What seemed to be an innovative solution to utilise underused buildings, such as the redevelopment of office blocks into residential accommodation, came at the expense of an influx of micro-units to the market. Widely criticised by some commentators, and hugely disliked by local councils, the recent advent of ‘minimum space standards’ under revised rules will be warmly received.
As a relatively new piece of legislation, revision was required to arrest some of the abuses perpetrated at the hands of developers utilising PD legislation. In assessing the impact of the impending change, it helps to distinguish the public, from the private housing sector.
Both are at the mercy of market forces though, where the private sector developer is deterred from supplying an unappealing product, the public sector developer benefits from a demand-supply imbalance and ‘could’ provide below-par housing. Therefore, minimum space standards appear to offer needed protection.
Housing Policies at Fault
The UK is in the midst of a housing shortage crisis never seen before. We read of councils offering families, and them accepting, studio accommodation designed for individuals. PD has been attacked for delivering inadequate housing solutions, though in fact, this is no different to criticizing a perfectly constructed size 5 shoe because you’ve tried to fill it with a size 10 foot. Clearly, what is at fault is the housing policy which dictates that an individual must accept unsuitable housing offered by the local authority who themselves, are struggling to meet their statutory obligations in satisfying the housing demand.
Minimum space standards as a solution are no match for such policy. In an economy where social housing developers compete to secure affordable sites, equally suited to a lucrative private market, it is increasingly difficult for private developers to provide social housing.
As a solution, micro-units are being turned globally as a solution to address the housing shortage. In the private sector, young professionals prioritise location over space, preferring to live in a small palace than a large unit in a secondary location. Architects have proven that through creativity, they can carve out appropriate living space, so should space be the main pursuit in the provision of public housing?
Out of Date, Out of Touch
The space standards we employ are a direct descendant of the 1961 Parker Morris report which addressed the issue of space, in furtherance of a better standard of living. These outdated standards have been reviewed periodically and increased in
10% upwards increments. However, as a starting point for our current space standards, we ought to investigate their provenance before advancing them as a solution to our modern-day problems.
The 1961 report succeeded the 1944 Dudley Report which at the time was considered as being “….nearly quarter-century away with vastly different problems, outlooks and trends”. Yet we seem comfortable basing our current framework on a 60-year-old standard.
So outdated was the thinking then that the report makes reference to a “woman needing all the help she can get from her kitchen.” It was also prepared against a wholly different societal and economic backdrop. It could afford the luxury of imposing such space standards as it remarks, “…..the country already possesses a large stock of housing”, and thus confidently promoted the provision of more space, at the expense of fewer homes.
From a practical viewpoint, our domestic wants and needs hugely differ from the early ’60s when we housed bulky furniture, including radiograms which the standards made allowance for. Instead, we now call on Alexa, hang televisions on the wall or entertain ourselves through our hand-held smartphones.
Before we applaud minimum space standards as a solution, we should consider the impact they may have on the quality of public housing in the context of a financially challenging landscape. The quality of materials used to construct homes might be the first casualty in the pursuit of reduced costs. Public housing tenants will heat larger, but less efficient spaces.
The new standards may prove to be less of a solution to the PD wrinkle, but instead, exacerbate the problem it was created to solve; the creation of much-needed housing.
With the current economic conditions aggravated by the COVID-19 crisis, it is fanciful to expect the government to throw more resource to solve a housing shortage they have wrestled with in more favourable economic conditions. A joint effort is required. The government must revisit housing policy that forces families into inadequate accommodation. Architects must continue to be creative in finding solutions for smaller spaces that enhance standards of living. We cannot rely on developers to prioritise community needs over financial gain and rely on local planners to have reasonable input into the PD process, in a timely, and supportive manner. However, they must do so in the spirit of what the PD legislators sought to achieve, which is the provision of desperately needed housing.
