So many laws! How to make a real difference to the design and delivery of new specialised homes
By Rory Coonan

The Stone Age did not end because we ran out of stones. The Bronze Age was not obvious. Tin had to be alloyed with copper. Whoever did it first, did not apply an oven-ready policy for bronze. Every leap in knowledge turns its back on the past in ways that are literally unimaginable.

If merely publishing policies sufficed to solve social problems, then supported housing (to give but one example of need) should already have been transformed. Innovations would surely follow but they have not. Neither public policy nor the market has so far produced new models of accommodation with care and support that can change lives radically for the better.

Results on the ground demonstrate that specialist supported housing is simply not special enough.

Yet laws and policies for providing new homes for those sometimes called ‘vulnerable adults’ (including those with learning disabilities and with conditions on the autistic spectrum) are everywhere. The children and families act says local authorities should “help young people to exercise choice and control over their living arrangements including supported living”; the autism act says the government should “assess, plan and provide services that meet the needs of adults with autism”; the care act says the requirements of those with autism should be assessed and that they should be supported  (statutory guidance says councils have a duty to engage with housing specialists when planning services); the national audit office says that not investing in autism services is “false economy”.

If three separate acts of parliament since 2009 are failing to produce a steady supply of new, affordable, innovative and well-designed specialist homes for those with autism, what could make a difference? So much specialist housing is merely ordinary; it could be anywhere; it could be for anyone. For example, few schemes meet the high standard of homeliness and careful design shown by Farrow Court (a hybrid of sheltered and supported housing) for Ashford borough council and Kent County Council.

“The Stone Age did not end because we ran out of stones. Every leap in knowledge turns its back on the past in ways that are literally unimaginable. The Bronze Age was not obvious. Tin had to be alloyed with copper. Whoever did it first, did not apply an oven-ready policy for bronze.”

First: accept the scale of the opportunity is growing because new diagnoses are made and because, happily, people with autistic spectrum conditions are living longer. The requirement to house older people who can no longer live with parents is mandated by act of parliament but scarcely delivered. (Statutory guidance places this emerging need in the ‘too difficult’ box.) Research by Coral Living, a developer, shows demand by local authorities for 200,000 units for supported living in England over the next 5 years, of which 30,000 are required for adults with learning disabilities.

Second: apply existing polices and pass no more laws. Instead, study the legislation that exists and focus on project delivery. It is not enough to argue that adult social care budgets are under pressure (when were they not?) and that public policy has its hands full. Local and central government can do more than one thing at a time. The Covid crisis will pass.

Third: search for and then apply innovation in design and in off-site methods of manufacture and building assembly.  Government definition of supported housing is “any housing scheme where accommodation is provided alongside care, support or supervision”. This scarcely amounts to an invitation to innovate. It need not be so. The potential of supported housing to transform the lives of those on the spectrum of autism and of those with other intellectually challenging conditions is enormous.

Fourth: share knowledge and understanding. There is no national delivery plan for supported housing (and, since we do not need any more policies and plans, none seems likely), so good practice in design and construction should be broadcast, so that ‘special’ really is put back into specialist housing.

“The capital costs of buildings, including land, measured over a tenant’s lifetime are a fraction of the revenue cost of caring for that person”

Modest changes could make a difference. Homes England, the government’s building agents, could insist reasonably that its specialist housing grant meets not only ‘modern methods of construction’ (as if the antique was anyone’s default option) but that it is also invested in architecture for neuro-divergence.

Currently, the Agency is silent on such matters. If it believes this can be delegated to local authorities when considering planning applications, this would be an illusion.

If developers, local authorities and housing providers are to have the confidence to deliver multiple supported housing schemes to a high standard (avoiding schemes that approach an institutional scale), then good practice in designing spaces that respond imaginatively to attributes on the autistic spectrum surely needs to be developed.

This is not simply a ‘nice-to-have’ but essential since many people desire (and may be entitled to) supported housing. The proper ambition to re-house those in poor and unaffordable accommodation; to re-home those who find themselves ‘out of county’, separated from family and friends, abetted by egregious ‘placement’ policies of certain London boroughs; the imperative to create homes for younger people with autism, coming into adulthood – these are already significant challenges to local commissioners. But that is not all: the obligation to house and care for older people on the autistic spectrum cannot be avoided and must be met. Taken together, it could be a tsunami.

The laws governing autism are tin and their policies and guidance will be copper until there is a major leap forward in housing delivery and good practice. You will look hard to see a glimmer of bronze as things stand today. On the plus side, there are signs of change: the long-established building contractor Willmott Dixon, for example, has connected ‘living’, ‘well-being’ and ‘health’ in pursuit of new models of housing design and delivery. The depth of their thinking and their commitment to wider societal goals are surely to be welcomed.

