• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF HOUSING SPACE STANDARDS What now? Julia Park One hundred years of housing space standards: What now? Summary SUMMARY Part history, part insight and part opinion, this is perhaps the most detailed and contextual analysis of housing space standards that exists, and certainly the most current. Written by Julia Park, architect and Head of Housing Research at Levitt Bernstein, the account begins with a summary of the evolution, or perhaps more accurately, the comings and goings, of the various space standards that have been applied to new housing in England. Reflecting on what history tells us, the book examines the role of space standards in the context of the current housing crisis and explores how themes such as under‒occupancy, overcrowding, density, mix, land value, viability and politics are all part of the story. The final section offers informed thoughts about the way forward. The chronology reveals that housing space standards can be traced back almost exactly a century to the Tudor Walters report of 1918.1 This ambitious document was produced as the First World War drew to an end. Relief that the fighting was over and optimism about the future were accompanied by some harsh realities. Wars are all consuming. As the soldiers returned it was obvious that general living conditions had become very poor, quite apart from the widespread bomb damage. A huge housebuilding programme became a social and political priority. The Housing Act of 1935 defined minimum bedroom areas as a means to control overcrowding. Seen then as just a starting point, it still holds today. It was not until the 1960s that we got our first set of comprehensive, evidence‒based space standards. If not aspirational, then certainly ‘decent’, the ‘Parker Morris’ standards are probably still the best‒known space standards in England; perhaps even internationally.2 They were widely lauded and held for two decades before being abolished in 1980 by Margaret Thatcher, who considered them an unnecessary barrier to development. The historic account pays particular attention to the last ten years; a decade which seems certain to go down in history as one of the most interesting in the evolution of space standards. In 2012, the Mayor of London set a bold precedent by officially extending his new housing space standards to all tenures.3 Three years later, concerned by the uncontrolled proliferation of ‘local housing standards’, the government initiated a major review of housing standards. The introduction of the Nationally Described Space Standard in 2015 was one of the chief outcomes. Cross‒country and cross‒tenure, it is now the only space standard that can be applied by any local authority in England. Despite being ‘optional’ (subject to need and viability testing), it is arguably the closest we have ever come to a national, universally applicable space standard.4 All the more remarkable given that the review was part of a cost‒cutting, deregulatory exercise. One year on, it is unclear how many authorities will adopt the new space standard, and it will be many more years before we understand the impact it will have. This informed account reflects on a process that saw the pros and cons of space standards rigorously debated by a pan‒industry, expert working group. After fierce, initial opposition from the housebuilders, the mood changed and the new space standard eventually received an overwhelming mandate through public consultation. Space is likely to remain a highly contentious issue. Many people believed then, and still believe now, that it would be simpler, better and fairer for the space standard to be regulated. This evidence‒ based report reopens the debate in the context of the housing market as a whole. It concludes that the benefits of regulation are likely to significantly outweigh any disadvantages, and could be a catalyst for far‒reaching, positive changes in the way we live. Published January 2017 housingspacestandards.co.uk 2 3 One hundred years of housing space standards: What now? Preface PREFACE My concern is that history may be about to repeat itself. There is no doubt that we need to build many more homes but it is a mistake to believe that focussing on numbers at the expense of space and quality, serves anyone well. This approach rarely works in the beginning, and it never works in Since its inception almost fifty years ago, Levitt Bernstein has been recognised for its active role in the end. housing policy and standards. Some of us, David Levitt and I among them, find space standards uniquely compelling. Only a very small minority of new housing in England is as functional, durable or beautiful as it could be. It is not that we don’t know how to do it; but for complex reasons, and as a result of Our latest space mission began in earnest about ten years ago and was motivated more by conflicting motives, we allow ourselves to settle for less. frustration than evangelism. The only space standard that existed back then was