By Elaine Toogood, Senior Director, Concrete and The Concrete Centre
As Andy Burnham approaches his 100th day as Prime Minister, housing is emerging as a key test of his government’s ambitions. His pledge to drive a major programme of social and affordable homes sits alongside the Labour government’s wider commitment to deliver 1.5 million homes over the course of this Parliament.
Both ambitions respond to an urgent need for more housing. But as ministers, councils and development partners focus on increasing supply, the UK built environment faces a familiar risk: that success is still judged too narrowly by quantity of output. Housing numbers matter, but they are not enough.
The Climate Change Committee’s assessment, A Well-Adapted UK, warns that the UK was built for a climate that no longer exists and identifies overheating, flooding and water stress as priority risks requiring action.
Meanwhile, the UK Green Building Council has also argued that climate resilience must be integrated into design, planning and investment decisions. If that is the backdrop to the next wave of housing and regeneration, the priority should be to ensure that placemaking gives proper weight not only to how places look and function on day one, but to how they perform and endure over time.
That is also why the conversation about materials needs to be more rounded. Much placemaking guidance focuses, understandably, on scale, style, design quality, walkable amenities, cycling routes and the visible character of buildings and streets. It says far less about what buildings are actually made from beyond what can be seen externally.
Yet long-term placemaking also depends on performance. An attractive place still has to stay cool, withstand shocks, age well, and remain safe and usable over time. That brings material choice back into view, not as an aesthetic preference, but as part of the practical question of how new places will endure. In a market still under pressure to build faster, that broader test matters.
It is no surprise that I would argue that, within this wider mix, concrete and masonry have a significant role to play. This is not about advocating for buildings that look heavier or harsher. It is about recognising the value of robust, evidence-led construction choices that support resilience, safety and long-term sustainability.
Thermal mass can help moderate internal temperatures and limit overheating risk. Robust construction can support recovery after flooding. In the public realm, permeable concrete paving and precast drainage can contribute to durable sustainable drainage and lower-maintenance streetscapes. These should be seen as complementary to natural and green spaces, not in competition with them. The point is not to argue for a single material answer, but to make sure material decisions are tied to the long-term performance expected of new communities.
Safety remains central too. In the post-Grenfell environment, it cannot be treated as a late-stage compliance issue, particularly as the sector is asked to deliver at greater pace. People judge buildings by whether they feel secure, robust and fit for everyday life. Non-combustible materials such as concrete and masonry bring clear advantages in fire performance, while their density can also improve acoustic separation between homes, an important but often overlooked part of creating healthier and more liveable places.
Placemaking, resilience, safety, material performance and value are not separate agendas. They are all part of the same long-term question about what kind of places we are choosing to create.
As the UK considers its next phase of housing growth and regeneration, the priority should be to deliver places that can withstand climate pressures, meet higher expectations on safety and retain public confidence over decades. That is a more demanding test than delivery alone, but it is the one that matters.