations to slip down the agenda. Metrics like those developed for the Home Quality Mark, or the Code for Sustainable Homes before that, cover a range of criteria, from good indoor air quality to security and enhanced acoustic properties.

Focusing exclusively on embodied emissions and energy consumption must not be to the detriment of other long-term impacts. If, for example, embodied carbon responsibility ends at practical completion (as is the case with upfront carbon measurement), then little or no consideration is given to the impact that those savings may have on the longer-term performance of the home.  This effectively disincentivises quality.  Building Regulations set minimum standards, but these do not include provisions for flood resilience, and the newly introduced Part O, which limits overheating risks, does not account for future predicted temperatures. Expanding the development of Flood Resilience Performance Certificates (FRPCs) to include other climate change risks is an interesting idea. These could function similarly to existing Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs), raising awareness and driving action to address climate risks in both existing and new homes.

At the core of this, we must continue to collect and analyse reliable data on how homes are used and which design strategies perform best in practice. This is why projects that monitor actual performance are so critical. Simultaneously, we must broaden our data pool on embodied carbon to provide a genuinely holistic picture of a building’s carbon footprint across its entire lifecycle, ensuring homes deliver both quality and performance.

We spend more time at home than we do anywhere else, and it is typically our biggest expenditure, whether on a mortgage or rent. Where we live is fundamental to our sense of security, our wellbeing, and our ability to thrive.  This is why the government’s ambition to deliver homes at scale is so important. Scaling up housing availability quickly is essential, but it must also prioritize quality.  Delivering new housing, with resilience to climate change as a baseline standard, is necessary to create a legacy of homes that perform well now and in the future – to remain safe, secure and sustainable homes.