Are sustainability and viability really at odds, or have we simply been looking at them the wrong way?

For Habiko, a partnership focused on low carbon, low energy affordable homes, this question sits at the heart of what we do.

At UKREiiF, we brought together Alex Notay, chief executive, The Housing Forum; Sue Riddlestone OBE, chief executive and co-founder, Bioregional; and Sarah Greenwood, assistant director, sustainability and design, Homes England, at Muse’s space Fearns to explore how greener, healthier communities can align with the realities of funding and delivery.

Too often, sustainability is treated as an ‘add-on’, something tested against viability once the number are already set. But what if we started somewhere different?

Rather than treating sustainability as something to be tested against viability later, Sarah highlighted a growing shift:

It’s a simple change in sequence, but it fundamentally reshapes the whole process.

That shift also broadens how we think about value. As Alex set out, sustainable homes can be seen as resilient, future-proofed assets that hold their appeal and performance over time. From that perspective, sustainability isn’t a pressure on viability, it’s part of it. And many of the costs often assumed to be fixed can be reduced through better briefing, design and partnership from the outset.

Sue challenged this further, suggesting we may be asking the wrong question altogether. With growing demand and clear evidence from projects like One Brighton, sustainable homes are increasingly seen as desirable. Faster sales and lower vacancy rates point to a shift:

The benefits go beyond market performance. Lower running costs, improved wellbeing and stronger communities all contribute to the everyday value of well-designed, sustainable places – even if those outcomes aren’t always captured in a traditional viability appraisal.

There are challenges to navigate. Rapid innovation raises questions about reliability and delivery risk, while a complex landscape of standards can create confusion. Greater consistency, with frameworks like the Future Homes Standard, help to provide clarity without reducing sustainability to a tick-box exercise. And getting it right early – through ambition, design and partnership – makes the biggest difference.

By the end of the discussion, the tension between sustainability and viability felt less like a fixed conflict and more like a matter of perspective. With the right ambition early on, stronger collaboration, and a clearer narrative about long-term value, the two begin to align. Creating “fun approaches that are unique to a place” becomes part of that story.

And perhaps that’s the real takeaway: this isn’t just about cost. It’s about how we define, deliver and communicate value, and how we create places that are not only viable, but genuinely worth investing in.