enshrined in the Housing Corporation’s funding standards. While we understood the need for minimum standards for The Housing Standards Review provoked the debate we needed. As part of a deregulatory exercise, what were likely to be fully occupied homes (and often not provided for philanthropic reasons), the it seemed very unlikely to herald a breakthrough in terms of the size or quality of new homes – but figures set out in Design and Quality Standards (D&QS)5 and the Housing Quality Indicators (HQIs)6, in some ways; that’s just what it did. While I recall widespread criticism of a number of individual were out of step with our practical experience. For most dwelling types, the minimum internal floor rules and procedures, I don’t remember anyone saying that new homes should be smaller or worse. areas required to gain grant were on the small side. For some, particularly the family houses, they The review revealed that the ‘industry’ (including housebuilders, who were, if anything, over‒ seemed substantially below the space needed to achieve the functional criteria required by other represented) value consistency and stability and is willing to do better. Just as importantly, there parts of the HQIs. They also lacked any obvious rationale. was a strong feeling that if politicians were prepared to believe us, the cost of doing better would come out of land value. We decided to look at living space in a different way. Based on a range of tried and tested house plans, we listed the floor areas of layouts that worked in practice, and analysed them to discover the That was less than two years ago. As we attempt to build one million new homes over the coming underlying pattern that we were convinced must lie behind them. Our patience was rewarded and decade it feels important to reflect on what was learned during the review. Whether or not you find in 2009, we took our proposals, and our evidence, to the policymakers. the arguments within this book compelling, or agree with the conclusions, I hope it offers food for thought. The timing was fortuitous. The Housing Corporation had just committed to the merger with English Partnerships to form the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA). In joining forces, they had undertaken to reconcile their respective housing standards, including those for space. Although it never became a national funding standard, Lifetime Homes7 (which had been embraced by English Partnerships), was also gaining traction. It was clear that the 16 criteria, designed to make home‒ life easier for everyone (but older and disabled people in particular), had a small, but measurable, spatial implication and needed to be factored into the work. The space standards and ‘test plans’ that we produced became the basis of the HCA’s proposed new space standard, published in 2010.8 Disappointingly, the consultation failed for political reasons, but by this time, the Greater London Authority (GLA) was consulting on a new set of housing standards, including space standards. We had been collaborating with Andrew Drury of HATC and Alex Ely of MAE Architects and using different methodologies, were all reaching similar conclusions. We aligned to a set of figures that became the basis of the 2010 GLA standards, and then four years later, the new Nationally Described Space Standard (NDSS); achieved through the Housing Standards Review. I was very fortunate to be seconded to the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) to help with the review ‒a robust process that, necessarily, involved fresh scrutiny of what a space standard sets out to do.9 Published in March 2015, in many ways against all the odds, the NDSS will take its place in the relatively short history of space standards in England. While it’s tempting to see this as a rewarding conclusion to our space endeavour, history warns us not to take anything for granted. Housing has always been an intensely political issue and this has never been more evident than it is now; in the middle of one of the biggest housing crises the UK has ever faced, and in the wake of the far‒ reaching Housing and Planning Act, 2016.10 4 5 1 2 3 INTRODUCTION CHRONOLOGY PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE Why space? 10 Overview 16 Standards versus regulations 58 Why a standard? 11 The years up to 2006 17 Need and expectation 59 The last decade 33 The policy framework 60 Comparison of recent space standards Basic principles 63 with Parker Morris 53 Common misconceptions 65 What history tells us 54 Striking the right balance 68 4 5 CARROT AND STICK WHAT NOW? The potential to living more efficiently 72 The case for regulation 84 Renewed pressure to build smaller 74 Trusting in what we have learned 76 Annex 88 Willing developers 78 References 94 Where this takes us 79 1 INTRODUCTION Why space? 10 Why a standard? 11 One hundred years of housing space standards: What now? Introduction WHY SPACE? In the ensuing debate, all the arguments, for and against, were played out.

Load more

  55

Copy Link