Housing Design Standards

Evidence Summary
July 2010
Summary of evidence on proposed housing design standards for the
Examination in Public of the draft replacement London Plan
CONTENTS
1. Executive summary
2. Introduction
3. The need or housing design standards
31 !istoric trends and approach in housing standards
32 "urrent standards context
33 #he London context
3$ %nternational comparisons
3& 'enefits
3( )ayor*s proposed standards
!. The need or s"ace standards
$1 %mportance of space
$2 +esident needs and preferences
$3 ,hat is being provided
$$ %mpacts
$& )ayor*s proposed space standards
$( "omparison -ith other space standards
#. Im"$ementation through "$anning
%. Conc$usions
&""endix 1 ' (ro"osed Housing Design Standards
&""endix 2 ' )i*$iogra"hy
3
&C+NO,-ED.E/ENTS
#his report -as prepared for the .L/ by 0ebbie )athieson1 -ith input from /lex Ely
of )ae /rchitects and Julia Par2 of Levitt 'ernstein /rchitects
$
1. E0EC1TI2E S1//&34
11 !ousing standards have fre3uently been used to shape the 3uality of ne-
homes in London1 particularly from the late 14
th
century arising from social
and public health concerns of poor 3uality housing to present day -here
focus has shifted to place5ma2ing1 creating inclusive1 accessible
environments for all1 and mitigating housing*s contribution to climate change
Space standards have been a common feature for publicly funded housing
in the 67 since 14141 though these have largely applied to ne- homes built
-ith public sector investment rather than to private sector housebuilding 8 a
trend -hich continues today
12 #oday1 the design of ne- housing in London is governed by various policy and
regulatory frame-or2s through the planning system1 building regulations and
public sector funded housing #here is a pressing need for continuity and
consistency in the design standards that the industry is currently expected to
-or2 -ith "urrent standards often overlap or contradict each other and are
measured in various -ays #hose developed at national level typically do not
relate -ell to the higher density development context in London 0ifferent
standards are also applied inconsistently through mechanisms such as public
funding criteria or planning policy1 contributing to further complexity in
developing mixed tenure sites 9a 2ey aim of planning policy:
13 %n revie-ing the current standards1 most mechanisms to ensure high 3uality
homes are already in place -ithin London Plan policy and are therefore
applicable across all tenures of housing Space standards are the 2ey
missing element /s the private sector is the dominant provider of housing1
there is a need to ensure that the homes they are providing are fit for
purpose both no- and in the future #he revie- of the London Plan provides
a timely mechanism to ensure an appropriate1 clear and consistent set of
standards are in place to deliver London*s housing needs
1$ %n London1 there is a clear need to deliver higher standards of housing /
200$ audit of ne- housing developments in London found that only 1;<
achieved a score of =good* or better
1
!igh land costs and constrained land
capacity are putting intense pressure on space and design 3uality !igher
density development is needed to accommodate London*s pro>ected
1 "/'E1 Housing Audit: Assessing the Design Quality of New Homes (London, the South East, and the
East of England)1 200$
&
population and household gro-th in a sustainable -ay1 but it must be done
-ell !igher density development leads to more intensive use of space and
shared areas -ith implications for management1 security and overall 3uality
of life %ssues of noise1 daylight1 privacy and overloo2ing all become more
acute as densities increase1 re3uiring careful design Several recent reports
have called for increasing density to be accompanied by higher standards of
space1 amenity and management or there is a ris2 of recreating the cramped
and poor housing environments of the past
1& !igher standards of design are also needed to ensure that ne- housing
developments create places that -or2 -ell1 address the impacts of climate
change and "?2 emissions1 and cater for London*s changing demographics
and diverse range of needs1 including a significant gro-th in one5person
households and an increasing population of older people1 as -ell as the
need for more affordable family5si@ed homes
1( ,ithin this context1 the )ayor has developed a set of harmonised design
standards to apply to ne- homes built in London #he aim is to provide a
=level playing field*1 leading ultimately to an alignment -ith the standards that
apply through public funding #he underlying principle of this approach is
that homes should be built not only for short5term mar2et demands or
current occupant needs1 but to provide long term flexibility -ith homes that
-ill meet the changing needs of occupants and tenures over time1
contributing to the sustainability of London*s housing stoc2
1A #he proposed design standards also respond to the London context1 providing
a balance to the pressures of building at higher densities in order to ensure
functionality and amenity in ne- homes Be- standards have been proposed
in relation to the si@e of homes1 shared circulation areas1 singleCdual aspect1
ceiling heights and private open space #hese do not appear in current
regulation but are vie-ed as a means to protect amenity1 privacy1 daylight and
ventilation in homes particularly -hen configured in bloc2s of flats at higher
densities.
1; / comparison -ith a number of international housing standards sho-s that
these design criteria are common in other countries1 -hich are applied to all
homes through mechanisms such as planning and building control England is
notable in the examples provided for its lac2 of certain design controls1
particularly in regards to the si@e of homes /ustralia and %reland provide
(
recent examples of implementing higher housing design standards through their
respective planning systems1 at a national as -ell as cityCregional level
%mplementing these standards -as deemed necessary in response to concerns
very similar to the London context 8 an increasing provision in the number of
flats being built and concerns over the 3uality of developments being provided
14 +esearch and case studies sho- that the benefits of higher 3uality housing
include reduced crime rates1 contribution to the mitigation of health
ine3ualities1 better -elfare and reduced costs to society1 and higher residual
values for developers / set of harmonised standards for London -ould also
be expected to bring greater consistency and certainty to the development
and planning process
110 #he second part of this report focuses specifically on space standards1 as a
2ey measure of 3uality embedded in Policy 3& -ithin the 0raft +eplacement
London Plan Darious research studies and consumer surveys sho- a
considerable degree of consistency not only in the preferences expressed
regarding the importance of space in the home1 but also in levels of
dissatisfaction -ith inade3uate space a fre3uent issue raised amongst
residents %n loo2ing at -hat is currently being provided in actual
development schemes1 there is a general trend to-ards decreasing space
-ith more rooms being =crammed* into d-ellings1 leading to smaller
habitable rooms and significant reductions in storage space
111 #he evidence points to-ards a clear mismatch bet-een resident needs and
preferences and mar2et provision Particularly in London1 several recent
studies of ne- developments have sho-n that ne- homes consistently fall
short of current benchmar2s1 such as those proposed by the !omes and
"ommunities /gency 9!"/: and the 0raft +eplacement London Plan
90+LP: and that storage space is minimal1 if provided at all +esearch
sho-s that the average one5bed flat in London has shrun2 by 13< since
2000
2
/nother recent study
3
found that (0< of the one5bedroom d-ellings
in London analysed -ithin the study had no storage space #he same study
found that t-o5bedroom d-ellings in particular fell -ell belo- proposed !"/
and 0+LP benchmar2s by an average of 10 s3m 9roughly the si@e of a
small double bedroom:1 and that some of the t-o5bedroom d-ellings being
2 London +esidential +esearch 3uoted in P 'ill1 =Si@e matters to 'oris -hen it comes to flats*1 Evening
Standard1 2A June 200;
3 !/#"1 Room to swing a at! "he amount and use of s#ae in new dwellings in London $ the South
East1 2010
A
mar2eted in London -ere the same si@e as the proposed 0+LP standards
for a one5bedroom d-elling #his is of particular concern for London1 as a
large proportion of homes being provided are t-o5bed flats 9t-o5thirds of
total output in 200;C04
4
:1 -hich could potentially be occupied as family
homes
112 Space is an important determinant in the 3uality of a home in providing
comfort1 privacy and utility1 as -ell as the flexibility to respond to changing
needs such as increased home5-or2ing or the ageing population and to
allo- rooms to ta2e on multiple uses Evidence also points to-ards a
gro-ing demand for space1 regardless of household si@e %t is argued that
the expected gro-th in one5person households in London points to the need
for smaller flats1 particularly for young1 first5time buyers !o-ever1 these
single households do not directly e3uate to small d-ellings and demand for
less space .L/ statistics sho- that the ma>or gro-th in one5person
households is expected to be in the middle aged demographic1 many being
divorced or former co5habitees -ho may share children bet-een homes and
therefore need more space "onsumer research sho-s that space is high
on the list of priorities of the increasing number of one5person households
5
1
and that criticism about lac2 of space is expressed =by all groups of home
buyers -ith singles >ust as vociferous as families*
6

113 #here is evidence that lac2 of space has an impact on health and -ell5being1
particularly -hen this is lin2ed to due to levels of overcro-ding ,hile
overcro-ding is highest in the social rented sector1 -here homes are usually
occupied to maximum capacity1 it has also been rising steadily in the private
rented sector #he private rented sector in London has seen the biggest rise
in overcro-ding since 20011 nearly doubling in ten years
7
Since household
si@e1 tenure and length of occupation can vary in a home over the longer5
term1 smaller homes built no- by any sector may be storing up potential
problems for the future +esearch also suggests that pressures on space
impact disproportionately1 even in mar2et homes1 on those -ho are more
economically disadvantaged
4 "L. !ousing Statistics1 Live #ables on !ouse 'uilding1 #able 2&$1 op cit
5 'artlett 7 et al1 %onsume& %hoie in Housing: "he 'eginnings of a house 'uye& &e(olt1 Joseph
+o-ntree Eoundation1 2002
6 "/'E1 )hat Home *uye&s )ant: Attitudes and deision ma+ing among onsume&s1 200&
7 )ayor of London1 Housing in London: "he e(idene 'ase fo& the London Housing St&ategy1 .L/1
2004
;
11$ ,hile not part of the national planning or building control frame-or21 space
standards do currently exist in a number of London borough and other 67
district and local planning guidance1 and as part of funding criteria for
publicly funded homes !istorically1 guidance on space standards has
varied1 but has been broadly consistent -ithin a range of about FC5 10<
since the Second ,orld ,ar1 and the Par2er )orris standards of 14(1 are
still a commonly cited benchmar2 for space standards in the 67
8
Space
standards are commonly set in other countries1 usually through the local
e3uivalent of the 'uilding "ontrolCplanning permission system
11& #he )ayor*s proposed space standards see2 to provide a ne- benchmar21
based on a functional approach to the needs of residents1 incorporating
furniture1 activity and circulation space depending on the number of occupants
and number of storeys -ithin the d-elling #he space standards 1 as -ell as
the other ne- re3uirements1 loo2 beyond initial sale and the needs of the first
o-ners or tenants to ensure that the next generation of ne- London homes
have -ide5ranging appeal1 functionality and longevity #he draft London Plan
space standards have therefore been set at a level -hich allo-s the property
to cater for a reasonably -ide variety of diverse household needs over the
lifetime of the property1 and do not appear to be overly onerous -hen
compared to other existing space standards / similar exercise underta2en
by the !"/ in developing its proposed ne- space standards for national
application to publicly funded homes resulted in similar findings1 though based
on a different methodology #his convergence -ould appear to provide
evidence that the measures are robust
11( %mplementing space standards through planning has highlighted concerns
over their impact on costs1 viability1 affordability and development capacity
#hese issues have been addressed in a separate .L/ study
9
1 though the final
section of this report responds to a number of comments raised in the
consultation responses to the 0raft +eplacement London Plan 90+LP:
'ecause of their cumulative importance to 3uality of life1 space standards do
have a role in the strategic planning system for London1 contributing to the
-ider sustainable development ob>ectives set out in national planning policy
and the 0+LP ,hile there are arguments that standards limit flexibility and
innovation1 there is also the benefit of a more consistent approach to 3uality in
planning1 -ith common standards contributing to greater flexibility of tenure as
8 !/#"1 200(1 op cit
9 .D/ .rimley1 D&aft London Housing Design ,uide: %ost and deli(e&y im#at assessment, #&e
#u'liation d&aft1 London 0evelopment /gency1 2010
4
mar2et circumstances change and allo-ing more competition for land #he
0+LP and its associated !ousing SP. -ill also ma2e very clear that there is
flexibility for their implementation to ta2e account of local circumstances
10
2. INT3OD1CTION
21 #his report -as commissioned by the .L/ to inform the Examination in
Public into the 0raft +eplacement London Plan 90+LP:1 by bringing
together and summarising the evidence that supports the need for the
)ayor*s proposed housing design standards #hese standards are
proposed in Policy 3& of the 0+LP for all housing tenures and -ill be
detailed in the forthcoming draft !ousing Supplementary Planning
.uidance 9SP.:
22 #he .L/*s brief for this report -as to provide a statement of the necessity for
higher housing design standards1 including a revie- of current standards1 the
history of design and space standards in the 671 customer demandCneed and
mar2et and public sector provision1 and an overvie- of the value that higher
standards can bring in terms of policy priorities set out in the 0+LP
23 #his report builds on the -or2 underta2en by !/#" in their 200( report for
the .L/1 Housing S#ae Standa&ds1 providing a revie- of more recent
research1 case studies and evidence specifically in regards to the )ayor*s
proposed standards that have evolved since the publication of the !/#"
report
2$ /s bac2ground1 the standards proposed -ithin Policy 3& of the 0+LP and
the draft !ousing SP. dra- on those outlined in the draft London !ousing
0esign .uide1 -hich -as published for consultation in summer 2004 and
-as aimed at ne- homes developed on L0/ o-ned land or -ith public
sector investment #hese standards have been revised for application on
L0/ o-ned land1 ta2ing into account the consultation feedbac21 further
discussions -ith 2ey sta2eholders1 and a cost and delivery impact
assessment
10
#he revisions -ill inform the standards in the forthcoming
draft !ousing SP. and the -ay in -hich they may be applied to different
tenures
2& #he main focus of this report is the need for the introduction of minimum
space standards1 as this has been explicitly embedded in Policy 3& #he
report also touches on the other standards proposed in the 0+LP and
forthcoming draft !ousing SP.1 focusing on those -hich are ne- or go
beyond existing standards that apply under current planning policy and
10 .D/ .rimley1 2010 op cit
11
-hich received the most comment on their potential impact in the
consultation responses #hese include shared circulation1 private open
space1 dual aspect and ceiling heights as -ell as higher standards in
relation to the mitigation of climate change
12
3. THE NEED 5O3 HO1SIN. DESI.N ST&ND&3DS
3.1 Historic approach and trends in housing standards
311 #he 3uality of housing in London has continually been shaped by some form
of local and national regulation #he first building regulations in the 67 stem
from the London 'uilding /ct of 1((A established follo-ing the .reat Eire of
London1 -hich specified that all houses -ere to be built in bric2 or stone and
the number of storeys1 -idth of -alls1 and -idth of streets allo-ed -ithin the
-alled "ity of London #he London 'uildings /cts in the 14 century set out
specific provisions for ne- housing1 including street -idths1 thic2ness of
-alls1 room heights1 minimum si@e for bac2 gardens1 and the placing and
design of chimneys1 fireplaces and drains
312 Planning and housing policy originated from the public health movement
to-ards the end of the 14
thth
century and a concern that public intervention1
both through regulatory standards and direct public sector development1
-ere necessary if overcro-ding and disease -ere to be overcome
11
#he
Public !ealth /ct of 1;A& had a direct influence on the type of housing built1
by re3uiring local authorities to implement regulations1 or =bye5la-s*1 that
each house should be self5contained -ith its o-n sanitation and -ater 'y
1;;01 and further influenced by the philanthropic movement1 most to-ns
had similar bye5la- regulationsG streets a minimum of 3( feet 911 meters:
-ide1 1&0 s3uare feet 91$ s3 m: of unbuilt space at the rear of each house1
a minimum room height of ; feet 92$ m:1 a lavatory and drainage1 and
-indo-s of a certain si@e in relation to rooms
12
'y the end of the 14
century1 the dominant form of housing in the 67 became the =bye la-*
terraced house1 -ith 2& million built bet-een 1;A0 and 1410
th

313 %n 141;1 the .overnment commissioned the #udor ,alters "ommittee to
revie- housing conditions and ma2e recommendations regarding the design
and layout of ne- homes to be built follo-ing the Eirst ,orld ,ar #he
#udor ,alters report1 based on the standards and densities of the .arden
"ities movement1 recommended that every house should contain three
ground floor rooms 9a living room1 parlour and scullery:1 at least three
bedrooms 9one of -hich must ta2e t-o beds:1 and a bathroom and larder
11 0 'o-ie1 =Bo more hobbit homes*1 Planning in London1 %ssue A11 ?ctober50ecember 2004
12 ,oodman E and .reeves E1 Home - Away: .i(e *&itish A&hitets *uild Housing in Eu&o#e: "he
De(elo#ment of Housing in *&itain /012 3 42201 'ritish "ouncil1 200;
th %bid
13
#hese -ere the first set of space standards applied to the construction of
ne- homes1 based on the number of rooms provided +ecommendations
-ere also made in regards to external appearance and layout 8 houses
-ere to be built as cottages set amongst front and bac2 gardens1 built in cul5
de5sacs rather than long terraces at densities of 12 d-ellings per acre1 -ith
a 21 m minimum distance bet-een facing ro-s of houses
13
#he report*s
recommendations -ere adopted in the 1414 !ousing /ct and applied to ne-
council housing
31$ #o-ard the end of the Second ,orld ,ar1 the .overnment commissioned
another housing revie-1 the 0udley +eport of 14$$1 to assess housing
standards post5#udor ,alters in preparation for peace time re5construction
#he +eport provided the basis for the 14$$ !ousing )anual1 -hich set out
guidance to local authorities on housing and estate design1 covering site layout1
density1 house types1 si@e of rooms1 flats1 efficiency in building1 ne- methods
and materials1 heat1 insulation1 etc #he subse3uent 14$4 !ousing )anual
called for a greater variety of d-elling types and higher space standards than
the 14$$ )anual1 -ith the re3uirement for a 35bedroom house increasing from
the previous ;005400 s3 ft benchmar2 to 40054&0 s3 ft 0espite limitations and
unprecedented demand1 the standards of housing -ere generally high1 -ith
average space standards reaching their highest in 14$4
14