So many laws! How to make a real difference to the design and delivery of new specialised homes
By Rory Coonan

The Stone Age did not end because we ran out of stones. The Bronze Age was not obvious. Tin had to be alloyed with copper. Whoever did it first, did not apply an oven-ready policy for bronze. Every leap in knowledge turns its back on the past in ways that are literally unimaginable.

If merely publishing policies sufficed to solve social problems, then supported housing (to give but one example of need) should already have been transformed. Innovations would surely follow but they have not. Neither public policy nor the market has so far produced new models of accommodation with care and support that can change lives radically for the better.

Results on the ground demonstrate that specialist supported housing is simply not special enough.

Yet laws and policies for providing new homes for those sometimes called ‘vulnerable adults’ (including those with learning disabilities and with conditions on the autistic spectrum) are everywhere. The children and families act says local authorities should “help young people to exercise choice and control over their living arrangements including supported living”; the autism act says the government should “assess, plan and provide services that meet the needs of adults with autism”; the care act says the requirements of those with autism should be assessed and that they should be supported  (statutory guidance says councils have a duty to engage with housing specialists when planning services); the national audit office says that not investing in autism services is “false economy”.

If three separate acts of parliament since 2009 are failing to produce a steady supply of new, affordable, innovative and well-designed specialist homes for those with autism, what could make a difference? So much specialist housing is merely ordinary; it could be anywhere; it could be for anyone. For example, few schemes meet the high standard of homeliness and careful design shown by Farrow Court (a hybrid of sheltered and supported housing) for Ashford borough council and Kent County Council.

“The Stone Age did not end because we ran out of stones. Every leap in knowledge turns its back on the past in ways that are literally unimaginable. The Bronze Age was not obvious. Tin had to be alloyed with copper. Whoever did it first, did not apply an oven-ready policy for bronze.”

First: accept the scale of the opportunity is growing because new diagnoses are made and because, happily, people with autistic spectrum conditions are living longer. The requirement to house older people who can no longer live with parents is mandated by act of parliament but scarcely delivered. (Statutory guidance places this emerging need in the ‘too difficult’ box.) Research by Coral Living, a developer, shows demand by local authorities for 200,000 units for supported living in England over the next 5 years, of which 30,000 are required for adults with learning disabilities.

Second: apply existing polices and pass no more laws. Instead, study the legislation that exists and focus on project delivery. It is not enough to argue that adult social care budgets are under pressure (when were they not?) and that public policy has its hands full. Local and central government can do more than one thing at a time. The Covid crisis will pass.

Third: search for and then apply innovation in design and in off-site methods of manufacture and building assembly.  Government definition of supported housing is “any housing scheme where accommodation is provided alongside care, support or supervision”. This scarcely amounts to an invitation to innovate. It need not be so. The potential of supported housing to transform the lives of those on the spectrum of autism and of those with other intellectually challenging conditions is enormous.

Fourth: share knowledge and understanding. There is no national delivery plan for supported housing (and, since we do not need any more policies and plans, none seems likely), so good practice in design and construction should be broadcast, so that ‘special’ really is put back into specialist housing.

“The capital costs of buildings, including land, measured over a tenant’s lifetime are a fraction of the revenue cost of caring for that person”

Modest changes could make a difference. Homes England, the government’s building agents, could insist reasonably that its specialist housing grant meets not only ‘modern methods of construction’ (as if the antique was anyone’s default option) but that it is also invested in architecture for neuro-divergence.

Currently, the Agency is silent on such matters. If it believes this can be delegated to local authorities when considering planning applications, this would be an illusion.

If developers, local authorities and housing providers are to have the confidence to deliver multiple supported housing schemes to a high standard (avoiding schemes that approach an institutional scale), then good practice in designing spaces that respond imaginatively to attributes on the autistic spectrum surely needs to be developed.

This is not simply a ‘nice-to-have’ but essential since many people desire (and may be entitled to) supported housing. The proper ambition to re-house those in poor and unaffordable accommodation; to re-home those who find themselves ‘out of county’, separated from family and friends, abetted by egregious ‘placement’ policies of certain London boroughs; the imperative to create homes for younger people with autism, coming into adulthood – these are already significant challenges to local commissioners. But that is not all: the obligation to house and care for older people on the autistic spectrum cannot be avoided and must be met. Taken together, it could be a tsunami.

The laws governing autism are tin and their policies and guidance will be copper until there is a major leap forward in housing delivery and good practice. You will look hard to see a glimmer of bronze as things stand today. On the plus side, there are signs of change: the long-established building contractor Willmott Dixon, for example, has connected ‘living’, ‘well-being’ and ‘health’ in pursuit of new models of housing design and delivery. The depth of their thinking and their commitment to wider societal goals are surely to be welcomed.

