Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Snugglybear

An End To Slave Boxes?

Recommended Posts

Anyone posted this yet? (It's about houses.)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23770320

"'Rabbit hutch' style homes face curb

The government is to consider curbing the building of so-called "rabbit hutch" homes in England.

In a consultation being launched on Tuesday, it said it was considering the introduction of basic space standards.

The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) said England may already have some of the smallest houses in Europe.

Since the 1920s the average living space in some types of home has fallen by more than a third.

As a result the DCLG is also thinking about the possibility of "space labelling", which would give consumers a clear understanding of how much room there was in any property.

The idea has been welcomed by the Royal Institution of British Architects (Riba).

"We are pleased to see the government consulting on space standards, our public research has repeatedly revealed that space in new homes is a major concern," said Harry Rich, Riba's chief executive.

According to Riba figures, the size of a typical new terraced house has shrunk from more than 1,000 sq ft in the 1920s, to 645 sq ft now.

Architects have also highlighted the lack of storage space in new homes, and poor daylight.

At the same time the DCLG wants to cut red tape for housebuilders.

It is planning to abolish 90 out of 100 planning rules that can be applied by local authorities.

Among the rules set to go are a requirement for some buildings to collect their own rainwater.

The DCLG has pointed out that up to now this rule has applied even in areas where there is no water shortage.

Also set to go is a rule that home offices should have multiple phone sockets, on top of any broadband connection.

"Moving from 100 standards to 10 is a good start in reducing red tape, while safeguarding good quality home building," said David Orr, the chief executive of the National Housing Federation.

"But we look forward to seeing further details of the review," he said.

The government consultation will run until October 2013."

Consultation is here

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cutting-needless-red-tape-for-house-builders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.

The kind of political and banking elite we have now would rather genetically modify the population to be smaller Epsilons than improve their housing.

It won't happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the UK works from bedrooms then something like:

A property must have a minimum floor area of 42 sqm per bedroom and a parking space per bedroom. If the property is a house then it must also include a garden of 300sqm per bedroom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the UK works from bedrooms then something like:

A property must have a minimum floor area of 42 sqm per bedroom and a parking space per bedroom. If the property is a house then it must also include a garden of 300sqm per bedroom.

That's a bit excessive even by non-UK standards, a 4-bed house doesn't need 1200m2 of garden. More than the current 40-50m2 for a 4-bed house would be nice though, let's say 300m2.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.

The kind of political and banking elite we have now would rather genetically modify the population to be smaller Epsilons than improve their housing.

It won't happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a bit excessive even by non-UK standards, a 4-bed house doesn't need 1200m2 of garden. More than the current 40-50m2 for a 4-bed house would be nice though, let's say 300m2.....

I like big gardens so I am fecked. I would like grow veg, keep chickens and have some outside GREEN SPACE.

That is exactly what the save the green belt don't want you to have is space, they want it designated for themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The government is to consider curbing the building of so-called "rabbit hutch" homes in England.

In a consultation being launched on Tuesday, it said it was considering the introduction of basic space standards.

Surely half the problem is that builders and land banks are sitting on land that they've paid far too much for?

I also notice that the government's solution doesn't include letting prices fall.

Edited by GradualCringe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like big gardens so I am fecked. I would like grow veg, keep chickens and have some outside GREEN SPACE.

That is exactly what the save the green belt don't want you to have is space, they want it designated for themselves.

Aren't you in Galway though?

Plenty of space there!

I had a hunt around on Daft a while back and round there if you don't mind being out in the sticks it's cheap as chips compared to the UK, you could have all the chickens you want. They're not very good conversationalists though......:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I live in a 1960's Council Flat built to Parker Morris standards

http://www.singleaspect.org.uk/pm/

Although Sir Parker Morris' seminal government report, Homes for Today & Tomorrow, was published in 1961 it was only by the end of the decade that the impact of its generous space standards for housing was felt. The so-called Parker Morris standards only became mandatory for housing in new towns in 1967 and it was another two years until it was compulsory for all council homes.
Edited by aSecureTenant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I despair at people actually buying these, if no-one put up with it they would have to build suitably sized homes.

You can't even drive two cars past one another on the roads in these new build estates, one of the cars has to go onto the pavement. The allocated parking is completely inadequate in number and in the size of the spaces themselves, so you get cars parked all over the place.

The buildings are absolutely shocking, a terrace with houses each barely 5 meters wide is typical, you see rows of front doors all the same almost next to eachother its hard to believe each one represents a separate dwelling. Why do people put up with it? These new estates cannot legitimately be called 'housing' when an average sized person feels like a giant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC essex council came up with a bunch of proposals for all houses to have decent (proper sized) garages, off road parking and gardens, fed up with the high densities and ugly streetscenes caused by the PPG BS. Obviously didnt get anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought of that too! I believe the "minimum size" regulations were dropped in the early 80s! So Genesis were pretty prophetic! :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People on here have been saying Sq Ft should be used for years instead of bedrooms. How long has it taken them to catch up? Nuts!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I despair at people actually buying these, if no-one put up with it they would have to build suitably sized homes.

You can't even drive two cars past one another on the roads in these new build estates, one of the cars has to go onto the pavement. The allocated parking is completely inadequate in number and in the size of the spaces themselves, so you get cars parked all over the place.