31& %n 14(11 the )inistry of !ousing and Local .overnment published the
influential report of the Par2er )orris "ommittee1 Homes fo& "oday and
"omo&&ow #his set out the need for space standards1 -hich for the first
time -ere derived from a revie- of ho- residents actually used their homes
and its different rooms #he report also highlighted the need for storage
space1 and called for all rooms in the house to be heated 6nli2e previous
standards that sought to influence the form and appearance of housing
being built1 the report*s main concern -as the internal arrangement of the
home to provide for resident needs in response to the impacts of a fast5
changing and increasingly affluent society
31( #he Par2er )orris standards -ere further developed by the )inistry of
!ousing and Local .overnment in 0esign 'ulletin ( published in 14(3 #his
illustrated the space and furniture re3uirements for family and personal
activities along -ith the space re3uired to use and move around furniture1
13 !/#"1 Housing S#ae Standa&ds1 .reater London /uthority1 200(
14 %bid
1$
and included d-elling plans to illustrate the approach and standards
recommended by Par2er )orris #his -as also a period in -hich a
considerable amount of good practice guidance -as published1 including the
.reater London "ouncil*s .eneric !ouse Plans and !ousing Layout
guidance1 also based on the Par2er )orris standards
31A #he Par2er )orris standards -ere initially used as good practice guidance
throughout the 14(0s until they -ere made mandatory for the ne- to-ns in
14(A and for all ne- council housing in 14(4 #he !/#" report on !ousing
Space Standards for the .L/ notes that this -as a period -hen public
sector housebuilding exceeded private for several yearsH ho-ever the
adoption of d-elling space standards did not al-ays lead to -ell designed1
popular housing =#his -as also the era of multi5storey1 industrialised
building1 +adburn layouts1 etc many of -hich proved unpopular #his
highlights that good 3uality design re3uires not >ust good space standards1
but also good site planning and good 3uality construction*
15

31; #he minimum areas in the Par2er )orris report 3uic2ly became maxima for
public subsidy purposes1 once set against the .overnmentIs !ousing "ost
Jardstic2 #he Par2er )orris standards -ere abolished in 14;0 due to cuts
in public expenditureH ho-ever they are still fre3uently cited even today as a
good practice benchmar2
314 0uring the 14;0s1 as Local /uthority housebuilding significantly declined1
=!ousing /ssociations* emerged to become the main provider of ne- social
housing Be- homes -ere built to guidelines set out by the !ousing
"orporation in the 14;3 document 0esign and "ontract "riteria1 -hich
largely e3uated -ith the Par2er )orris standards #hough by 14;A1 as
housing grant gradually decreased1 cost efficiency -as prioritised over and
above adherence to housing 3uality criteria
16

3110 'y the early 1440s1 a drop in !ousing /ssociation 3uality standards in
England began to be identified by a number of research reports1 sho-ing
that (;< of !ousing /ssociation properties built in 1441C1442 fell belo-
Par2er )orris standards by more than &<1 as -ell as reductions in storage1
circulation space1 and amenities and even standards of construction
materials and -or2manship
17

15 !/#" 200(1 op cit1 p23

16 "roydon "ouncil1 S&utiny 5n(estigation: Room si6es in new housing de(elo#ments1 200;
17 %bid
1&
3111 #he !ousing "orporation set out to reverse the deterioration of 3uality
standards by developing its Scheme 0evelopment Standards 9S0S: in 1443
#he S0S core performance standards defined the minimum that -as
expected in a housing development funded through social housing grant
#hese have since been updated1 using the !ousing Kuality %ndicators
scoring system that currently applies to grant funded housing and
incorporates criteria such as space standards
3112 #he 1440s also sa- the emergence of greater a-areness of the rights of
people -ith disabilities and housing standards have moved to address
accessibility1 encouraged by the -or2 of the Joseph +o-ntree Eoundation
and the development of =Lifetime !omes* standard -hich aims to ensure that
ne- homes are designed to be able to adapt to the changing needs of their
occupants1 particularly in later life #his lead has been follo-ed up through
'uilding +egulations in response to the 144& 0isability 0iscrimination /ct1
-here certain elements of the Lifetime !omes standard such as entrances
-ith level access have been legislated for in private sector homes
18
#he
London Plan has also adopted the full Lifetime !omes standard as planning
policy for all ne- homes in London
19

3113 Eocus has also shifted to the emergence of place5ma2ing and urban design
criteria as 2ey components in creating good housing #hough the planning
system has only recently adopted this -ider design agenda1 -ith a general
acceptance that urban design1 rather than architecture1 represents the most
appropriate and effective means through -hich local authorities can
influence the 3uality of ne- developments /cceptance of the role for urban
design has come slo-ly1 -ith urban design mentioned for the first time in
planning guidance in 144(
20
6rban design principles1 including housing
layout and massing and legibility and connectivity of the public realm1 have
since been embedded -ithin the planning system through the publication of
'y 0esign and Planning Policy Statement 3 9!ousing: and form a 2ey part of
the 'uilding for Life standard promoted by "ommission for /rchitecture and
the 'uilt Environment 9"/'E: and London Plan policy
21

18 7 7intrea and J )organ1 E(aluation of English Housing 7oliy /81934222, "heme :: Housing
Quality and Neigh'ou&hood Quality1 ?ffice of the 0eputy Prime )inister1 200&
19 London Plan 9200;: Policy 3/& !ousing "hoice1 and "onsultation 0raft +eplacement London Plan
92004: Policy 3; !ousing "hoice
20 ) "armona1 Housing Design Quality, "h&ough 7oliy, ,uidane and Re(iew1 Spon Press1 2001
21 See policies in chapter $' of the London Plan 9200;:1 and chapter A of the "onsultation 0raft
+eplacement London Plan 92004:
1(
311$ )ore recently1 environmental sustainability and resource efficiency have ta2en
a central role in shaping the standards debate and the 3uality of all ne-
homes1 in response to predicted changes in climate due to carbon emissions
/t present1 .overnment has a target of all ne- homes being @ero carbon by
201(1 and the "ode for Sustainable !omes -as launched in 0ecember 200(
to assess the environmental performance of ne- build housing
311& !ousing standards in the 67 have fre3uently been used in the past to
improve the 3uality of ne- housing1 arising from social and public health
concerns of poor 3uality housing to more recent concerns in relation to
housing*s contribution to climate change Standards have also been used to
set the benchmar2 to be achieved in periods of ma>or housebuilding /t
times1 the housing standards set have been 3uite prescriptive1 impacting
directly on the form and type of housing !o-ever1 t-entieth century
housing has been typified by higher standards for public sector housing
provision1 including the application of minimum space standards at various
periods since 1414 #his trend of higher standards for publicly funded
housing continues to this day
1A
3.2 Current standards context
321 #oday1 the design of ne- housing developments in London1 and indeed the
rest of the 671 is governed by various policy and regulatory frame-or2s
322 #he planning and development control system and 'uilding +egulations
apply to all ne- housing1 regardless of type or tenure 'uilding +egulations
apply nationally in England and ,ales and generally cover health and safety
issues including structural concerns1 fire safety1 sound insulation1 drainage1
and ventilation1 as -ell as energy efficiency and accessibility #he current
national planning policy frame-or2 in Planning Policy Statement 1 9PPS1:
Sustainable 0evelopment and PPS3 !ousing sets out the need for housing
that is -ell5designed and built to a high standard1 -ith access to transport1
services and green space1 built at a scale1 density and layout that
complements the local context and see2s to adapt to and reduce the impact
from climate change /t the regional planning level1 the London Plan sets
specific policies in relation to density1 housing mix and tenure1 sustainable
design and construction1 access to open space and provision of external
space for children*s play
323 / number of other current standards have an impact on the design of ne-
homes1 though these are not applied consistently to all ne- homesG
Code or Sustaina*$e Homes 8 the national benchmar2 for the
environmental performance of ne- homes #here are nine categories
covering energy and "?2 emissions1 -ater1 materials1 surface -ater run5
off1 -aste1 pollution1 health and -ellbeing1 management and ecologyH
-ith points assigned to each category Some elements such as energy
and -ater are mandatory1 -hile others are tradable to provide more
flexibility in reaching a certain "ode Level #he "ode is primarily used
as a standard for publicly funded homes 9currently set at minimum Level
3: and is not mandatory for mar2et housing !o-ever the intention is
that the energy and "?2 elements -ill apply to all homes as 'uilding
+egulations are revised at regular intervals to align -ith higher energy
levels in the "ode1 aligning -ith "ode Level 3 in 2010 leading to all ne-
homes being @ero carbon 9"ode Level (: by 201( #he London Plan
also applies specific policies in relation to energy and "?2 reduction and
sustainable design and construction in ne- developments
1;
-ietime Homes 8 1( criteria developed by the Joseph +o-ntree
Eoundation and managed by !abinteg !ousing /ssociation1 -hich
cover access to the home1 moving around indoors1 and moving bet-een
levels -ithin a home to help ensure greater adaptability to changing
circumstances Parts of the standard -ere adopted into Part ) of the
'uilding +egulations in 14441 but a development must still meet all 1(
criteria to achieve the Lifetime !omes standard #he standard applies
to the development of all ne- homes in London through London Plan
Policy 3/& !ousing "hoice
22
and also sits -ithin the "ode for
Sustainable !omes -here it is mandatory to achieve at "ode Level (
)ui$ding or -ie 8 #he 'uilding for Life standard1 developed by the
housebuilding industry and administered by "/'E1 comprises 20 criteria
placing ne- homes in their -ider context and assesses ho- they
integrate -ith their surroundings /gain1 'uilding for Life has been
adopted in the public sector primarily through the !ousing "orporation in
relation to affordable housing grant and English Partnerships in
developing public sector land
23
1 specifying a minimum number of points
to score out of 20 %ncreasing numbers of local authority planning
departments no- use the standard to evaluate development proposals1
particularly as local authorities are expected to use 'uilding for Life as
part of their annual monitoring report for "ommunities and Local
.overnment 9"L.:
Secured *y Design 8 / police initiative that promotes crime prevention
measures in ne- residential development1 covering issues of site layout
and design and the specification of physical elements such as -indo-s1
doors and loc2s #o achieve full certification1 design measures must be
agreed bet-een the developer and a police "rime Prevention 0esign
/dviser 9"P0/: or /rchitectural Liaison ?fficer 9/L?: #he physical
elements of the standard have been incorporated in the "ode for
Sustainable !omes but are not mandatory #he standard has been
used for public sector funding 9eg in the 200;511 Bational /ffordable
!ousing Programme1 the !ousing "orporation specified that the
physical security measures -ithin the "ode -ere mandatory:1 and the
general principles have been reflected in London Plan policy $'(
Safety1 security and fire prevention and protection
24

22 0raft +eplacement London Plan1 Policy 3; !ousing "hoice

23 'oth organisations have no- been subsumed into the !omes L "ommunities /gency1 though their
existing housing standards continue to apply to existing programmes up to /pril 2011
24 0raft +eplacement London Plan1 Policy A3 Secured by 0esign
14
3.2.4 /s noted previously1 higher set of standards apply to public sector funded
homes #he .overnment*s Homes 6 Communities &gency 9!"/: has
recently published its proposed national core housing and sustainability
standards for consultation1 aimed at ne- homes in receipt of public funding
or built on !"/ land #he proposals incorporate a number of the above
standards1 including a minimum 'uilding for Life score of 1$ out 20 and
minimum "ode for Sustainable !omes Level $ -ith mandatory points for
security1 but go further in specifying standards in relation to the internal
layout of the home #hese include minimum space standards for d-ellings1
minimum storage provision and recommended room si@es and ceiling
heights1 none of -hich sit -ithin existing legislation #he !"/ states that the
proposed standards have been derived from =a lea& e(idene 'ase and the
needs of the #eo#le that matte& most 3 the &esidents themsel(es*
25

32& #here is no- more emphasis than ever on excellence in design and
sustainability1 -hich is to be -elcomed !o-ever1 the housing standards
context has become increasingly complex and fragmented
+ecent standards have been developed in a piecemeal fashion in
response to singular issues1 potentially contradicting each other and if
formed at a national level may not respond -ell to the higher density
London context
#here is a good deal of overlap and cross5referencing bet-een the
above set of standards 9ie Lifetime !omes and Secured by 0esign
principles are embedded in London Plan policies1 but are also
referenced -ithin the "ode for Sustainable !omes as non5mandatory:
#here are existing standards that measure the same criteria in very
different -ays 8 for instance1 some space standards -ithin local
planning guidance are based on unit si@es1 -hile the !"/*s current
space standards -hich relate to the Bational /ffordable !ousing
Programme are set out as a range of si@es based on occupancy and set
against a performance based scoring system rather than a minimum
threshold to achieve
26

/pplicability of standards varies by tenure -ith higher standards

applying to publicly funded homes1 adding complexity on mixed tenure
25 !"/ draft standards consultation 92010: 8 ---homesandcommunitiescou2Cdesign5sustainability5
standards
26 See !ousing "orporation 0esign and Kuality Standards 9200A: and !ousing Kuality %ndicators
version $ 9200;:
20
sites and therefore putting pressure on the 3uality of a development site
as a -hole
32( #here is a pressing need for consolidation and consistency1 an approach
-hich received strong support in responses to the draft London !ousing
0esign .uide consultation in 2004
27
#he London Plan1 as the strategic
planning frame-or2 for London coupled -ith the fact that a replacement
Plan is currently under revie-1 presents an ideal mechanism to consolidate
standards for ne- housing across the capital providing clarity at the outset of
any development pro>ect of -hat is expected #hough there are differences
bet-een tenures1 most mechanisms are already in place -ithin the London
Plan to ensure higher 3uality standards in housing1 -ith policies in relation to
energy efficiency1 sustainable design and construction1 outdoor space
including children*s play space1 Lifetime !omes1 security and urban design 8
the missing element being the internal space of the home
32A #his1 of course1 raises the thorny issue of applying a common set of design
standards across all tenures of housing1 particularly in relation to space
standards -hich historically has been avoided as a re3uirement for private
sector housing #hough -ith the private sector the dominant provider of
housing1 even of ne- affordable housing in recent years1 there is a need to
understand -hether the homes being provided in London are fit for purpose
both no- and in the future
27 +esponses can be found on the London 0evelopment /gency*s consultation portal 8 httpGCClda5
consultlimehousecou2CportalChousingMdesignMguideCdraftMhousingMdesignMguideNtabOlist
21
3.3 The London context
331 #he case for standards in London is set -ithin the context of a gro-ing city
London*s population is set to increase by 13 million in the 2& years to 20311
and the number of households is expected to rise by 2& per cent
28
#o meet
this gro-ing demand1 the 0raft +eplacement London Plan proposes a target
of building an average 331$00 additional homes per year
29

332 )ore homes are needed1 but the )ayor has made it clear that this must not
be at the expense of 3uality
30
0evelopment pressures in London are
intense1 -ith constrained capacity and high land costs -ithin a speculative
mar2et putting pressure on the design 3uality achievable in ne- housing
developments #he overall challenge is to ensure housing designed no- not
only meets the needs of current residents but that -ill also have longer5term
appeal
333 /cross all housing sectors1 some great schemes have been built1 but overall
the 3uality of housing in London is not good enough / 200$ audit of ne-
housing developments in London found that over t-o5thirds 9(4<: achieved
=average* scores1 -ith 1&< achieving a =poor* score ?nly 1;< achieved a
score of =good* or better
31
#here is clearly room for improvement
/a7ing higher densities 8or7
33$ "onstrained capacity for housing and the pro>ected gro-th in the population
ma2e selective development at higher densities than the national average a
necessity in the uni3ue circumstances of London #he ne- 0+LP ma2es
clear that ne- developments must optimise housing output and not simply
maximise it #his means ta2ing proper account of local context and public
transport capacity
32
1 building on London*s rich urban tradition of building
-ell5designed housing at higher densities
33& /verage densities in London have risen from around ;& dph in the mid
1440s to over 130 dph London Plan /nnual )onitoring figures sho- that
-hile the average density of residential approvals is starting to fall1 in
28 0)/. 6pdate1 =0emographic Pro>ections for the draft London Plan*1 .L/1 ?ctober 2004
29 )ayor of London1 %onsultation D&aft Re#laement London 7lan1 2004
30 )ayor of London1 7lanning fo& a *ette& London1 200;
31 "/'E1 Housing Audit: Assessing the Design Quality of New Homes (London, the South East and the
East of England)1 200$
32 0raft +eplacement London Plan1 Policy 3$ ?ptimising !ousing Potential
22
200;C041 ($< of -ere still above the recommended ranges in the London
Plan density matrix for different types of location
33

33( !igh density has many advantages1 but it has to be appropriate and done
-ell Several reports have called for increasing density to be accompanied
by enhanced standards of space1 amenity and management services1
enforceable through the planning system
34
1 and by innovation in housing
design and building regulations or there is a ris2 of recreating the cramped
and poor housing environments of the past
35

33A %n the report1 Reommendations fo& Li(ing at Su#e&density

36
, four of London*s
ma>or architects specialising in residential development emphasised the need
for greater care in designing higher density development to ensure a better
3uality of life for residents and that homes have lasting appeal %n assessing
high density proposals1 they noted that greater emphasis -as put on
=streetscape and aestheticsP -ith less thought given to the 3uality of life the
housing could sustain1 and therefore the long5term sustainability of the
housing itself ,e believe the balance has to be restruc2* #hough the
authors sound a note of caution in regards to the use of standards over
concerns of =contradictory legislation and over@ealous application*1 they state
that =it is clear further guidance is re3uired1 but it is for others to decide
-hether this should be made mandatory*
33; %ncreases in density have been closely related to changes in the mix of
d-ellings being produced ,hereas in England overall1 ;3< of households
live in houses1 in London $&< live in flats and the proportion is gro-ing
37