So many laws! How to make a real difference to the design and delivery of new specialised homes
By Rory Coonan

The Stone Age did not end because we ran out of stones. The Bronze Age was not obvious. Tin had to be alloyed with copper. Whoever did it first, did not apply an oven-ready policy for bronze. Every leap in knowledge turns its back on the past in ways that are literally unimaginable.

If merely publishing policies sufficed to solve social problems, then supported housing (to give but one example of need) should already have been transformed. Innovations would surely follow but they have not. Neither public policy nor the market has so far produced new models of accommodation with care and support that can change lives radically for the better.

Results on the ground demonstrate that specialist supported housing is simply not special enough.

Yet laws and policies for providing new homes for those sometimes called ‘vulnerable adults’ (including those with learning disabilities and with conditions on the autistic spectrum) are everywhere. The children and families act says local authorities should “help young people to exercise choice and control over their living arrangements including supported living”; the autism act says the government should “assess, plan and provide services that meet the needs of adults with autism”; the care act says the requirements of those with autism should be assessed and that they should be supported  (statutory guidance says councils have a duty to engage with housing specialists when planning services); the national audit office says that not investing in autism services is “false economy”.

If three separate acts of parliament since 2009 are failing to produce a steady supply of new, affordable, innovative and well-designed specialist homes for those with autism, what could make a difference? So much specialist housing is merely ordinary; it could be anywhere; it could be for anyone. For example, few schemes meet the high standard of homeliness and careful design shown by Farrow Court (a hybrid of sheltered and supported housing) for Ashford borough council and Kent County Council.

“The Stone Age did not end because we ran out of stones. Every leap in knowledge turns its back on the past in ways that are literally unimaginable. The Bronze Age was not obvious. Tin had to be alloyed with copper. Whoever did it first, did not apply an oven-ready policy for bronze.”

First: accept the scale of the opportunity is growing because new diagnoses are made and because, happily, people with autistic spectrum conditions are living longer. The requirement to house older people who can no longer live with parents is mandated by act of parliament but scarcely delivered. (Statutory guidance places this emerging need in the ‘too difficult’ box.) Research by Coral Living, a developer, shows demand by local authorities for 200,000 units for supported living in England over the next 5 years, of which 30,000 are required for adults with learning disabilities.

Second: apply existing polices and pass no more laws. Instead, study the legislation that exists and focus on project delivery. It is not enough to argue that adult social care budgets are under pressure (when were they not?) and that public policy has its hands full. Local and central government can do more than one thing at a time. The Covid crisis will pass.

Third: search for and then apply innovation in design and in off-site methods of manufacture and building assembly.  Government definition of supported housing is “any housing scheme where accommodation is provided alongside care, support or supervision”. This scarcely amounts to an invitation to innovate. It need not be so. The potential of supported housing to transform the lives of those on the spectrum of autism and of those with other intellectually challenging conditions is enormous.

Fourth: share knowledge and understanding. There is no national delivery plan for supported housing (and, since we do not need any more policies and plans, none seems likely), so good practice in design and construction should be broadcast, so that ‘special’ really is put back into specialist housing.

“The capital costs of buildings, including land, measured over a tenant’s lifetime are a fraction of the revenue cost of caring for that person”

Modest changes could make a difference. Homes England, the government’s building agents, could insist reasonably that its specialist housing grant meets not only ‘modern methods of construction’ (as if the antique was anyone’s default option) but that it is also invested in architecture for neuro-divergence.

Currently, the Agency is silent on such matters. If it believes this can be delegated to local authorities when considering planning applications, this would be an illusion.

If developers, local authorities and housing providers are to have the confidence to deliver multiple supported housing schemes to a high standard (avoiding schemes that approach an institutional scale), then good practice in designing spaces that respond imaginatively to attributes on the autistic spectrum surely needs to be developed.

This is not simply a ‘nice-to-have’ but essential since many people desire (and may be entitled to) supported housing. The proper ambition to re-house those in poor and unaffordable accommodation; to re-home those who find themselves ‘out of county’, separated from family and friends, abetted by egregious ‘placement’ policies of certain London boroughs; the imperative to create homes for younger people with autism, coming into adulthood – these are already significant challenges to local commissioners. But that is not all: the obligation to house and care for older people on the autistic spectrum cannot be avoided and must be met. Taken together, it could be a tsunami.

The laws governing autism are tin and their policies and guidance will be copper until there is a major leap forward in housing delivery and good practice. You will look hard to see a glimmer of bronze as things stand today. On the plus side, there are signs of change: the long-established building contractor Willmott Dixon, for example, has connected ‘living’, ‘well-being’ and ‘health’ in pursuit of new models of housing design and delivery. The depth of their thinking and their commitment to wider societal goals are surely to be welcomed.