The buildings are absolutely shocking, a terrace with houses each barely 5 meters wide is typical, you see rows of front doors all the same almost next to eachother its hard to believe each one represents a separate dwelling. Why do people put up with it? These new estates cannot legitimately be called 'housing' when an average sized person feels like a giant.

My old Victorian terrace was a bit less than 5 metres wide and it was quite roomy. We had a gross internal area of just over 900 sq ft, with about 600 sq ft of useful space (I.e. excluding corridors, stairs, bathroom).

We've got more than 1400 sq ft in our new place (1930s extended semi) and I wonder how I managed for so long with less. It really improves your life to have a decent amount of space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like I was (and other posters were) right to be dubious. Haven't had time to read the comments yet.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/aug/20/minister-rabbit-hutch-homes

Minister fails to back call for crackdown on 'rabbit hutch' homes

Communities minister Don Foster dashes hopes for government support for minimum space standards for new homes

Newly built homes in Somerset. In 1920, the average semi-detached new-build had four bedrooms and measured 1,647 sq ft. Today's equivalent has three bedrooms and is 925 sq ft.

Communities minister Don Foster on Tuesday failed to back calls for a crackdown on "rabbit hutch" house building which has seen the size of new homes shrink by almost half since the 1920s.

In a much-anticipated consultation paper, Foster said he would seek views from industry and others, but dashed campaigners' hopes that the government would come out in favour of new minimum space standards for new homes.

"The degree to which space standards should be developed or mandated is hotly contested and views for and against are very polarised," the paper said. "The government does not have a preferred approach on space standards at this time."

The wording was in sharp contrast to outspoken remarks from Foster's departmental boss, communities secretary Eric Pickles, who in March blamed aspects of the previous Labour government's housing policy – which have since been ditched – for condemning families to be "trapped in rabbit hutch homes too small for their needs".

In 1920, the average semi-detached new-build had four bedrooms and measured 1,647 sq ft, according to the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA). Today's equivalent has three bedrooms and is 925 sq ft. Typical new terrace houses have shrunk from 1,020 sq ft and three bedrooms, to 645 sq ft and two bedrooms.

Other studies have suggested England has some of the smallest housing in Europe, and that shrinking space is limiting people's routine activities at home, including socialising, home study or work and storing personal belongings.

News that ministers are far from persuaded that they should impose prescriptive criteria is yet another piece of good news from Westminster for a house-building industry which is already experiencing a dramatic boost to business from George Osborne's controversial taxpayer-backed "help to buy" shared-equity initiative.

According to government estimates, builders that add more space are only able to recover 70% of the additional cost through higher sales values.

Jeff Fairburn, chief executive of Persimmon, which accounts for about 10% of the new homes market, claimed the reduction in house sizes reflected modern preferences and lifestyles.

"We have house types to maximise efficiency. [Today] you have living and cooking spaces at the back of houses and less formal dining space. I don't recognise claims that houses are too small. That is not the feedback we are getting." He also warned that bigger houses take more land and would lead to higher costs to buyers.

Tuesday's consultation made clear ministers were now listening closely to messages from the industry. "It is clear that in many respects the market is performing well in the absence of national space standards ... The government's preferred approach would be for market led, voluntary mechanisms such as space labelling [ie clearly advertised dimensions], in order to meet consumer needs rather than mandatory application of space standards."

Harry Rich, chief executive of RIBA, said: "Our public research has repeatedly revealed that space in new homes is a major concern."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't want a clipboard-wielder from the council telling me how big my house should be. Not everyone yearns for a MacMansion.

I don't mind planning regs that control the *public* realm; high densities[1] etc - but what goes on inside and how big it is is a matter for the householder.

Reading those articles, they all seem to bang on about house sizes in the 1920s. I wonder how relevant that is. People had more kids back then. There weren't mod cons such as fridges or central heating so floor space would have been taken up by larders and coal storage etc.

[1] The current guidance is flawed in speccing "dwellings per hectare" though as this unnecessarily puts pressure to minimise size. Other measures such as "floor area ratio" would be much better and would achieve (broadly) the same densities but with a greater (more demand driven) diversity of internal sizes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mind planning regs that control the *public* realm; high densities[1] etc - but what goes on inside and how big it is is a matter for the householder.

Yes, but the problem is that thanks to a combination of a credit bubble and planning policies we have an extremely distorted price signal for land. It is likely that householders would buy a bit more space if the price of land was not so distorted. Minuscule new build housing is going to be the fossil record our period leaves in the housing stock recording the 1995-20?? property bubble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but the problem is that thanks to a combination of a credit bubble and planning policies we have an extremely distorted price signal for land. It is likely that householders would buy a bit more space if the price of land was not so distorted. Minuscule new build housing is going to be the fossil record our period leaves in the housing stock recording the 1995-20?? property bubble.

Another aspect you have to factor in is the emergence of BTL. I watched close hand as the primary purpose of new builds moved from "a place to live" to a trading chip; a tulip bulb made in bricks and mortar. Around the mid-00s it felt as if people weren't even pretending these were for use as homes anymore. There was no planning reason for these places to be so small - but the market demanded it and the market was BTL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   203 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.