+ecent trends in London are to-ards the increasing provision of flats
9ma2ing up 40< of total output in 200;C04:1 -ith a particular increase in the
provision of t-o5bedroom d-ellings 9($< of total output in 200;C04:
38

334 #hese ne- homes -ill be expected to cater for a diverse range of needs1
including a gro-ing number of one5person households 9accounting for A0
per cent of the total expected gro-th in households to 2031:
39
1 as -ell as an
33 .reater London /uthority1 London 7lan Annual ;onito&ing Re#o&t <1 2010
34 P+P /rchitects and 6rbed1 =Less "ould )ean )oreG Streamlining the development process to
achieve better results*1 200A
35 J 'arlo- et al1 Land fo& Housing: %u&&ent 7&atie and .utu&e =#tions1 2002
36 0esign for !omes et al1 Reommendations fo& Li(ing at Su#e&density1 200A
37 2001 "ensus in England and ,ales1 ?ffice for Bational Statistics
38 "L. !ousing Statistics1 Live #ables on !ouse 'uilding1 #able 2&$G Permanent d-ellings completed1
by house and flat1 number of bedroom and tenure1 London
39 0)/.1 20041 op cit
23
increasing population of older people1 and the need for more affordable
homes particularly for families
40
.ood design is essential to achieve a
successful mix and 3uality homes for this diverse range of needs1
particularly in the higher density London context
($ace9ma7ing
3310 #he spaces bet-een and around buildings are as important as the spaces
-ithin 0esign 3uality is not >ust about the buildings or a particular
architectural style1 but creating places that -or2 -ell #hough ne-
developments often struggle to give places a coherent identity 0evelopments
should enhance the character and legibility of an area1 integrate -ith the -ider
public realm net-or2 and provide opportunities for access to open and green
space #he )ayor has put stronger emphasis on neighbourhoods and
community in the 0raft +eplacement London Plan1 aiming to enable gro-th
-hile retaining London*s heritage and distinctiveness and creating a better
3uality of life for all
Shared circu$ation and communa$ areas
3311 Security and management issues become more acute -hen higher numbers
of people use the same space #he "apital .ains report
41
argues that the
higher the density1 the greater the need for high 3uality design and
management to ensure liveable homes and neighbourhoods in London
)ethods of organising and accessing flats are critical1 and become more so
in proportion to increasing densities !igher density development creates
increased pressure on space and leads to more intensive use of communal1
shared areas such as entrances1 corridors1 and lifts -ith subse3uent
management and maintenance implications
3312 #he design of the approach to the home can also have a significant impact
on the management and social dynamics in a bloc2 of flats #he safety of
these areas is also a 2ey design concern as this is -here the public meets
the private realm1 and their design is of particular importance for -heelchair
users or people -ith visual impairments
40 )ayor of London1 London Housing St&ategy1 2010
41 ! "ope1 %a#ital ,ains: ;a+ing high density housing wo&+ in London1 London !ousing Eederation1
2002
2$
S"ace
3313 !omes that are sensibly planned and functionalH designed to meet the
demands of everyday life1 providing enough space and facilities such as
privacy and storage1 -ill better enable residents to live comfortably and
conveniently /s ne- housing is built at increasingly higher densities1 there
is pressure on the 3uality of both indoor and outdoor space 'ut it is the
provision of this space that can ma2e higher density living more tolerable
331$ / 200& report on attracting and retaining families in inner urban1 mixed
income communities1 revie-ed several London case studies and found that
these communities -or2 best -hen the homes are designed -ith families in
mind1 -ith ade3uate storage1 ample 2itchens1 family bathrooms and access
to outdoor space -here possible
42
331& Evidence also points to-ards a gro-ing demand for space1 regardless of
household si@e
43
%t is argued that the expected gro-th in one5person
households in London points to the need for smaller flats1 particularly for
young1 first5time buyers !o-ever1 these single households do not directly
e3uate to small d-ellings and demand for less space .L/ statistics
44
sho-
that the ma>or gro-th in one5person households is expected to be in the
middle aged demographic1 many being divorced or former co5habitees -ho
may have children living -ith a former partner and may need more space to
=share* children bet-een homes "onsumer research sho-s that space is
high on the list of priorities of the increasing number of one5person
households
45
1 and that criticism about lac2 of space =-as expressed by all
groups of home buyers -ith singles >ust as vociferous as families*
46

&menity
331( 0esigning a mix of different si@ed homes at higher densities on mixed tenure
sites creates a number of design challenges in terms of providing
appropriate amenity in homes %ssues of aspect1 prospect and sunlight1
overloo2ing1 and visual and acoustic privacy1 all become more acute as
42 E Silverman et al1 A ,ood 7lae fo& %hild&en! Att&ating and &etaining families in inne& u&'an mi>ed
inome ommunities1 "%! and J+E1 200&
43 See J Ste-art1 Room to mo(e! Reoniling Housing %onsum#tion As#i&ations and Land?use
7lanning1 !'E1 200&H and " ,hitehead1 200; op cit
44 .L/ data1 based on "L. 200(5based household pro>ects for London
45 'artlett 7 et al1 %onsume& %hoie in Housing: "he 'eginnings of a house 'uye& &e(olt1 Joseph
+o-ntree Eoundation1 2002
46 "/'E1 )hat Home *uye&s )ant: Attitudes and deision ma+ing among onsume&s1 200&
2&
densities increase1 and re3uire great care in design
47
London development
sites are often surrounded by challenging conditions for ne- housing1 and
together -ith the general noise and activity of daily life in the city1 can impact
negatively on the home Batural light is also vital to a sense of -ellbeing in
the home1 and this may be restricted in dense parts of the city !igh density
development in London is increasingly being defined by long1 internal
corridors flan2ed by small1 single aspect units off both sides1 -hich if poorly
designed -ithout regard to orientation or context can have a detrimental
impact on daylight1 ventilation1 noise and privacy -ithin the home !igher
standards of design can help ensure ade3uate amenity and en>oyment of
the home
C$imate change
331A #he )ayor is committed to ma2ing London a -orld leader in tac2ling climate
change
48
London*s 32 million homes account for 3; per cent of London*s
total carbon emissions 9excluding aviation: through the energy they
consume ,ithout intervention this -ill increase1 driven by the gro-th in the
number of homes and increases in energy and -ater consuming household
goods /s -ell as being London*s largest single carbon emitting sector1 its
housing stoc2 is also exposed to the impacts of climate change 8 the
increased ris2 of flooding1 -ater scarcity and overheating
49
331; #he London Plan see2s to ensure that all ne- housing is built to the highest
standards of sustainable design and construction that are possible for each
scheme1 thereby reducing carbon emissions1 conserving -ater1 mitigating
flooding and safeguarding biodiversity %t also provides a comprehensive set
of policies that see2s to QdecarboniseR the energy supply net-or2 in London
47 "/'E1 Design Re(iewed: @&'an Housing1 200$
48 )ayor of London1 D&aft Re#laement London 7lan1 2004
49 )ayor of London1 London Housing St&ategy1 2010
2(
3.4 International comparisons
3$1 / 2003 study comparing the technical building re3uirements of eight
European countries
50
found that there are considerable variations in
re3uirements and that a broad variation of systems and formulations -ere
used1 includingG
.eneralised QfunctionalR re3uirements in combination -ith Qdeemed5to5
satisfyR practical design solutionsH
.eneralised QfunctionalR re3uirements -ith design guidance or
reference to external sources of design guidanceH
QPrescriptiveR re3uirements -ith reference to solutionsH and
Kuantitative QperformanceR re3uirements -ithout reference to practical
design solutions
3$2 #he study reported that in the countries assessed1 planning and building
control functions are combined into a single 'uilding Permit1 except for
England and ,ales and S-eden %t also found that each country has some
re3uirements for the si@e of homes1 ceiling heights and daylighting 8 the only
exception being England
3$3 %n terms of si@e1 re3uirements for the overall floor area of d-ellings are rare
but each country has some re3uirements for the si@e of habitable rooms1
except England #here are also further accessibility re3uirements in some
countries that have implications for the si@e of rooms1 most notably in
S-eden and Erance #he Betherlands has the most extensive re3uirements
for floor area and dimensions of rooms1 -ith the highest standard for one
room at 11 s3m #he authors note that =it is particularly interesting to
contrast the standards of the SBetherlandsT 'uilding 0ecree -ith the lac2 of
controls in England1 both being countries -ith relatively small d-ellings1 high
land costs1 and considerable pressure to-ards densification*
51
)inimum
ceiling height re3uirements range from 23 m in Erance to 2( m in the
Betherlands
3$$ / recent study comparing the regulatory frame-or2 in England and ,ales
-ith %taly
52
1 primarily in regards to space standards1 reports that the building
regulations in %taly include total net and room floor space minimums1 ceiling
50 L Sheridan et al1 *uilding Regulations in Eu&o#e, 7a&t 55: A om#a&ison of tehnial &eAui&ements in
eight Eu&o#ean ount&ies1 2003 #he eight countries studied -ere the Betherlands1 England1 Erance1
.ermany1 S-eden1 Bor-ay1 'elgium and 0enmar2
51 %bid1 p 2A2
2A
heights and -indo- dimensions in relation to daylighting #he study found
that national housing space standards evolved initially from nineteenth
century concerns over public health 9shared in England: and later the
experience of poor housing 3uality due to rapid urban gro-th in the 14(0s
%n comparison to the approach in England1 the study concludes that in %taly
space standards are vie-ed as a measure to ensure a liveable balance
bet-een housing 3uality and 3uantity and are essential controls in higher
density schemes #he regulatory standards are not vie-ed as a threat to
other planning priorities in %taly1 including affordability or density #he report
does 3ualify that regulation can undermine creativity1 as lamented by several
%talian architects intervie-ed for the study1 but at the same time the
standards are also strongly associated -ith the 3uality of homes being built
3$& #he +epublic of %reland introduced apartment design standards as national
planning policy in 200A #his -as in response to apartments becoming an
increasingly popular form of d-elling in %rish urban areas and =to promote
sustainable urban housing1 by ensuring that the design and layout of ne-
apartments -ill provide satisfactory accommodation for a variety of household
types and si@es 8 including families -ith children 8 over the medium to long
term*
53
#he standards includeG
minimum space standards floor areas for different types of apartments1
storage spaces1 si@es for apartment balconies C patios1 and room
dimensions for certain roomsH
minimum areas for balconies 9by number of bedrooms1 starting from &
s3m for a one5bed d-elling:H
the need for shared circulation areas to be -ell5lit preferably -ith some
natural light and ventilationH
dual aspect apartments should be the norm to maximise the availability
of sunlightH
minimum floor5to5ceiling height of 2A m generally and 3 m on the
ground floor of multi5storey d-ellings
3$( #he 0ublin "ity 0evelopment Plan -as also updated in 200A to include a
ne- section on =/chieving Liveable Sustainable Be- /partment !omes*1 as
around 40< of ne- housing in 0ublin is built as apartments and =achieving
family friendly apartment housing 3uality and attractive ne- neighbourhoods
52 B .allent et al1 5nte&national Housing S#ae Standa&ds in 5taly and England: %om#a&ing the
BonditionsC of &egulation1 +%"S1 2010
53 %reland 0epartment of the Environment1 !eritage and Local .overnment1 Sustaina'le @&'an
Housing: Design Standa&ds fo& New A#a&tments, ,uidelines fo& 7lanning Autho&ities1 200A
2;
are 2ey challenges for the future success of the "ity* #he Plan states that
the 2ey issue in relation to apartment housing 3uality and liveability is the
si@e or floor area of individual units as =this is the envelope -ithin -hich all
the other 3ualities and facilities can be delivered* / range of other factors
that affect housing 3uality and liveability are identified such asG dual aspect1
facilities for children1 above minimum floor to ceiling heights1 daylight and
sunlight1 balconies and terraces1 proper provision for drying clothes1
sufficient storage1 2itchensCbathrooms -ith -indo-s1 noise insulation1
energy efficiency1 and good design and layout
54

3$A #he 0ublin 0evelopment Plan goes further than the national %rish guidelines
9and the )ayor of London*s proposed standards:1 re3uiringG
!igher minimum floor areas 9one5bed && s3m1 t-o5bed ;0540 s3m1
and three5bed or e3uivalent 100 s3m:
)inimum storage areas -ithin the apartment to be 3 s3m for a one5
bed1 A s3m for t-o5bed1 and 4 s3m for three5bed or e3uivalent
#arget of t-o apartments per lift C stairs core per floor providing for 100<
dual aspect1 -ith the maximum for single aspect being 1&<1 none facing
north1 and each single aspect unit assessed in terms of its 3uality
)inimum balcony si@es of ( s3m for a one5bed1 ; s3m for a t-o5bed1
and 10 s3m for three5bed or e3uivalent
/ minimum floor to ceiling height of 2A m 93 m floor to floor:
3$; %n 20021 the Be- South ,ales 9BS,: state government in /ustralia adopted
planning policy SEPP(& in regards to the design 3uality of residential flat
developments
55
#his originated in response to the greater demand for flats
in urban areas arising from a gro-ing population and demographic changes1
and concerns regarding the 3uality of ne- developments
56
SEPP(&
identifies ten design 3uality principles and is supported by the +esidential
Elat 0esign "ode1 -hich provides detailed guidance on ho- the principles
should be applied to development proposals #o improve standards
alongside the "ode1 SEPP(& also re3uires residential flat buildings to be
designed by architects and recommends the establishment of local or
54 0ublin "ity "ouncil1 Ahie(ing Li(ea'le Sustaina'le New A#a&tment Homes, Da&iation (No. 4/) of
the Du'lin %ity De(elo#ment 7lan 4229?42//
55 Be- South ,ales .overnment1 State En(i&onmental 7lanning 7oliy No. <9 3 Design Quality of
Residential .lat De(elo#ment
56 Be- South ,ales 6rban 0esign /dvisory "ommittee1 Ahie(ing *ette& Design: Residential .lat
De(elo#ments in NS)1 2000
24
regional design revie- panels to provide independent design advice to local
planning authorities
3$4 #he BS, +esidential Elat "ode is based on the principle that =good 3uality
buildings help improve the 3uality of life* %t includes detailed guidance on
site design1 building design and local context issues1 including space
standards -hich increase in relation to number of bedrooms as -ell as
aspect 9ie recommended area for a one5bed =cross5through* apartment 8
long1 deep plan d-elling -ith aspect on opposite sides of the external
elevation 8 is &0 s3m -ith a private external area of ; s3m1 -hile a one5
bed single aspect d-elling should have a larger internal area of (3$ s3m
and larger private external area of 10 s3m: #he "ode sets out a number
of =rules of thumb* including 2A m floor5to5ceiling height minimum for all
habitable rooms on all floors1 minimum balcony depth of 2 m1 and
recommended storage areas
3$10 #he examples in this section highlight that a range of similar design criteria
are regulated internationally through building control or planning systemsH
the main difference being the -ay these criteria are measured England is
notable in the examples provided for its lac2 of particular design controls1
particularly in regards to the si@e of homes 'oth %reland and /ustralia
provide recent examples of design controls introduced through the planning
system #hese -ere established in response to a similar context to that in
London1 -ith an increasing provision in the number of flats being built and
concerns over the 3uality of developments being provided ,hile some
international standards revie-ed are higher than the )ayor*s proposed
standards1 it could be concluded that the London standards are pitched at a
more reasonable level1 ta2ing account of the London context and evidence
set out in later sections of this report
30
3.5 Benefits
3&1 +ecent research by "/'E
57
pulls together a number of existing research
and case studies that point to the benefits of good 3uality housing1 includingG
Lin2s bet-een housing 3uality1 better -elfare and reduced costs to
society1 often in the form of public health benefitsH
"ase studies sho-ing that exemplar schemes can achieve higher
residual values than conventional schemesH
+esidential developments designed to Secured by 0esign 9S'0:
standards had lo-er reported crime rates and less fear of crime than
those -ithout1 and that the average cost of building in S'0 measures
-as U$$0 per ne- d-elling1 compared -ith average losses of U11(A0
per d-elling from burglaryH and
/dditional residual value for the developers of a -ell5designed housing
scheme has been estimated at almost U11 million per scheme1 realised
over the five years from first completion of the scheme
3&2 .ood 3uality housing also contributes to the mitigation of health ine3ualities
#he )armot +evie-1 =Eair Society1 !ealthy Lives*1 for the 0epartment of
!ealth identifies =!ealthy Standards of Living for all* as being one of six
policy ob>ectives that -ill help reduce health ine3ualities Kuality of the home
environment is part of the e3uation of a healthy standard of living 0efinable
characteristics of the home that contribute to health include access to
natural daylight and appropriate noise insulation and layouts -hich promote
privacy in the home to avoid stress #reating illnesses arising from poor
housing conditions costs up to U2 billion per year1 according to a study for
the +oyal %nstitution of "hartered Surveyors 8 more than local authorities
spend on all their o-n housing stoc2 each year
58

3&3 #he benefits of higher standards of environmental performance and
resource efficiency in ne- housing have been -ell5documented1 not only in
mitigating and adapting to climate change by reducing carbon emissions but
providing fuel bill savings for residents and helping to tac2le fuel poverty
59

!o-ever1 sustainability is also about providing buildings that have a
reasonably long life1 -hich re3uires them to have sufficient inbuilt flexibility
57 "/'E1 )hy we need standa&ds fo& housing design1 )arch 2010
58 Kuoted in "/'E1 )hy we need standa&ds fo& housing design1 2010
59 )ayor of London1 London Housing St&ategy1 2010
31
for them to adapt to changing needs of their lifetime #he main factor -hich
provides flexibility and adaptability in d-ellings is space
60

