True cost of housing scheme

Canterbury must deliver energyefficient housing before heating becomes unaffordable but is the Stirling Prize any guarantee of such? [‘Could modern masterpiece estate be replicated in city?’ Gazette, March 3]. In the past, several prize-winning schemes have been over budget, or energy inefficient, or leaked, and the architect after who the prize is named designed student accommodation that was both

over-budget and leaky. Building costs have been steadily rising over the past decade due the requirement for sustainable and energy efficient products both in terms of production and transportation but costs have risen sharply over the last two years as supply for basic materials has become sporadic, hence a realistic budget taking into account inflation and future problems arising needs to be agreed before any project is given a green light. Unfortunately, many local authorities start housing projects with the best of intentions but find the allocated budget “falls short” when unforeseen issues arise which frequently leads to lowering the original specification and performance dynamics thereby increasing maintenance costs.

In this instance it would be reasonable to expect, as part of the housing team’s due diligence, that they visit a selection of the short-listed architect’s previous housing schemes to inspect their current condition and interview householders to learn of any shortcomings with the design. So Canterbury, bear in mind that the bill for Holyrood (a

Stirling Prize winner) escalated from an initial estimate of £10 - £40 million to £414 million. Having said that, there is no reason to believe that a scheme by Mikhail Riches would be any more expensive or prone to increased costs and delays than a scheme by any of the other candidates.

Stephen O’connell

Sturry