3&$ %t is recognised that high 3uality design -ill not be achieved by the use of
physical standards alone #he aim is to provide a clear set of parameters to
inform the development of a scheme from the outset1 to avoid trying to
improve a scheme -hen it is too far do-n the line to change -ithout ma>or
impacts on time and cost leading to the potential for unsatisfactory
compromises #his clarity should benefit and give greater certainty to the
design and planning process for ne- homes in London
60 !/#"1 200(1 op cit
32
3. The !a"or#s proposed standards
3(1 %t is -ithin this context that the )ayor has introduced the proposed
standards -ithin Policy 3& of the 0+LP and the forthcoming draft !ousing
SP. 9see /ppendix 1 for detail of the emerging standards:
3(2 Policy 3& and implementation guidance -ithin the draft !ousing SP. aim to
bring together in one document the full range of issues -hich impact on the
3uality of d-ellings1 including accessible homes that respond to changing
needs1 have ade3uate space1 daylight and ventilation1 provide a sense of
security and privacy1 are energy and resource efficient and respect and
enhance their surrounding context
3(3 #he draft !ousing SP. standards have been informed by the standards set
out in the draft London !ousing 0esign .uide1 first published by the )ayor
for consultation in July 2004 #he London !ousing Strategy states that the
)ayor -ill -or2 -ith the !"/ to apply the standards in the .uide to all
affordable homes developed -ith public funding in London #he )ayor*s
ultimate aim is convergence of the design guidance to create a consistent1
all5embracing pac2age of standards for all housing in London
3($ #he strength of the )ayor*s re3uirements is three5fold Eirstly1 that it
consolidates existing standards about place5ma2ing1 sustainability1 security
and accessibility 8 secondly1 that it deals -ith internal space and shared
circulation spaces in bloc2s of flats as the missing lin2 to ensure design
3uality at higher densities 8 and thirdly1 and as a result of the first t-o1 it
loo2s to the future and not >ust the present
3(& !o-ever1 consultation on the draft of the London !ousing 0esign .uide and
the 0raft +eplacement London Plan raised a number of criticisms of
introducing ne- or higher standards in certain areas1 primarily due to their
impact on cost1 site viability1 land values1 affordability and development
capacity #hese are addressed in a separate impact study
61
1 though section
& of this report addresses some of the criticisms of implementing standards
through the London Plan
3(( #his section loo2s in detail at those standards in the draft !ousing SP.
-hich are ne- or go beyond existing standards that apply under current
61 .D/ .rimley1 20101 op cit
33
planning policy and received the most comment on their potential impact in
the consultation process #hese include shared circulation1 dual aspect1
private open space1 and ceiling heights as -ell as higher standards in
relation to the mitigation of climate change .iven that they form an integral
part of proposed policy 3&1 the proposed space standards are addressed
separately in more detail in Section $ of this report
3(A #he standards addressed belo- have been derived from recent research
and guidance and have been compared against current and previous
standards #hey have been revised to ta2e account of consultation
feedbac2 on the draft London !ousing 0esign .uide1 further discussions
-ith 2ey sta2eholders1 and a cost and delivery impact assessment
Shared circu$ation
"he num'e& of dwellings aessed f&om a single o&e should 'e no mo&e
than eight #e& floo&
3(; #he report published by the London !ousing Eederation1 !igher 0ensity
!ousing for Eamilies 9200$:1 sets out acceptable solutions for access via
common circulation to flats and maisonettes1 based on a sliding scale as
density increases %t points out that1 as far as common circulation is
concerned1 it is not the density itself that is the determining factor1 but rather
the number of people served by each separate stair and lift core /s the
density increases buildings get taller1 lifts become a necessity and1 even if
flats are grouped around as many separate cores as possible 9-ithin limits
set by the need to reduce the number of lifts and so 2eep service charges to
a minimum:H there is an inevitable rise in the number of d-ellings accessed
from each core
3(4 #he ="apital .ains* report by the London !ousing Eederation 92002: reports
that minimising the number of d-ellings sharing a landing aids ste-ardship
of the communal spaces1 improves security and privacy as -ell as
supporting stronger community net-or2s %t is also suggested in the report
that more manageable numbers of d-ellings to a core helps to reduce crime
and perception of crime #he report suggests that access to each floor
should be limited to no more than four homes per landing #he report1
ho-ever1 is mainly focused on family housing provision .iven that many
developments in London offer a mix of accommodation1 the 0+LP standard
is set at a level more acceptable to the broader scope of developments
3$
-hilst preventing the -orst possibility seen in the endless =hotel* style
layouts based on long internal corridors of single aspect flats off both sides
?ne poor 3uality scheme analysed as part of the development of the draft
London !ousing 0esign .uide had a 4& m corridor from the street entrance
to the lift core and a further 2& m to the front door of one d-elling
62
#he
proposed standard is designed to restrict such scenarios
3(10 #he particular figure of eight per floor per core -as established in the
=+ecommendations for Living at Superdensity* report
63
%t recommendsG
=.rouping bet-een four and eight flats around a single core ma2es good use
of lifts and allo-s at least some homes to be dual aspect %t also tends to be
more space efficient 9in net5gross floorspace: than double5ban2ed corridors
,ell designed cores can be easier to manage and more secure than
corridor or dec2 arrangements*
3(11 #he report continues that =the longer the corridor1 the more costCspace5
efficient the layout1 because all can be served off one main core plus an
escape stair #his may be acceptable -here the orientation of the bloc2
avoids a north5only outloo21 and vie-s from either side are not
compromised Long corridors can be improved by daylight and vie- at each
end and by good 3uality interior design and lighting !o-ever1 the practical
and psychological disadvantages of single5aspect flats and long corridors
are obvious Some of the -orst post5-ar social housing bloc2s adopted this
arrangement*
64
3(12 #he architects of the /ngel ,aterside development in %slington1 -inner of
'uilding maga@ine*s 2010 !ousing Pro>ect of the Jear1 undertoo2 detailed
financial studies to -or2 out the most efficient use of space1 and found that
multiple cores not only allo-ed them to design dual5aspect apartments -ith
favourable vie-s over the canal1 but also gave more saleable space than
traditional double5ban2ed corridors
65

3(13 Bo amendment has been made to this standard as a result of the
consultationH ho-ever it is anticipated that it -ill be a recommended
standard rather than a re3uired minimum for all tenures in the !ousing SP.
62 6npublished revie- of schemes underta2en by )ae architects for the London 0evelopment /gency
63 0esign for !omes et al1 200A1 op cit
64 %bid
65 'uilding1 /pril 2010 8 ---buildingcou2CstoryaspNsectioncodeO(0ALstorycodeO31(21&2LcO1
3&
Dua$ as"ect
De(elo#ments should a(oid single as#et dwellings that a&e no&th faing,
e>#osed to noise e>#osu&e atego&ies % o& D, o& ontain th&ee o& mo&e
'ed&ooms. )he&e single as#et dwellings a&e #&o#osed, the designe&
should demonst&ate how good le(els of (entilation, daylight and #&i(ay will
'e #&o(ided to eah ha'ita'le &oom and the +ithen.
3(1$ 0ual aspect d-ellings are defined as having -indo-s on at least t-o sides
of a d-elling #he draft London !ousing 0esign .uide set out the benefits
of dual aspect d-ellings1 -hich include better daylight1 a greater chance of
direct sunlight for longer periods1 cross ventilation1 a choice of vie-s1 access
to a 3uiet side of a building1 and greater flexibility in the use of rooms
66

3(1& #he re3uirement to avoid single aspect d-ellings -as advocated in English
Partnerships Kuality Standards published in Bovember 200A %t re3uires
that houses and apartments should be dual aspect -here possible to
facilitate cross ventilation1 and that homes only facing north are not
acceptable #he re3uirement has echoes in policy tracing bac2 to the 1404
!ousing and #o-n Planning /ct1 -hich outla-ed bac25to5bac2 housing as
unfit for human habitation
3(1( 0ual aspect is a matter of human comfort and 3uality of life offered by
managing and enhancing daylight into the home %n the research study
=,hat !omebuyers ,ant*1 "/'E 9200&: reported that good natural light
ran2ed second in the features that -ere considered important in a 3uality
home 0ual aspect also offers greater opportunities for retreat and privacy1
and for varied aspect and vie-s
3(1A /n architectural practice -ith experience designing homes in %reland
recently reported on their experience -ith the %rish 0epartment of the
Environment and 0ublin "ity "ouncil re3uirements for ne- developments to
adhere to rules on orientation and aspect #hese state that single5aspect
d-ellings must be avoided -here possible and no northern or eastern
single5aspect d-ellings are allo-ed1 =thereby re3uiring ne- apartments to be
dual aspect and eliminating corridor developments at a stro2e #his has the
benefit of creating more intimate and secure landings1 and increasing activity
on the street rather than in corridors %n our experience1 this constraint has
66 )ayor of London1 London Housing Design ,uide: D&aft fo& onsultation1 2004
3(
lead to some intriguing solutions1 particularly for corner situations1 -hich still
retain a good degree of efficiency*
67
3(1; /s many of London*s development sites are constrained1 the aspiration for
full dual aspect development is not al-ays achievable in high density sites
#he dual aspect standard proved one of the most contentious issues in the
consultation on the draft London !ousing 0esign .uide1 originally -orded
as follo-sG =#here -ill be a presumption against single aspect %n sites
-here dual aspect d-ellings may be impossible or unfavourable1 the design
must demonstrate ho- a good level of natural ventilation and daylight -ill be
provided to each habitable room* #he balance of consultation responses
recognised that there -ere benefits to dual aspect d-ellings1 but indicated
that the -ording -as too onerous and open to misinterpretation as a blan2et
ban on single aspect units
3(14 #he re3uirement has therefore been adapted to better suit the London
context -here often constrained sites or sites -ith poor aspect are a
common reality #he -ording1 therefore1 aims to limit single aspect only
-here it is most li2ely to have a detrimental impact on the 3uality of the
d-elling and a developer must demonstrate ho- conditions such as noise1
privacy1 daylight and ventilation have been addressed
(rivate o"en s"ace
A minimum of 9 sA.m. of #&i(ate outdoo& s#ae should 'e #&o(ided fo& /?4
#e&son dwellings and an e>t&a / sA.m. should 'e #&o(ided fo& eah
additional ou#ant. "he minimum de#th of all 'alonies and othe& #&i(ate
e>te&nal s#aes is /.9 m.
3(20 #he =Perceptions of Privacy and 0ensity in !ousing*
68
report found that
=virtually everyone -e spo2e to put a high priority on having a small place in
the sun even if it -as only their o-n bac2yard or a balcony #he space
might only be a fe- meters s3uare but it gave residents the chance to relax
outdoors in privacy* %t goes on to sayG =#his private outdoor space -as seen
as vital in ma2ing high5density living acceptable for a -ide cross5section of
different households*
67 )itchell #1 =!o- to ma2e room for housing*1 #he /rchitects* Journal1 13 )arch 200;
68 )ulholland +esearch L "onsulting1 7e&e#tions of 7&i(ay and Density in Housing1 0esign for
!omes Popular !ousing +esearch1 2003
3A
3(21 %n the research study =+esidents* Die-s of Be- Eorms of !igh 0ensity
/ffordable Living*
69
1 residents spo2e enthusiastically of having access to
exterior space and access to a balcony -as seen as a benefit Living in an
urban area -ithout access to a private garden or outside space influenced
some residents in -ishing to move #he study also revealed that access to
one*s o-n garden -as a more common feature -ithin than might be
expected 9based on eight case study schemes:1 and that this -as
determined by scheme design rather than tenure or other factors
3(22 +esearch underta2en by the !ousing "orporation
70
also found that the
demand for safe usable outdoor space is common to all life5stage groups
and all types of d-elling 9both mar2et and affordable: and is a high priority
particularly for families Similarly1 it is not only the provision of outdoor
space that residents are see2ing1 but also the configuration of this space so
that it is useful and not too constrained
3(23 #he recent !/PP% 9!ousing our /geing PopulationG Panel for %nnovation:
report also identified private outdoor space as particularly valuable for older
people1 -ho leave the home less fre3uently
71

3(2$ #he Bational !ousing Eederation*s =Standards and Kuality in 0evelopmentG

/ good practice guide 92nd edition:* advocates a minimum private open
space of =1 s3m useable floor area per person1 and not less than 3 s3m
area*
72
%n order to test the fitness for purpose of minimum external areas1
efficient layouts -ere planned around furniture re3uirements for different
occupancy numbers Eurniture included suitable table and chair space
relative to occupancy numbers1 plus space for drying of laundry and space
for visitor seating to arrive at a minimum of & s3m to provide for amenity
and usability / minimum dimension of 1& m has been allo-ed for a
-heelchair turning circle in line -ith the principles of Lifetime !omes and to
incorporate the furniture noted above #his standard has not been altered
as a result of the consultation and impact assessment process
69 J 'retherton and B Pleace1 ResidentsC Diews of New .o&ms of High Density Affo&da'le Li(ing1
Joseph +o-ntree Eoundation1 200;
70 S 0avis and + "apie1 7lanning fo& the futu&e: Life in affo&da'le housing1 !ousing "orporation and
"hartered %nstitute of !ousing1 200;
71 P#Ea and Levitt 'ernstein1 Housing ou& Ageing 7o#ulation: 7anel fo& 5nno(ation &e#o&t1 !omes and
"ommunities /gency1 "ommunities and Local .overnment1 0epartment of !ealth1 2004
72 Standard (A12 9Part "1 External Environment: in Bational !ousing Eederation1 Standards and
Quality in De(elo#ment: A good #&atie guide (4nd edition)1 200;
3;
Cei$ing heights
"he minimum floo& to eiling height in ha'ita'le &ooms is 4.9 m 'etween
finished floo& le(el and finished eiling le(el. A minimum floo& to eiling
height of 4.< m in ha'ita'le &ooms is onside&ed desi&a'le and talle& eiling
heights a&e enou&aged in g&ound floo& dwellings.
3(2& .ood floor to ceiling heights1 if matched -ith generous -indo- si@es1
facilitate good daylighting1 ventilation and a sense of -ellbeing 'etter
ventilation contributes to our building stoc2*s ability to adapt to future
temperature increases due to climate change and reduces reliance on
mechanical air conditioning -ith its high energy demand and harmful
emissions %n addition1 higher floor to ceiling heights can contribute to the
flexibility and sustainability of our building stoc21 allo-ing residential
development to ta2e on other uses in the future1 and can help overcome
problems of lo- daylight levels in units on lo-er floors in the more dense1
urban context of London
3(2( %n "/'E*s =,hat !omebuyers ,ant* research study 9200&:1 focus groups
identified high ceilings and good daylight as the most sought after 3ualities
for interior spaces #he =Perceptions of Privacy and 0ensity* research
92003: of case studies concluded that there -as an almost universal
demand for spacious1 light and airy rooms -ith the most successful
examples of higher density accommodation all having plenty of internal
space1 both in terms of room si@e and ceiling height
3(2A /verage floor5to5ceiling heights have tended to fall over the last century /
height today of 2$m is more typically determined by the dimension of a
standard building plasterboard than the 3uality of the space it delivers
!o-ever1 building boards are not limited to these dimensions1 and suppliers
are readily capable of adapting to policy
3(2; English Partnerships Kuality Standards advocated a floor5to5ceiling height
for upper floors of 2A m1 and 3 m on the ground floor to encourage greater
flexibility in use #his is a considerable advance on industry standard #he
2& m previously used by the !ousing "orporation1 as defined in the
!ousing Kuality %ndicators version $1 seems to be a more acceptable
measure and readily achievable -ithout unnecessary construction -aste
#he original standard -as set at 2( m1 but follo-ing the consultation and
impact assessment process has been reduced to 2& m / standard building
34
board of 2$ m plus s2irting and architrave -ill deliver a 2& m floor5to5ceiling
height
Code or Sustaina*$e Homes
Designe&s should see+ to ahie(e a minimum of Le(el E of the %ode fo&
Sustaina'le Homes in all new de(elo#ments
3(24 #he London !ousing Strategy sets out the re3uirement for all publically
funded schemes to reach "ode level $ as part of the next !"/ funding
round #his standard -ill be more discretionary in the draft !ousing SP.
given it -ill apply to all tenures and full achievement of "ode level $ may not
al-ays be possible !o-ever1 the )ayor expects all housing -ill meet the
energy and "?2 reduction re3uirements of "ode Level $ as a minimum in
the 0raft +eplacement London Plan 9Policy &2 )inimising carbon dioxide
emissions:
$0
!. THE NEED 5O3 S(&CE ST&ND&3DS
4.1 The importance of space
$11 Space is one of the 2ey factors in defining ho- comfortable residents feel
-ithin a home and ho- much privacy is achieved -ithin it %t is argued that
space -ithin d-ellings is one of the greatest concerns for many residents1
and that there is no effective compensation for inade3uate space
73

$12 / 200; survey by 'uilding 0esign maga@ine
74
-ith the 'ritish "ouncil found
that A& per cent of respondents felt that the government sho-s =no genuine
commitment* to raising housing design 3uality1 and -hen as2ed -hat -ould
help 3A( per cent favoured introducing ne- space standards1 the highest
response rate
$13 #he !omes and "ommunities /gency has also prioritised space in its
proposed national housing standards for publicly funded homes1 and that in
order to deliver good 3uality1 -ell designed homes1 they should be =sensibly
planned and functionalH designed to meet the demands of everyday life1
providing enough space and facilities1 such as privacy and storage1 to
enable residents to live comfortably and conveniently*
75

$1$ #he Par2er )orris standards introduced in 14(1 responded to the increasing
prosperity and accumulation of goods1 noting that =ne- homes are being
built at the present time -hich not only are too small to provide ade3uately
for family life but also are too small to hold the possessions in -hich so
much of the ne- affluence is expressed* #he Par2er )orris report1 !omes
of #oday L #omorro-1 noted that at the timeG
1 in 3 households had a car
1 in 3 had a -ashing machine
2 out of 3 had a #D
2 out of 3 had a vacuum cleaner
1 in five had a fridge
73 ! "ope1 Highe& Density Housing fo& .amilies: A design and s#eifiation guide1 London !ousing
Eederation1 200$
74 , !urst1 =.overnment fails on pledge for good design*1 'uilding 0esign1 2 ?ctober 200; #he survey
-as launched in response to the 'ritish Pavilion at the 200; Denice /rchitecture 'iennale -hich focused
on housing design by 'ritish architects in 67 and Europe ;00 readers responded over a t-o -ee2
period in September 200;
75 !"/ draft standards consultation 92010:1 op cit
$1
$1& %n determining ho- much space a home needs1 the Par2er )orris standards
established a functional approach1 based on living patterns1 furniture and
e3uipmentG =the right approach to the design of a room is1 first to define -hat
activities are li2ely to ta2e place in it1 then to assess the furniture and
e3uipment necessary for those activities1 and then to design around these
needs1 plus others no less important1 such as aspect1 prospect and
communication -ith other parts of the home*
$1( /t a basic level1 these functional re3uirements still determine the space
needs of a home regardless of household si@e Space is needed for
residents to coo21 eat1 bathe and sleep1 -ith sufficient space for furniture
and the ability to access and use it comfortably1 as -ell as space to move
around the home and access doors and -indo-s !omes are also places to
relax1 study or -or21 2eep fit1 and en>oy time -ith friends and family #oday*s
home environment has to perform even harder -ith people expecting to be
able to -or2 at home1 facilitated through the ease of %# communications
$1A #he consumer needs set out in the Par2er )orris report are no- more
-idespread and are augmented by more modern needs for recycling bins in
the 2itchen1 space for a dish-asher and clothes dryer1 and cycle storage /s
levels of consumption of products and goods have increased1 storage space
for personal possessions remains a 2ey concern
76
1 and arguably -ill become
increasingly important due to the gro-th in recycling and moves to-ards a
less disposable society Space for storage should also be considered for
bul2y items such as a vacuum cleaner1 ironing board and suitcases
$1; Eor family homes1 a good practice guide on higher density housing design
published by the Borthern %reland !ousing Executive contends that space is
a 2ey factor in ma2ing apartment living in higher densities attractive to
families in European cities #he guide notes that apartments in
internationally admired developments such as !ammarby S>ostad in
Stoc2holm are built at relatively high densities of 1$& homes per hectare1 but
a one5bed flat is typically ($ s3m and a t-o5bed is ;3 s3m 9-ell above the
)ayor*s recommended minimum standards 8 see section $&: =%n most 67
cities these floor areas are reduced by one5fifth to one53uarter1 even though
the density might be exactly the same 'ut it is this extra space that ma2es
higher density apartment living manageable*
77

76 "/'E1 ='uilding for Life Be-sletter 0AG Storage Space*1 July 200(
77 0esign for !omes and Levitt 'ernstein1 Highe& Density Design fo& Quality and Low ;aintenane: a
good #&atie guide1 Borthern %reland !ousing Executive1 200;
$2
$14 #he Superdensity report argues that in family homes1 enough space is
needed to stri2e the right balance of social space and private space1 -here
people can be alone Eor example1 in a fully occupied t-o5 bedroom1 four5
person d-elling there are no habitable rooms -hich aren*t shared1 and in
larger family homes especially1 there is a stronger li2elihood of more than
one family member needing personal space
78
Sta2eholder intervie-s in the
!ousing Space Standards report by !/#" for the .L/ 9200(: identified the
lac2 of privacy arising from open5plan designs as a ma>or issue1 as it means
that bedrooms in particular need to be multifunctional 9eg places for
privacy1 study and recreation1 not >ust sleeping and dressing:
$110 #he !/#" report also suggests that mar2et demands appear to be pushing in
the direction of increased space and flexibility and the ability for more rooms
to be Qmulti5useR1 rather than designed for one use such as a bedroom
+esearch by "/'E also points to an emerging preference for rooms that are
capable of being used for a number of functions rather than a large number of
bedrooms1 and this -ould mean providing more living space
79

$111 Space is 2ey in allo-ing greater flexibility in the home People*s lifestyles
change such as starting a family1 -or2ing from home and ageing and in this
regard people -ould li2e more flexibility in the use of space
80
!igher space
standards allo- for more possibilities in terms of alternative room layouts
and relationships1 as very small flats tend to only have one -or2able generic
layout %n 200;1 the .overnment published ILifetime !omes1 Lifetime
BeighbourhoodsG / Bational Strategy for !ousing in an /geing societyI1
-hich set out the need to build more flexible and inclusive housing in order
to meet the future re3uirements of the 67*s ageing population /s
demographics change and people live longer1 their lifetime needs change
and homes need to be able to adapt to suit changes in mobility and deal
-ith physical impairments #he Lifetime !omes standard aims to ensure
greater flexibility and accessibility in the home1 setting criteria in relation to
space needs in bathrooms and corridors to accommodate -heelchair use1 to
enable stairs to be -ide enough to accommodate future stair5lift provision1
and to provide space on the ground floor of homes above one storey to
78 0esign for !omes et al1 200A1 op cit
79 "/'E1 )hat Home *uye&s )ant: Attitudes and deision ma+ing among onsume&s1 200&
80 + ?@a2i1 =)ind the .apG "ustomers* perceptions and the gaps bet-een -hat people expect and -hat
they are offered* in 7 'artlett et al1 %onsume& %hoie in Housing: "he 'eginnings of a house 'uye&
&e(olt, Joseph +o-ntree Eoundation1 2002
$3
accommodate a ," and a convenient temporary bed5space at ground level
if needed
$112 %t is -orth noting that si@e alone does not guarantee 3uality homes %ndeed1
the Par2er )orris standards -ere criticised for focusing primarily on the
internal environment of the home and not -ider issues of context and place5
ma2ing !o-ever1 space standards are one of the means of achieving a
level of housing 3uality that -ill ensure that homes offer basic utility for
different households
81

81 /rgued in !/#" 9200(: op cit1 and B .allent et al 92010: op cit

$$
4.2 $esident needs and preferences
$21 #his section focuses specifically on recent research concerning space
provision in the home and mar2et demand in relation to homebuyers
preferences 9both national and London focused: %n terms of informing the
debate around the introduction of space standards1 the various research
studies and consumer surveys summarised belo- sho- a considerable
degree of consistency not only in the preferences expressed regarding
space in the home1 but also in levels of dissatisfaction -ith inade3uate
space a fre3uent issue raised amongst residents
4.2.2 %n their report :,hat Home )uyers ,ant; <2==#>1 "/'E undertoo2 an
evidence revie- of 2& consumer surveys commissioned by a range of
charitable trusts1 house building interests and government agencies over the
last decade1 as -ell as conducting focus group research and online surveys
-ith prospective home buyers / post5occupancy survey underta2en as part
of the study rated internal layout as the first of eight important aspects -ith
si@e of rooms fifth and number of rooms seventh1 and a previous survey of
prospective buyers ran2s spacious rooms as the first of eight features
considered desirable in a good53uality home !o-ever1 the findings indicate
that a 2ey dra-bac2 of ne- homes -as considered to be an overall shortage
of space /round a third of prospective ne- home buyers -ere dissatisfied
-ith this aspect of their ne- home1 and $0< of secondhand home buyers
-ere put off buying a ne- home by the lac2 of space )ore living space
-as preferred1 as -ere fe-er but bigger bedrooms #he study found that
criticism about lac2 of space -as expressed by all groups of home buyers
-ith singles >ust as vociferous as families %nade3uate storage space -as
also a complaint voiced by all groups of home buyers
$23 / study commissioned by the !ousing "orporation :-ie in &orda*$e
Housing; <2==?> compared the preferences of affordable housing residents
-ith o-ner occupiers and found that1 -hile there -ere differences1 the
desire for more indoor and outdoor space seems to be a strong theme
across all tenure groups and household types1 and to be especially crucial
for families #he research found that more space -as sought to
accommodate non5resident children coming to visit1 for other visitors1 or in
order to -or2 from home 7itchens -ere often seen as too small and a lac2
of storage space -as also highlighted1 especially in flats Several focus
groups also felt that the lac2 of space -ould be felt more acutely in the
$&
future as people increased the amount of material possessions in their
homes such as computers and fitness e3uipment
$2$ / Joseph +o-ntree Eoundation 9J+E: study1 :(reerences@ Aua$ity and
choice in ne8*ui$d housing; <2==!>1 concludes that in regards to space and
space standards1 the various analyses in the report =contain strong
suggestions that house5building outcomes are very different from ne-5build
house buyers* needs and preferences*
82
#he si@e of the property -as of great
importance to participants in focus group and intervie- -or2 underta2en
during the study1 particularly in regards to the number of bedrooms and room
si@es !o-ever1 the study points to a clear trend involving buyers getting an
increasing number of smaller bedrooms as time goes on1 and that there is
significant dissatisfaction among ne-5build house buyers and prospective
buyers Some focus group participants in the study1 especially those from
lo-er5priced estates1 even felt that they -ere misled about room si@es1
pointing out that the sho- home used smaller furniture than normal to give the
impression of more space1 -hich in some cases led to furniture needing to be
replaced as this -as only noticed once people moved in
$2& #he J+E report also highlights conflicting evidence in terms of the desire for
more space in bedrooms Participants in the study almost al-ays
responded to 3uestions regarding trade5offs bet-een larger or more
bedrooms by opting for more rooms #he report concludes that the number
of bedrooms remains an important driver -hen people choose to purchase a
home1 particularly as it this rather than floor area that is a determinant in the
value of a home and it is li2ely buyers -ish to maximise the future
investment value of their purchase %t is recommended that the .L/
underta2e further research in this area to understand the impacts of ho-
homes are valued and mar2eted on the long5term 3uality and utility of
homes1 and -hether there is a case to be made for changes in the valuation
and mar2eting of all homes to protect future provision of space and ho- this
may be implemented
$2( /nother study published by J+E1 :Consumer choice in housingB The
*eginnings o a house *uyer revo$t; <2==2>
83
1 concluded that apart from
location1 space seems to be a ma>or factor for most groups in their choice of
housing in the private mar2et Space is high on the list of priorities of the
82 J+E 9200$:1 p2A
83 See in particular / !ooper1 ="onsumer !ousing Preferences in a )ar2et "ontext*
$(
increasing number of one5person households Jet the study suggests there
is evidence that housing consumers are experiencing a gro-ing pressure on
the amount of domestic space they can buy through the housing mar2et and
that this pressure is especially evident in London
$2A /n !/#" C %psos )?+% survey for "/'E1 :3esident Satisaction 8ith S"ace
in the Home; <2==C>
84
1 sought to investigate residents* satisfaction -ith the
space in their home -ith ne-ly5developed d-ellings1 specifically in London
and the Southeast #he survey methodology sought to control ris2s in regards
to =aspiration* -here most people -ould say =yes* if as2ed -hether they -ould
li2e more space in their home Kuestions -ere therefore designed to avoid
responses being a reflection of unfulfilled ambition1 potentially leading to
overly critical responses #he survey also sought to avoid a potential
=honeymoon effect*1 -here buying a home is an emotional experience as -ell
as the biggest investment of most people*s lives and fe- -ould -ish to admit
that their chosen home -as less than ideal #o counteract this1 the sample
-as dra-n from buyers over a three5year period bet-een 2003 and 200(1 so
respondents -ere living in their properties for bet-een t-o and five years
-hen the survey -as carried out in 200; #he results of the survey found that
recent occupiers do indeed appear to be the most satisfied1 -hilst those -ho
have lived in the home for more than 2 years are significantly less satisfied
$2; ?verall1 the survey found that &$< of respondents said the amount of space
in the home -as very important and 34< said it -as fairly important to them
9totalling 43<: -hen choosing -here to live !o-ever1 the findings indicate
that many residents in ne- private homes do not have sufficient space for
basic daily activities and needs 7ey findings includeG
A2< of all respondents say that there is not enough space in their
2itchen for recycling binsH
$A< of all respondents1 and &;< of those in fully occupied homes do not
have enough space for all the furniture they o-n1 or -ould li2e to haveH
&1< of all respondents and (&< of those in fully occupied homes say
that the amount of space in their homes limited the choice of furniture
layout in roomsH
&A< of all respondents and (4< of fully occupied households do not
have sufficient storage to accommodate everything they need to storeH
84 /lso see the executive summary by "/'E1 S#ae in new homes: what &esidents thin+1 2004
$A
#here is often inade3uate space for children and adults to socialise1 and
many people cannot find a 3uiet or private place to relax particularly in
more fully occupied homesH
40< of ne- homes surveyed had spare bedroom space1 -hich "/'E
argues =adds extra -eight to the problems uncovered by this researchP
even a spare room does not guarantee enough space to meet
household needs*
85
H
!igher satisfaction levels -ith the space in homes of residents living
outside London compared -ith those living in London1 supporting
anecdotal evidence that pressures on d-elling si@es have been greatest
in London
$24 #he report :(erce"tions o (rivacy and Density in Housing; <2==3>
undertoo2 focus groups and in5depth intervie-s -ith residents living in 10
schemes across England 9including 2 in London: in order to assess vie-s on
space1 security1 noise and privacy across a range of house types #he report
found that there -as an almost universal demand for spacious1 light and airy
rooms1 and the most successful examples of higher density accommodation
from the case study schemes all had plenty of internal space1 both in terms of
room si@e and ceiling height #he report concluded that =this spaciousness of
accommodation -as seen as a vital ingredient in the success of the
Ed-ardian mansion flats1 the +egency and early 20th century terraces and1
more recently1 the .reen-ich )illennium Dillage houses Sin LondonT #hese
-ere sustainable homes in the sense that they -ere big enough to
accommodate the changing needs of the household over time* #he report
also notes that in households -ith children1 it -as important that the adults
and children could have -ell demarcated1 private space in -hich to get on
-ith their o-n activities and that open plan designs in the smaller homes
revie-ed in the study did not give enough privacy bet-een adults and
children Lac2 of storage space compounded these problems1 as there -as
not enough space to store everything that babies and children need as -ell as
space for adults to 2eep their possessions private
$210 / report by the B!'" Eoundation :/odern HousingB Househo$ds; vie8s
o their ne8 homes; <2==D> aimed to compare differences in the housing
stoc2 profile bet-een ne- homes 9built bet-een 1441 and 2001: and the
older housing stoc2 9built before 1441: #he report highlights that the
ma>ority of households are currently satisfied -ith many aspects of their
85 "/'E1 S#ae in New Homes: )hat &esidents thin+1 pA
$;
homesH ho-ever the design of future homes could be improved by
increasing room si@es and providing more storage "oncerning room si@es1
the study found that (4< of households living in ne- homes thin2 that their
room si@es are about the right si@e1 though 2(< thin2 that the rooms are too
small1 significantly different to the findings for the older stoc2 )ore
households in ne- homes 92(<: compared -ith the older stoc2 91(<: -ould
prefer to have larger rooms1 and 32< of households rate the amount of
storage space in ne- homes as very or fairly poor
$211 %n contrast1 house builder surveys often point to high levels of satisfaction
from ne- home buyers %n their latest annua$ consumer satisaction
survey@ the Home )ui$ders 5ederation
86
reports that a large ma>ority of
'ritain*s ne- home buyers are satisfied -ith their purchase1 -ith ;;< of
purchasers saying they -ere very or fairly satisfied -ith the overall 3uality of
their home and the same percentage saying they -ould recommend their
home builder to a friend !o-ever1 it is -orth noting that these surveys are
primarily focused on the point of sale -ith 3uestions regarding the condition
of the home on move5in day1 3uality of finish and build defects1 and
satisfaction -ith customer service1 rather than focusing on the experience of
living in the home
$212 ,hy do the above research findings matterN /s noted by "/'E1 consumer
preferences cannot dictate policy1 but should help inform it
87
Leishman et al
9200$: argue that it is especially important to 2no- -hether planning and
building controls reflect preferences in an era aiming for substantial ne-5build
housing output
88
#hey also highlight the importance of housing in that it
represents a substantial component of -ealth and is one of the most important
investments that a household ever ma2es1 and it contributes to the 3uality and
vitality of the urban environment and to meet the changing needs of
households for decades to come #hey argue that vie-ed in this context1
findings sho-ing levels of dissatisfaction among ne-5build house buyers are
particularly -orrying
89

86 !ome 'uilders Eederation1 =Bational Be- !ome "ustomer Satisfaction Survey*1 20101
---hbfcou2CfileadminCdocumentsCbar2erC"ustMSatisfactionM2010MprintMreadypdf
87 "/'E1 )hat Home *uye&s )ant: Attitudes and deision ma+ing among onsume&s1 200&
88 Leishman " et al1 7&efe&enes, Quality and %hoie in New?'uild Housing1 200$
89 %bid1 p24
$4
4.3 %hat is &eing pro'ided
$31 #his section loo2s specifically at the si@e of ne- homes being developed
#he evidence suggests a clear mismatch bet-een consumer preferences
and mar2et provision1 and that the issues raised -ithin the research and
consumer surveys in the previous section are real and not perceived
.enera$ trends
$32 %t is difficult to assess general trends in space provision due to a lac2 of
data1 particularly as national statistics in relation to the si@e of d-ellings are
based on the number of bedrooms rather than room si@e or floor area
!o-ever1 there is some evidence that space standards are decreasing %n
their 200A report ='etter !omes and Beighbourhoods*1 the +%'/ noted that
-hile house si@es have remained relatively constant in the past 20 years1
they no- contain on average 20< more rooms
90
/n +%"S report in 200&
also indicates 'ritish homes are becoming more condensed1 -ith increased
=cramming* of rooms 9such as additional bathrooms: into d-ellings leading to
smaller habitable rooms and significant reductions in storage space
91

$33 #he !ousing Space Standards report for the .L/ suggests that in the
absence of controls1 studies have sho-n that developers -ill tend to reduce
the si@e of d-ellings
92
Evidence also indicates that 'ritain currently has
some of the lo-est d-elling si@es and average room si@es in Europe
93

,ithin -ondon
$3$ /ccording to London +esidential +esearch1 the average one5bed flat has
shrun2 by 13< since 2000
94
#he smallest examples uncovered -ere one5
bedroom flats at 300 s3 ft1 t-o5bedroom d-ellings of $$& s3 ft and three5
beds at (&A s3 ft 8 significantly smaller compared to the Par2er )orris
standards that a one5bed flat should be at least $40 s3 ft1 a t-o5bed flat (23
s3 ft and a three5bed d-elling A42 s3 ft
95

90 +%'/1 *ette& Homes and Neigh'ou&hoods1 200A

91 '"%S1 .i(e Fea& Re(iew of @G Housing1 200&
92 !/#"1 200(1 op cit
93 )%%+1 Housing Statistis in the E@ 4229-2<
94 Kuoted in P 'ill1 =Si@e matters to 'oris -hen it comes to flats*1 Evening Standard1 2A June 200;
95 %bid
&0
$3& / recent d-elling si@e survey by !/#" revie-ed the amount of space being
provided in different d-elling types in London and the South East mar2eted
for sale in late summer 200;
96
#he study sample -as dra-n from
developments by 1A different housebuilders1 and ;4 d-ellings -ere analysed
and compared against the ne- draft benchmar2 si@es proposed by the
!omes and "ommunities /gency and the 0raft +eplacement London Plan
$3( #he study found that all property types examined -ere on average smaller
than the benchmar2s #he study also found that nearly (0< of the one5
bedroom flats in London had no storage space at all
$3A #he average gross internal floor area of the one5bedroom flats in the London
sample -as $(4 s3m1 compared to the minimum standards proposed by
the !"/ 9$; s3m: and the draft London Plan 9&0 s3m: #he most
noticeable variance in the schemes revie-ed -as in the t-o5bedroom flats1
-here 41< of London d-ellings -ere belo- the !"/ and draft London Plan
benchmar2 levels 8 10 s3m smaller on average %n London1 some of the
flats mar2eted as t-o5bedroom C four5person d-ellings 9ie sho-ing 2 bed
spaces in each bedroom such as one double bed or t-o single beds: -ere
as small as $4 s3m1 roughly e3uivalent to the draft London Plan minimum
standard for a one5bedroom C t-o5person flat #his is of particular concern
for London1 as a large proportion of homes being provided are t-o5bed flats
9t-o5thirds of total output in 200;C04
97
:1 -hich could potentially be occupied
as family homes
$3; #he study also notes that some housebuilders mar2et an ; s3m bedroom
as a double 9eg sho-ing t-o bed spaces: and that some single bedrooms
-ere as small as $& s3m1 despite the fact this -ould count as
overcro-ding under the 14;& !ousing /ct if occupied in this -ay
98

$34 #he London 'orough of "roydon recently carried out an investigation of

room si@es in ne- developments
99
#hey focused particularly on the lo-er
end of the home o-nership mar2et and on the most common type of family
home in the borough1 the t-o5bedroom d-elling
96 !/#"1 Room to swing a at! "he amount and use of s#ae in new dwellings in London $ the South
East1 2010
97 "L. !ousing Statistics1 Live #ables on !ouse 'uilding1 #able 2&$1 op cit
98 !ousing /ct 14;& Part 10 S32( %n measuring overcro-ding1 the =bedroom standard* ta2es account
of age1 gender1 and marital status of occupants in relation to room si@es 8 102 s3m is deemed suitable
for 2 occupants in a double bedroom and (& s3m and above for one occupant
99 "roydon "ouncil1 200;1 op cit
&1
$310 #he study found that in half of the properties revie-ed1 one of the t-o
bedrooms -as belo- 4 s3m1 and of these about a fifth measured less than
A s3m #he report notes that in one property1 the second bedroom
measured 1(& m along the narro-est -all1 -hich -as occupied by a bed1
leaving no flexibility to set the bed against the longer -all if desired as this
-ould have left no room for other furniture such as cupboards or a des2
#he study also found that storage space varied considerably1 -ith some
homes provided -ith no storage space -hatsoever1 =the pattern being the
smaller the si@es1 the less generous the provision of storage space*
100

$311 #he "roydon report concludes that =principles of accessibility1 flexibility and
sustainability are not being implemented in all ne- housing developments1
and that ne- properties are being erected -ith cramped room si@es1 little
room for storage1 and thus little room to adapt to a family*s changing
needs*
101

100 %bid1 p22

101 %bid1 p11
&2
4.4 Impacts
$$1 Lac2 of space can lead to overcro-ding1 impacting negatively on the 3uality
of life of residents particularly in London -here overcro-ding rates are
highest in the 67 and rising
102
#he !/#" !ousing Space Standards report
for the .L/ suggests that -hile it is difficult for causative lin2s to be clearly
identified1 there does appear to be associative lin2s bet-een overcro-ding
and stress1 educational achievement and mental health #he =Eull !ouse=
report by Shelter
103
3uestioned over &00 overcro-ded households1 sho-ing
that overcro-ded families face a variety of problems caused1 and made
-orse1 by their living conditions #hese include lac2 of privacy1 sleep
disturbance1 increased conflict1 and impacts on family relationships1 physical
health and mental health
$$2 ,hile it is ac2no-ledged that overcro-ding is primarily an issue in the social
rented sector1 particularly as private sector housing is more generally under5
occupied1 it is the private rented sector in London that has seen the biggest
rise in overcro-ding since 20011 nearly doubling in ten years
104

?vercro-ding is also heavily concentrated in particular neighbourhoods in
London1 -ith a fifth of overcro-ded households in the -orst hit -ards
105
/s
it cannot be predicted -ho -ill live in a home over the longer5term and
household si@e1 tenure and length of occupation can vary1 smaller homes
built no- may be storing up potential problems for the future
$$3 #he 2004 !/#" space survey for "/'E also suggests that pressures on
space in private mar2et homes impact disproportionately on those -ho are
more economically disadvantaged1 and lo-er income households suffer
more from inade3uate space than -ealthier households #his -as also
found to be the case in the =Perceptions of Privacy and 0ensity in !ousing*
report1 -here not having sufficient space 9in the form of small rooms1 not
enough separation of adult from child space and not enough storage: -as
determined to be a significant privacy problem for some housing sectors1
-ith families living in lo-er cost private housing and social housing the most
seriously affected
102 )ayor of London1 Housing in London: "he e(idene 'ase fo& the London Housing St&ategy1 .L/1
2004
103 Shelter1 .ull house! How o(e&&owded housing affets families1 200&
104 )ayor of London1 Housing in London: "he e(idene 'ase fo& the London Housing St&ategy1 .L/1
2004
105 %bid
&3
$$$ #here is little research in regards to the relationship bet-een overcro-ding
and educational attainment1 though some policy 5oriented studies have
pointed to the difficulty of completing home-or2 in overcro-ded homes
106

)ore generally1 a 200( study underta2en by the !ousing "orporation as part
of an update of its Scheme 0evelopment Standards for ne- affordable
housing1 found that more than a 3uarter of 67 school children 92A<: lac2 a
space at home they can concentrate in to do their home-or2
107

106 "roydon "ouncil1 200;1 op cit

107 !ousing "orporation1 =Bo home-or2 space for the )ySpace generation*1 Be-s +elease1 1(
?ctober 200(
&$
4.5 The !a"or#s proposed space standards
$&1 #he )ayor*s proposed minimum space standards are set out in #able 33
-ithin Policy 3& of the 0raft +eplacement London Plan as follo-sG
D8e$$ing ty"e
<*edroomE"ersons>
Essentia$ .I& <sA.m.>
5$ats <one storey> 1b2p &0
2b3p (1
2b$p A0
3b$p A$
3b&p ;(
3b(p
4& 9incorrectly
published as 100:
$b&p 40
$b(p 44
T8o storey homes 2b$p ;3
3b$p
;A 9incorrectly
published as ;(:
3b&p 4(
$b&p 100
$b(p 10A
Three storey homes 3b&p 102
$b&p 10(
$b(p 113
$&2 #he approach ta2en in developing the internal space standards -as to
establish a ne- evidence base1 ta2ing a functional approach to calculate the
minimum space re3uired for each room 9based on occupancy: to meet the
Lifetime !omes standard
108
and to accommodate a basic inventory of
furniture that is commonly re3uired in particular rooms relative to occupancy1
as -ell as allo-ing ade3uate access and activity space /dditional
circulation space needed in d-ellings above one storey has also been ta2en
into account
108 'ased on London Plan 9200;: Policy 3/& !ousing "hoice1 and "onsultation 0raft +eplacement
London Plan 92004: Policy 3; !ousing "hoice
&&
/ethodo$ogy
$&3 #he proposed minimum space standards -ere derived from the -or2 of )ae
architects and are largely based on existing re3uirements and good practice
#hey build on the furniture and activity re3uirements first expressed in the
.uide to Standards and Kuality developed by the Bational !ousing
Eederation -ith the Joseph +o-ntree Eoundation 9144;: and later
incorporated in the !ousing Kuality %ndicators1 last updated by the !ousing
"orporation 9no- part of the !"/: in 200; as part of their affordable housing
grant funding re3uirements #hese represent a basic level of furniture
provision to meet day5to5day needs relative to specific numbers of
occupants1 ie 2 residents re3uire dining space for 21 a double bed or t-o
single beds1 living room seating for 21 etc along -ith associated space for
circulation and activity @ones
$&$ #he 1( Lifetime !omes criteria also have implications for the amount of
space provided in the home "orridors need to be of a minimum -idth1
bathrooms need to accommodate -heelchair users and a living space
needs to be able to accommodate a temporary bedspace and a future
through the floor lift Efficient room sets -ere then plotted for different
occupancy numbers1 resulting in minimum areas that can be achieved -hilst
accommodating the furniture and Lifetime !omes re3uirements
$&& #he space standards proposed in Policy 3& are .ross %nternal Eloor /reas
9.%/: .%/ is defined by the +%"S .uidance Bote ="ode of )easuring
Practice* (th Edition as the area of the building measured to the internal face
of the perimeter -alls at each floor1 including space ta2en up by partitions
and circulation areas /n additional measure -as added to the cumulative
total for room areas to allo- for circulation and internal partitions Partitions
have been calculated at &< of the Bet %nternal /reaH a consistent
percentage observed in a range of completed schemes that -ere revie-ed
and measured by )ae architects #he area for circulation has been
calculated from these same schemes1 though inevitably due to a range of
site constraints and building types the area for circulation varies /n
average area for circulation -as therefore addedH ho-ever1 it is
ac2no-ledged that some layouts may allo- for greater efficiencies in
circulation
&(
$&( #he .%/s arrived at match the =%ndicative )inimum 0-elling /reas*
recommended in the Bational !ousing Eederation*s =Standards and Kuality
in 0evelopmentG / good practice guide 92nd edition:* %n this instance the
measurements -ere derived through a different methodology 8 by
calculating the aggregate floor area ta2en up by the furniture si@es and
activity @ones1 then adding an allo-ance of $0< for room layout1 partitions1
and circulation
4.5.7 #he proposed London .%/s vary slightly from those proposed by the !"/ in
their draft core national housing standards 9published for consultation after
the 0raft +eplacement London Plan: %t is believed the allo-ance for
circulation accounts for the minor differences bet-een the t-o sets of
standards #he )ayor and the !"/ are -or2ing to align space standards in
London1 ta2ing into account the !"/ consultation on its proposed national
core standards and the 0raft +eplacement London Plan preparation
processes
Occu"ancy
$&; #he proposed ne- minimum space standards for London are based on the
premise that all ne- homes should be fit for purpose no- and into the future
#he standards1 and many of the other ne- re3uirements1 loo2 beyond initial
sale and the needs of the first o-ners or tenants to ensure that the next
generation of ne- London homes have -ide5ranging appeal1 functionality
and longevity #he London Plan space standards have therefore been set at
a level -hich allo-s the property to cater for a reasonably -ide variety of
diverse household needs over the lifetime of the property
$&4 %n principle1 the minimum amount of space needed per person is not felt to
vary by tenure1 though it is accepted that levels of occupancy do tend to be
tenure related -ith under5occupancy more prevalent in the private sector
!o-ever1 to ensure that all future homes -ill be comfortable -hen occupied
to their full capacity by various households1 the space standards have been
predicated on the principle that a double bedroom must be able to
accommodate t-o bed spaces 9eg either a double bed or t-o single beds:
and a single bedroom one bed space1 along -ith associated furniture and
access re3uirements #his has resulted in minimum recommended areas of
12 s3 m and ; s3 m1 respectively
&A
3oom siFes
$&10 #he minimum standards are based on overall d-ellings si@es1 as initial
assumptions about d-elling si@e have to be made very early on in a pro>ect1
long before detailed room arrangements are tested /rchitects have to test
site capacity by =dra-ing boxes*1 and the client and KS have to test the
financial viability by establishing a construction cost1 based on floor area
Eor this reason1 it is suggested that figures used should be more in line -ith
=good practice*1 rather than the =minimum acceptable*
109

$&11 !o-ever1 setting overall d-elling areas does not guarantee the utility of
particular rooms and insufficient habitable areas may result Enough space
should be provided to ensure rooms are generally usable1 particularly to
ensure flexibility to use rooms for various functions1 giving residents further
choice in ho- they use their home and helping to ensure longer5term
flexibility for future occupants #he draft !ousing SP. includes
recommended room si@es rather than mandatory minimum thresholds in
order to address concerns of over5prescription1 and to allo- more flexibility
to meet the overall d-elling si@e standards on constrained sites or to
respond to particular mar2et demands !o-ever1 the draft !ousing SP.
re3uires that d-elling plans demonstrate that rooms can accommodate
furniture1 access and activity space relating to the declared level of
occupancy #o ensure greater flexibility in use1 the SP. also sets a
standard that d-elling plans should be able to demonstrate alternative
seating arrangements in living rooms and that at least one double room can
accommodate either a double or t-o single beds
$&12 #he recommended si@e of 12 s3m for a double room -ill allo- it to function
also as a t-in room and still accommodate the necessary furniture for t-o
people / recommended si@e of ; s3m for a single bedroom allo-s space
to accommodate a bed1 storage and a des2 as -ell as space for a visitor1
ma2ing a single bedroom at (& 8 A s3m inade3uate
110

$&13 .uidelines for -idths of habitable rooms are also given to ensure better
proportioned rooms1 as a smaller room allo-s much less flexibility in ho- the
furniture in the room can be arranged1 and therefore in ho- the room can be
used and adapted over time for different users %n bedrooms1 the
109 Levitt 0 and Par2 J1 =Space probe*1 +%'/ Journal1 %ssue 0&1 )ay 200;
110 0esign for !omes et al1 200A1 op cit
&;
recommended -idths help ensure there is enough space to pass the end of
a bed
$&1$ Eor larger family homes1 the provision of t-o living spaces such as living
room and 2itchenCdiner -ill improve opportunities for separate activities to be
more manageable #his re3uirement is based on the !ousing Kuality
%ndicators Dersion $1 re3uirement (2&1 -hich a-ards additional points for
=t-o separate living rooms or areas being provided* #his is more explicitly
stated in the Bational !ousing Eederation*s =Standards and Kuality in
0evelopmentG / good practice guide 92nd edition:* -here Standard 2$1
re3uires that =in & person and larger d-ellings1 at least t-o separate family
spaces 9ie1 separate rooms1 not >ust separate areas: should be provided1
large enough for all the family to gather
&4
4. Comparison of space standards
$(1 !istorically in the 671 the approach to space standards has become more
sophisticated over the years1 progressing throughG
Bumber of rooms 9#udor ,altersC1414 !ousing /ct:
)inimum floor space for rooms and the d-elling as a -hole 9Par2er
)orrisC0esign 'ulletin (:
EunctionalCactivity based re3uirements1 including provision for disabled
people 9.uide to Standards L Kuality1 Lifetime !omes:
EunctionalCactivity based re3uirements carried through to the )ayor*s
proposed standards1 incorporating Lifetime !omes re3uirements
$(2 ?verall1 guidance on space standards has varied1 but has been broadly
consistent -ithin a range of about FC5 10< since the Second ,orld ,ar1 and the
Par2er )orris standards of 14(1 are still a commonly cited benchmar2 for space
standards in the 67
111
#he table belo- in section $(A sho-s ho- the proposed
London standards compare to Par2er )orris
$(3 )ost other European countries have some form of minimum space
standards for housing1 apart from England and ,ales
112
Space standards
are commonly set in other countries1 usually through the local e3uivalent of
the building control C planning permission system %n some cases1 space
standards are expressed as floor area1 either of the d-elling as a -hole or
habitable rooms %n others1 it is derived from functional criteria based on use
of the rooms
113

$($ ,hile there is no current national regulation of space standards in England

and ,ales1 a number of local authorities and public agencies advocate
space standards for housing #he methodology for setting space standards
tends to be based on occupancy numbers or bedroom si@eH ho-ever1 the
evidence base for the specific si@es is often absent from the policy
document advocating those standards
$(& Local authorities -ho have recently adopted minimum space standards
through planning guidance include )id Sussex 0istrict "ouncil
114
1 -ith
minimum d-elling si@es based on those of English Partnerships minimum
111 !/#"1 200(1 op cit
112 L Sheridan et al 92002: op citH and B .allent et al 92010: op cit
113 !/#"1 200(1 op cit
114 )id Sussex 0istrict "ouncil1 Dwelling S#ae Standa&ds Su##lementa&y 7lanning Doument1 2004
(0
standards #he SP0 also see2s to secure a minimum storage space
e3uivalent to approximately &< of the gross internal floor area of the
d-elling
$(( %n London1 22 boroughs currently have planning policy or supplementary
guidance encompassing housing standards ?f these1 12 boroughs include
space standards -ithin supplementary guidance for different types of rooms
based on occupancy1 though the figures used vary
115

$(A #he follo-ing table sets out the minimum areas used -ithin various existing
standards 9and proposed in the case of the !"/ figures1 -hich are currently
sub>ect to consultation:
115 !/#" 200(1 op cit
(1
5$oor area <m
2
> *y
housing ty"e
1)
2(
<5$a
t>
2)
3(
<5$a
t or
)un
ga$
o8>
2
)
3
(
<2
9
st
o
r
e
y
h
o
u
s
e>
2)
!(
<5$a
t or
)un
ga$
o8>
2)
!(
<29
stor
ey
hou
se>
3)
#(
<5$a
t or
)un
ga$
o8>
3)
#(
<29
stor
ey
hou
se>
3)
#(
<39
stor
ey
hou
se>
!)
%(
<5$a
t or
)un
ga$
o8>
!)
%(
<29
stor
ey
hou
se>
!)
%(
<39
stor
ey
hou
se>
Drat 3e"$acement
-ondon ($an (o$icy
3.# <2==C>
#= %1 x D= ?3 ?% C% 1=2 CC 1=D 113
116
(ar7er /orris@
Homes or Today 6
Tomorro8 <1C%1>
$& (0 x A3 A4 ;2 ;4 4; ;4 4A 102
HC& "ro"osed
nationa$ standards
<2=1=>
$; (1 A1 A0 ;0 ;( 4( 102 44 10; 11$
Housing Cor"oration 9
ranges rom HGI v!
<2==?>
$&5
&0
&A5
(A
&A5
(A
(A5
A&
(A5
A&
A&5
;&
;25
;&
;&5
4&
;&5
4&
4&5
100
1005
10&
Eng$ish (artnershi"s
Gua$ity Standards
<2==D>
&1 (( (( AA AA 43 43 43 10( 10( 10(
NH5 Standards and
Gua$ity in
Deve$o"ment <2==?>
&0 (1 x A0 ;2 ;( 4( 102 x 10; 11$
/id Sussex District
Counci$@ D8e$$ing
S"ace Standards S(D
<2==C>
&1 (( AA (( AA 43 43 43 111 111 111
3oya$ )orough o
+ensington 6 Che$sea
Housing Standards
S(. <2==2>
$$& &A x &A x A0
A25
A$&
x ;0&
;25
;&
4$
-ondon )orough o
South8ar7
3esidentia$ Design
Standards S(D <2==?>
$& (0 x (0 x A& x x 40 x x
Du*$in City
Deve$o"ment ($an
<2==D>
&&
;05
40
;05
40
;05
40
;05
40
100 100 100 x x x
$(; #he proposed London space standards compare -ell to others in regard to
flats1 though are higher for d-ellings over more than one storey #his is
do-n to the additional circulation space for stair-ays and corridors re3uired
in homes of t-o storeys or more1 -hich have been incorporated into the
116 )ean ta2en of the different si@es specified by housing type 9eg flat1 maisonette1 terrace: and
separate storage re3uirements have been added in
(2
London standards ?ther differences occur -here the London standards
have incorporated Lifetime !omes re3uirements1 such as the need for space
for a ground floor ," in d-ellings above one storey
$(4 / similar exercise underta2en by the !"/ in developing its proposed ne-
standards for application nationally to publicly funded homes from /pril 2011
resulted in similar findings1 though based on a different methodology #his
convergence appears to provide evidence that the t-o sets of measures are
robust
(3
#. I/(-E/ENT&TION TH3O1.H (-&NNIN.
&1 #his section covers a number of implementation issues arising from the
enforcement of design standards through the planning system1 primarily in
regards to minimum space standards and in response to issues raised in the
consultation responses to the 0raft +eplacement London Plan %mpacts of
the standards on cost1 land values1 site viability and development capacity
are assessed in a separate study
117

S"ace standards in the "$anning system

&2 #he planning system has al-ays encompassed residential amenity as a
matter of fundamental concern /s set out previously1 a number of housing
standards already exist in London planning policy1 apart from space
standards -hich have largely been regarded as a matter outside the
planning process for the mar2et to decide
&3 #he !/#" report on !ousing Space Standards for the .L/ investigated the
issue of implementing space standards through the planning system #he
report concluded that =#he London Plan 9Eebruary 200$: and the Planning
and "ompulsory Purchase /ct 200$ ta2en together represent a -atershed
#here can be little doubt that space standards are no- capable of being
considered a Qmaterial planning considerationR and a component of
Qsustainable developmentR*
118
#he report goes on to conclude that =space
standards are capable of being a 2ey component in delivering government
aspirations regarding 3uality of lifeH ensuring decent homes for allH maximising
densitiesH providing an appropriate mix of house types capable of meeting
demonstrated strategic and local needsH providing high 3uality residential
environmentsH and delivering sustainable design and construction*
119

&$ #he success of the .L/ in incorporating a re3uirement for ne-

developments to be built to the Lifetime !ome standard as an enforceable
policy further supports the vie- that residential space standards could be set
in and enforced through the planning system
117 .D/ .rimley 20101 op cit
118 !/#" 200(1 op cit1 pA3
119 %bid See /ppendix 4 8 #etlo- 7ing /dvice on Planning Po-ers1 p20
($
3egiona$ "$anning "o$icy
&& Several consultation responses suggest that the proposed space standards
set out in the London Plan should be in an SP.1 and that they are
inappropriate to a strategic level spatial strategy and introduce a level of
detail into the Plan best left to local development documents or
supplementary guidance1 as per .?L "ircular 1C200; 9para 23:
&( #he )ayor considers that cumulatively the si@e of ne- homes is a 2ey
strategic issue for London /s covered in previous sections1 one of the
biggest contributors to the 3uality and utility of a home is space1 though
measures to ensure ade3uate provision do not currently appear in national
regulation or planning policy #he evidence in this report suggests that there
are issues -ith space provision in London*s homes -hich should be
addressed Space also impacts on the use of land and site capacity and
should therefore be an important element to consider -ithin the context of
London Plan policy in relation to optimising densities
120

&A 6nder the )ayor*s vision in the 0raft +eplacement London Plan1 unfettered
gro-th -hich impacts negatively on 3uality of life is not acceptable #he draft
Plan not only see2s to bring for-ard enough capacity to meet the capital*s
identified housing needs but has sho-n that it can do this on ne- housing
sites -ithout having to maximise housing density or to ta2e a blan2et
approach to it
121
!o-ever1 because land is scarce in London1 densities as a
-hole are li2ely still to be higher than in many other parts of the country1 so it
is essential that ne- development is of a high 3uality to ensure that the capital
remains an attractive place to live ,hich1 as the earlier parts of this report
have demonstrated1 is -here housing standards come inG they are essential to
securing the ne- 3ualitative dimension to the London Plan 8 a fundamental
part of its =smart gro-th* future

&; #he need for standards in the affordable sector1 particularly for social rented
housing1 is generally agreed1 as residents have less choice in -here they
live and homes are more li2ely to be occupied to full capacity1 resulting in
even more pressure on space and shared or communal facilities !o-ever1
as set out in section $1 the proposed London Plan space standards see2 to
move beyond a short5term1 mar2et focus on saleability to ensure the
120 0raft +eplacement London Plan Policy 3$
121 )ayor of London Strategic !ousing Land /vailability /ssessment .L/1 2004
(&
functionality of homes under different patterns of occupancy over the longer5
termH therefore contributing to the achievement of the strategic sustainable
development ob>ectives in PPS1
&4 Bot only are space standards considered to be of regional importance for
London1 the !"/ also regards them as nationally significant by including
minimum space standards in its proposed national core housing standards
currently out to consultation ?ther cities such as 0ublin have incorporated
minimum space standards -ithin planning policy1 citing that =the floor area of
an apartment is the critical measure of its liveability*
122

&10 /pproximately t-o thirds of London boroughs already include some form of
space standards in their supplementary planning documents !o-ever1
these standards are largely confined to advice notes and planning guidance1
to -hich it is not al-ays possible to attach significant -eight in terms of
planning decisions1 in planning appeals or in the planning enforcement
process .iving space standards -eight in policy terms -ill help
mainstream this important issue and -ill allo- London boroughs to counter
applicants* appeals on grounds of insufficient si@e1 2no-ing that they -ill be
supported by local regulations and by the Planning %nspectorate
(rescri"tion and innovation
&11 #he standards -ere also criticised as being too prescriptive1 specifying a level
of detail that goes beyond -hat is re3uired in regional plans in contradiction to
PPS3 9para 3;: %t is also argued standards stifle innovation1 -ith
development control officers applying them as rigid1 inflexible rules and
housing providers -or2ing to the standard rather than providing the creative
design solutions needed on 3uite difficult and constrained development sites
often found in urban areas
&12 #he other side of the argument is that standards provide consistency in the
approach to the development and planning process1 prohibiting the -orst
case scenario and potentially reducing burdens of regulation through revie-
and consolidation into a more streamlined approach %t is argued that
common standards allo- a more competitive mar2et -ith land values
ad>usting to ta2e account of the re3uirements
123
1 as -ell as allo-ing greater
122 0ublin "ounty "ouncil 9200A: op cit
123 See P+P and 6rbed 9200A: op citH and B .allent et al 92010 op cit
((
flexibility of tenure -hen mar2et circumstances change
124

&13 %t is considered that the proposed space standards should not limit flexibility
and choice #heir very inclusion -ithin the planning1 rather than say the
'uilding +egulations1 process means that they must be considered =in the
round* as one among a series of other material policy considerations ,hile it
is highly desirable that a development should meet or exceed all the design
standards1 the Plan and its associated SP. ma2e very clear that there is
flexibility for their implementation to ta2e account of local circumstances
#hus1 for example1 the Plan has been clarified to sho- explicitly that it does
not preclude single person d-ellings of less than &0 s3 m providing these
are of exemplary design +ather than see2ing to discourage any particular
d-elling types1 the standards simply provide a measure to assess the 3uality
and functionality of a particular unit type -hen provided -ithin a development
&1$ #he re3uirements in the forthcoming draft !ousing SP. -ill also be
prioritised1 noting -here the )ayor expects they should generally apply to all
development proposals as a minimum1 or -here there is more flexibility -hen
applying them to private development proposals 9ie they are provided as
good practice guidance:
5.15 %n response to criticisms that prescriptive standards lead to rigid application
by local authorities1 it is suggested that the .L/ provide a section on
evaluation -ithin the !ousing SP. -ith guidance on ho- the standards
should be applied1 as -ell as investigating training opportunities -ith the
boroughs #he SP. should also set out ho- the standards -ill be
monitored and in -hat format applicants should submit information in
relation to the re3uirements1 particularly in regards to minimum space
standards by occupancy #his should help -ith consistent collection and
monitoring of data
&1( %t has also been suggested that it -ould be ine3uitable if the standards did
not apply to residential conversions as -ell as to ne- development %n fact1
given the -ay in -hich the standards are phrased as planning policy1 there
-ould appear to be no reason -hy they should not apply to residential
conversions /s noted above1 the Plan provides sufficient flexibility to
respond to local circumstances )ost of the standards are established
124 See 0 'o-ie1 Planning in London 92004: op citH and " Stothart1 =)ore roomG the demise of the ultra
small flat*1 'uilding maga@ine1 1$ /ugust 2004
(A
policy re3uirements and -ill in any case be being applied already Some of
the ne- or extended standards1 such as those for d-ellings per core are
unli2ely to be relevant1 and the space standards are flexible in
accommodating smaller single person homes
&1A Some consultation responses noted that as the standards are relevant to the
design 3uality of homes across London1 any changes in local policy or
guidance should only be made -here there is clear and demonstrable need
#he .L/ should also clarify their approach to this issue -ithin the !ousing
SP.1 to help ensure a level of consistency and clarity in the development
and planning process across London -hile allo-ing local circumstances to
be ta2en into account
Timing and transitiona$ arrangements
&1; "larification -as also sought in the consultation responses as to ho- the .L/
envisages these standards -ill apply to developments that have already been
granted planning permission1 particularly -here outline consent or reserved
matters have already been agreed1 or in later phases of larger sites /gain1
this matter should be clarified in the !ousing SP. prior to final publication
&14 ?n the broader issue of managing the introduction of the standards to all
tenures1 the .L/ group has mapped out a transition process to ensure that
sta2eholders are fully consulted and that there is sufficient lead5in time to
ad>ust to the ne- standards #his started -ith the )ayor*s early =direction of
travel* documents for the London Plan -here he flagged his housing 3uality
concerns #hese -ere follo-ed by the draft London !ousing 0esign .uide1
clearly addressed to development on L0/ o-ned land and -ith future
application to affordable housing developed -ith public funding1 but also
illustrating ho- the )ayor*s thin2ing -as emerging on broader application of
standards to all tenures #his -as confirmed by the 0raft +eplacement
London Plan -hich cited the draft .uide and included its space standards as
a policy proposal 'oth the draft .uide and the ne- Plan have been sub>ect
to -ide ranging consultation %n light of this an interim version of the .uide is
about to be published1 still -ith its original public sector locus1 and a ne- draft
!ousing SP. is in preparation to sho- ho- the refined standards might be
applied to all tenures and to support the draft Plan*s Examination in Public
9E%P: #he E%P and consultation on the draft SP. -ill provide further
opportunities for refinement of the standards
(;
%. CONC-1SIONS
(1 Evidence presented in this paper sho-s thatG
(11 !ousing standards have fre3uently been used to shape the 3uality of ne-
homes in London1 particularly from the late 14 century to present day
,hilst internal space is one of the most important and highly valued
attributes in the home1 it has primarily applied to publicly funded
developments and has never been regulated across all tenures in the 67
(12 #he current plethora of standards applicable to ne- homes is in need of
rationalisation #he London Plan1 as the strategic planning frame-or2 for
London coupled -ith the fact that a replacement Plan is currently under
revie-1 presents an ideal mechanism to consolidate standards for ne-
housing across the capital1 providing clarity at the outset of any development
pro>ect of -hat is expected
(13 #hough there are differences bet-een tenures1 most mechanisms are
already in place -ithin the London Plan to ensure higher 3uality standards in
housing1 -ith policies in relation to energy efficiency1 sustainable design and
construction1 outdoor space including children*s play space1 Lifetime !omes1
security and urban design 8 the 2ey missing element being the internal
space of the home
(1$ Proposed ne- London standards in relation to si@e of homes1 as -ell as
shared circulation areas1 singleCdual aspect1 ceiling heights and private open
space help protect residential amenity and 3uality of life in the face of
increasing densities in London
(1& / comparison -ith a number of international housing standards sho-s that
these standards are common design criteria in other countries1 -hich are
applied to all homes through mechanisms such as planning and building
control England is notable for its lac2 of certain design controls1 particularly
in regards to the si@e of homes
(1( +egarding space standards1 various consumer research studies and
surveys as -ell as audits of recently built schemes sho- that there is a clear
mismatch bet-een consumer demand and mar2et provision1 -ith residents
consistently expressing dissatisfaction -ith the space being provided
(4
(1A Studies sho- evidence of decreasing space provision in ne- homes !igh
land costs1 increasing densities and the absence of controls are leading to
smaller d-ellings1 though the evidence points to increasing demand for
more space for all household si@es
(1; Studies of space provision in ne- homes in London sho- that flats are being
provided -ell belo- proposed benchmar2s set by the 0+LP and the !"/
?ne study found that t-o5bedroom d-ellings -ere on average 10 s3m
smaller than the benchmar2s1 and that (0< of one5bed flats revie-ed in
London had no storage provision -hatsoever !omes not serving even the
needs of current purchasers -ould seem to ma2e them even less attractive
propositions to meet a range of needs in the future and could negatively
impact on the longer5term sustainability of London*s housing stoc2
(14 #he )ayor*s proposed space standards are based on a long history of a
functional approach to space in the home1 -hich incorporate furniture1
activity and circulation space to arrive at the proposed standards and see2
to ensure usability of space and flexibility for potential changing demands
(110 Space is a 2ey factor in the sustainability of a home and its ability to adapt to
changing needs and has therefore been put into policy /pplication through
planning sets a consistent frame-or2 for all housing in London1 allo-ing
greater flexibility in tenure1 the importance of -hich -as evident in the
current mar2et do-nturn -hen developers struggled to sell homes on the
open mar2et
(2 Several further suggestions for the .L/ -ere highlighted -ithin the reportG
6nderta2e further research into ho- space is valued and mar2eted in the
sale of housing in London in regards to bedroom numbers and floor areaH
-hat impact this has on the long5term 3uality and utility of homesH and
-hether there is a case to be made for changes in the valuation and
mar2eting of all homes and ho- this may be implemented
,or2 -ith the London boroughs on implementing the 0+LP and !ousing
SP. standards to avoid a =tic25box* approach1 providing training and
further guidance as needed
A0
Provide guidance in the draft !ousing SP. on the level of consistency
sought in applying these standards across London1 or -here boroughs
have discretion to amend based on local need
"larify in the SP. ho- standards -ill be monitored1 including guidance on
information expected to be submitted at planning application stage to help
ensure consistent data collection and monitoring
"ontinue to -or2 -ith other =o-ners* of standards such as !abinteg
!ousing /ssociation 9Lifetime !omes: to ensure a consistent approach to
future changes to standards and that they are fit for the London context
A1
/ppendix 1 8 Proposed !ousing 0esign Standards
Design Standards C$assiication
1.= Sha"ing .ood ($aces
1.1 Deining "$aces
1.1
.1
111 0evelopment Proposals should demonstrateG
5ho- the design responds to its physical context1 including the character and
legibility of the area and the local pattern of building1 public space1 landscape
and topographyH
5 ho- the scheme relates to the identified character of the place and to the
local vision and strategy or ho- bolder change is >ustified in relation to a
coherent set of ideas for the place expressed in the local vision and strategy or
agreed locally
Priority 1
1.1
.2
0evelopment proposals should demonstrateG
5ho- the scheme complements the local net-or2 of public spaces1 including
ho- it integrates -ith existing streets and pathsH
5ho- public spaces and pedestrian routes are designed to be overloo2ed and
safe1 and extensive blan2 elevations onto the public realm at ground floor have
been avoidedH
5for larger developments1 ho- any ne- public spaces including streets and
paths are designed on the basis of an understanding of the planned role and
character of these spaces -ithin the local movement net-or21 and ho- ne-
spaces relate to the local vision and strategy for the area
Priority 1
1.2 Outdoor s"aces
1.2
.1
0evelopment proposals should demonstrate that they comply -ith the
boroughIs open space strategies1 ensuring that a revie- of surrounding open
space is underta2en and that opportunities to address a deficiency in provision
by providing ne- public open spaces are ta2en for-ard in the design process
Priority 1
1.2
.2
Eor developments -ith a potential occupancy of ten children or more1
development proposals should ma2e appropriate play provision in accordance
-ith the London Plan SP.1 Providing for "hildren and Joung PeopleIs Play
and %nformal +ecreation
Priority 1
1.2
.3
,here communal open space is provided1 development proposals should
demonstrate that the spaceG
5 is overloo2ed by surrounding developmentH
5 is accessible to -heelchair users and other disabled peopleH
5 is designed to ta2e advantage of direct sunlightH
5 has suitable management arrangements in place
Priority 1
2.= Housing or a Diverse City
2.1 &""ro"riate density
2.1
.1
0evelopment proposals should demonstrate ho- the density of residential
accommodation satisfies London Plan policy relating to public transport
accessibility level 9P#/L: and the accessibility of local amenities and services1
and is appropriate to the location in London
Priority 1
2.2 3esidentia$ mix
2.2
.1
0evelopment proposals should demonstrate ho- the mix of d-elling si@es and
the mix of tenures meet strategic and local borough targets and are
appropriate to the location in London
Priority 1
3.= 5rom Street to 5ront Door
3.1 Entrance and a""roach
3.1
.1
/ll main entrances to houses1 ground floor flats and communal entrance
lobbies should be visible from the public realm and clearly identified
Priority 1
3.1
.2
#he distance from the accessible car par2ing space of re3uirement 33$ to the
home or to the relevant bloc2 entrance or lift core should be 2ept to a minimum
and should be level or gently sloping SLifetime !omes "riterion 2T
Priority 1
3.1
.3
#he approach to all entrances should preferably be level or gently sloping
SLifetime !omes "riterion 3T
Priority 1
A2
3.1
.!
/ll entrances should be illuminated and1 have level access over the threshold1
Entrance doors should have 300mm of clear space to the pull side1 and clear
minimum opening -idths of ;00mm or ;2&mm depending on the direction and
-idth of approach )ain entrances should have -eather protection and a level
external landing SLifetime !omes "riterion $T
Priority 1
3.2 Shared circu$ation 8ithin *ui$dings
3.2
.1
#he number of d-ellings accessed from a single core should not exceed eight
per floor
Priority 2
3.2
.2
/n access core serving $ or more d-ellings should provide an access control
system -ith entry phones in all d-ellings lin2ed to a main front door -ith
electronic loc2 release /dditional security measures including audio5visual
verification to the access control system should be provided -here any of the
follo-ing apply1 unless a 2$ hour concierge is providedG
5 more than 2& d-ellings are served by one core
5 the potential occupancy of the d-ellings served by one core exceeds 100
bed spaces
5 more than ; d-ellings are provided per floor
Priority 1
3.2
.3
,here d-ellings are accessed via an internal corridor1 the corridor should
receive natural light and ade3uate ventilation
Priority 1
3.2
.!
#he minimum -idth for all paths1 corridors and dec2s for communal circulation
is 1200mm -ide #he preferred minimum -idth is 1&00mm1 and is considered
particularly important -here corridors are double loaded 9they serve d-ellings
on each side: and -here -heelchair accessible d-ellings are provided
Priority 1
3.2
.#
Eor buildings -ith d-ellings entered from communal circulation at the first1
second or third floor -here lifts are not provided1 space should be identified
-ithin or ad>acent to the circulation cores for the future installation of a
-heelchair accessible lift
Priority 2
3.2
.%
/ll d-ellings entered at the fourth floor 9fifth storey: and above should be
served by at least one -heelchair accessible lift1 and it is desirable that
d-ellings entered at the third floor 9fourth storey: are served by at least one
such lift /ll d-ellings entered at the seventh floor 9eighth storey: and above
should be served by at least t-o lifts
Priority 1
3.2
.D
Every designated -heelchair accessible d-elling above the ground floor
should be served by at least one -heelchair accessible lift %t is desirable that
every -heelchair accessible d-ellings is served by at least t-o such lifts
Priority 1
3.2
.?
Principal access stairs should provide easy accessV regardless of -hether a lift
is provided ,here homes are reached by a lift1 it should be fully -heelchair
accessible SLifetime !omes "riterion &T
Priority 1
3.3 Car "ar7ing
3.3
.1
/ll developments should conform to London Plan policy on maximum car
par2ing provision %n areas of good public transport accessibility andCor to-n
centres the aim should be to provide less than one space per d-elling
Else-here par2ing provision should be as follo-sG
$F bedroom d-ellingsG 1& 5 2 spaces per d-ellingH
3 bedroom d-ellingsG 1 5 1& spaces per d-ellingH
1 5 2 bedroom d-ellingsG less than 1 per d-elling
Priority 1
3.3
.2
Each designated -heelchair accessible d-elling should have a car par2ing
space 2$00mm -ide -ith a clear access -ay to one side of 1200mm VV
Priority 1
3.3
.3
"areful consideration should be given to the siting and organisation of car
par2ing -ithin an overall design for open space so that car par2ing does not
negatively affect the use and appearance of open spaces
Priority 1
3.3
.!
,here car par2ing is -ithin the d-elling plot1 at least one car par2ing space
should be capable of enlargement to a -idth of 3300mm ,here par2ing is
provided in communal bays1 at least one space -ith a -idth of 3300mm should
be provided per bloc2 entrance or access core in addition to spaces
designated for -heelchair user d-ellings SLifetime !omes "riterion 1T
Priority 1
3.! Cyc$e storage
3.!
.1
/ll developments should provide dedicated storage space for cycles at the
follo-ing levelsG
1 per 1 or 2 bedroom d-ellingH or
Priority 1
A3
2 per 3 or more bedroom d-elling
3.!
.2
%ndividual or communal cycle storage outside the home should be secure1
sheltered and ade3uately lit1 -ith convenient access to the street ,here cycle
storage is provided -ithin the home it should be in addition to the minimum
.%/ and minimum storage and circulation space re3uirements "ycle storage
identified in habitable rooms or on balconies -ill not be considered acceptable
Priority 2
3.# 3euse@ "ost and de$iveries
3.#
.1
"ommunal refuse and recycling containers1 communal bin enclosures and
refuse stores should be accessible to all residents including children and
-heelchair users1 and located on a hard1 level surface #he location should
satisfy local re3uirements for -aste collection and should achieve full credits
under the "ode for Sustainable !omes1 in accordance -ith the #echnical
.uide +efuse stores -ithin buildings should be located to limit the nuisance
caused by noise and smells and provided -ith means for cleaning
Priority 1
3.#
.2
Storage facilities for -aste and recycling containers should be provided in
accordance -ith the "ode for Sustainable !omes #echnical .uide and local
authority re3uirements
Priority 1
!.= D8e$$ing S"ace Standards
!.1 Interna$ $oor area
!.1.1 /ll developments should meet
the follo-ing minimum space
standardsG
0-elling type
9bedroomCpersons:
Single storey
d-elling







1b2p
2b3p
2b$p
3b$p
3b&p
3b(p
$b&p
$b(p
#-o storey
d-elling




2b$p
3b$p
3b&p
$b&p
$b(p
#hree storey
d-elling


3b&p
$b&p
$b(p
Eor d-ellings designed for more
than ( people1 at least 10s3m
gross internal area should be
provided for each additional
person
Priority 1
!.1
.2
0-elling plans should demonstrate that d-ellings -ill accommodate the
furniture1 access and activity space re3uirements relating to the declared level
of occupancy VV
Priority 1
!.2 5$exi*i$ity and ada"ta*i$ity
!.2
.1
0-elling plans should demonstrate that d-elling types provide flexibility by
allo-ing for alternative furniture arrangements in living areas and by
accommodating double or t-in beds in at least one double bedroom
Priority 1
A$
!.3 Circu$ation in the home
!.3.1 #he minimum -idth of hall-ays
and other circulation spaces
inside the home should be
400mm #his may reduce to
A&0mm at =pinch points* eg next
to radiators1 -here door-ay
-idths meet the follo-ing
specificationG
)inimum clear opening -idth
of door-ay 9mm:
)inimum -idth of hall-ay
-here door is in side -all 9mm:
A&0 1200
AA& 10&0
400 400

,here a hall-ay is at least
400mm -ide and the approach
to the door is head5on1 a
minimum clear opening door
-idth of A&0mm should be
provided SLifetime !omes
"riterion (T
Priority 1
!.3
.2
#he design of d-ellings of more than one storey should incorporate potential
for a stair lift to be installed and a suitable identified space for a through5the5
floor lift from the entrance level to a storey containing a main bedroom and an
accessible bathroom SLifetime !omes "riterion 12T
Priority 1
!.! -iving E dining E 7itchen
!.!.1 #he follo-ing combined floor
areas for living C 2itchen C dining
space should be metG
0esigned level of occupancy )inimum combined floor area
of living1 dining and 2itchen
spaces 9s3m:
2 person 23
3 person 2&
$ person 2A
& person 24
( person 31
Priority 2
!.!
.2
#he minimum -idth of the main sitting area should be 2;m in 253 person
d-ellings and 32m in d-ellings designed for four or more people
Priority 2
!.!
.3
0-ellings -ith three or more bedrooms should have t-o living spaces1 for
example a living room and a 2itchen5dining room 'oth rooms should have
external -indo-s %f a 2itchen is ad>acent to the living room1 the internal
partition bet-een the rooms should not be load5bearing1 to allo- for
reconfiguration as an open plan arrangement Studies -ill not be considered
as second living spaces
Priority 2
!.!
.!
#here should be space for turning a -heelchair in dining areas and living
rooms and basic circulation space for -heelchairs else-here SLifetime !omes
"riterion AT
Priority 1
!.!
.#
/ living room1 living space or 2itchen dining room should be at entrance level
SLifetime !omes "riterion ;T
Priority 1
!.!
.%
,indo-s in the principal living space should start ;00mm above finished floor
level 9FC5 &0mm: to allo- people to see out -hile seated /t least one opening
-indo- should be easy to approach and operate by people -ith restricted
movement and reach SLifetime !omes "riterion 1&T
Priority 1
A&
!.# )edrooms
!.#
.1
#he minimum area of a single bedroom should be ; s3 m #he minimum area
of a double or t-in bedroom should be 12 s3 m
Priority 2
!.#
.2
#he minimum -idth of double and t-in bedrooms should be 2A&m in most of
the length of the room
Priority 2
!.#
.3
%n homes of t-o or more storeys -ith no permanent bedroom at entrance level1
there should be space on the entrance level that could be used as a
convenient temporary bed space SLifetime !omes "riterion 4T
Priority 1
!.#
.!
Structure above a main bedroom and an accessible bathroom should be
capable of supporting a ceiling hoist and the design should allo- for a
reasonable route bet-een this bedroom and bathroom SLifetime !omes
"riterion 13T
Priority 1
!.% )athrooms and ,Cs
!.%
.1
0-ellings designed for an occupancy of five or more people should provide a
minimum of one bathroom -ith ," and one additional ,"
Priority 2
!.%
.2
,here there is no accessible bathroom at entrance level1 a -heelchair
accessible ," -ith potential for a sho-er to be installed should be provided at
entrance level W SLifetime !omes "riterion 10T
Priority 1
!.%
.3
/n accessible bathroom should be provided in every d-elling on the same
storey as a main bedroom SLifetime !omes "riterion 1$T
Priority 1
!.%
.!
,alls in bathrooms and ,"s should be capable of ta2ing adaptations such as
handrails X SLifetime !omes "riterion 11T
Priority 1
!.D Storage and uti$ity
!.D
.1
'uilt5in general internal storage space free of hot -ater cylinders and other
obstructions -ith a minimum internal height of 2m and a minimum area of 1&
s3 m should be provided for 2 person d-ellings1 in addition to storage provided
by furniture in habitable rooms Eor each additional occupant an additional
0&s3m of storage space is re3uired
Priority 1
!.? Study and 8or7
!.?
.1
0-elling plans should demonstrate that all homes are provided -ith ade3uate
space and services to be able to -or2 from home #he "ode for Sustainable
!omes guidance on -or2ing from home is recommended as a reference
Priority 1
!.?
.2
Service controls should be -ithin a height band of $&0mm to 1200mm from the
floor and at least 300mm a-ay from any internal room corner SLifetime !omes
"riterion 1(T
Priority 1
!.C ,hee$chair user d8e$$ings
!.C
.1
#en percent of ne- housing should be designed to be -heelchair accessible or
easily adaptable for residents -ho are -heelchair users in accordance -ith the
.L/ 'est Practice .uide for ,heelchair /ccessible !ousing
Priority 1
!.1
=
(rivate o"en s"ace
!.1
=.1
/ minimum of & s3 m of private outdoor space should be provided for 152
person d-ellings and an extra 1 s3 m should be provided for each additional
occupant
Priority 1
!.1
=.2
Private outdoor spaces should have level access from the home Y SLifetime
!omes "riterion $T
Priority 1
!.1
=.3
#he minimum depth and -idth of all balconies and other private external
spaces is 1&00mm
Priority 1
#.= Home as a ($ace o 3etreat
#.1 (rivacy
#.1
.1
0esign proposals should demonstrate ho- habitable rooms -ithin each
d-elling are provided -ith an ade3uate level of privacy in relation to
neighbouring property and the street and other public spaces
Priority 1
#.2 Dua$ as"ect
#.2
.1
0evelopments should avoid single aspect d-ellings that are north facing1
exposed to noise exposure categories " or 01 or contain three or more
bedrooms
Priority 1
#.2
.2
,here single aspect d-ellings are proposed1 the designer should demonstrate
ho- good levels of ventilation1 daylight and privacy -ill be achieved in each
habitable room and the 2itchen
Priority 1
A(
#.3 Noise
#.3
.1
#he layout of ad>acent d-ellings and the location of lifts and circulation spaces
should see2 to limit the transmission of noise to sound sensitive rooms -ithin
d-ellings
Priority 1
#.! 5$oor to cei$ing heights
#.!
.1
#he minimum floor to ceiling height in habitable rooms is 2&m bet-een
finished floor level and finished ceiling level / minimum floor to ceiling height
of 2(m in habitable rooms is considered desirable and taller ceiling heights
are encouraged in ground floor d-ellings
Priority 1
#.# Day$ight and sun$ight
#.#
.1
.la@ing to all habitable rooms should be not less than 20< of the internal floor
area of the room
Priority 2
#.#
.2
/ll homes should provide for direct sunlight to enter at least one habitable
room for part of the day Living areas and 2itchen dining spaces should
preferably receive direct sunlight
Priority 2
%.= C$imate Change /itigation and &da"tation
%.1 Environmenta$ "erormance
%.1
.1
0esigners should see2 to achieve a minimum of Level $ of the "ode for
Sustainable !omes in all ne- developments
Priority 2
%.1
.2
/ll homes should satisfy London Plan policy on sustainable design and
construction and ma2e the fullest contribution to the mitigation of1 and
adaptation to1 climate change
Priority 1
%.2 Energy and CO2
%.2
.1
0evelopment proposals should be designed in accordance -ith the London
Plan energy hierarchy1 and should meet the follo-ing minimum targets for
carbon dioxide emissions reduction
Jear %mprovement on 200( 'uilding +egulations
2010 5 2013 $$ per cent
2013 5 201( && per cent
201( 5 2031 Zero carbon
Priority 1
%.3 Overheating
%.3
.1
0evelopment proposals should demonstrate ho- the design of d-ellings -ill
avoid overheating during summer months -ithout reliance on energy intensive
mechanical cooling systems
Priority 1
%.! ,ater
%.!
.1
Be- d-ellings should be designed to ensure that a maximum of 10& litres of
-ater is consumed per person per day
Priority 1
%.!
.2
,here development is permitted in an area at ris2 of flooding1 it should
incorporate flood resilient design in accordance -ith PPS2&
Priority 1
%.!
.3
Be- development should adhere to standards for surface -ater run5off as set
out in the "ode for Sustainable !omes
Priority 1
%.!
.!
Be- development should incorporate Sustainable 6rban 0rainage Systems
and green roofs -here appropriate
Priority 1
%.# /ateria$s
%.#
.1
/ll ne- residential development should meet the re3uirements of the "ode
Level $ -ith regard to using materials -ith lo-er environmental impacts over
their lifecycle
Priority 2
%.#
.2
/ll ne- residential development should accord -ith "ode for Sustainable
!omes Level $ and the London Sustainable 0esign and "onstruction SP.
-ith regard to the sourcing of materials
Priority 1
%.% Eco$ogy
%.%
.1
#he design and layout of ne- residential development should avoid areas of
ecological value and see2 to enhance the ecological capital of the area in
accordance -ith .L/ best practice guidance on biodiversity and nature
conservation
Priority 1
V %n the Lifetime !omes "riteria a stair providing easy access is defined as one having maximum risers
of 1A0mm1 minimum goings of 2&0mm and a minimum -idth of 400mm measured $&0mm above the
pitch line
AA
VV +efer to the .L/ 'est Practice .uidance on ,heelchair /ccessible !ousing for specific guidance on
design standards for -heelchair accessible d-ellings
%n the Lifetime !omes "riteria the entrance level of a d-elling is generally deemed to be the storey
containing the main entrance door ,here there are no rooms on the storey containing the main
entrance door 9eg flats over garages or shops and some duplexes and to-nhouses: the first storey
level containing a habitable or non5habitable room can be considered the entrance level1 if this storey is
reached by a stair providing =easy access*1 as defined above
Y 'alconies and terraces over habitable rooms -hich re3uire a step up to increase slab thic2ness C
insulation are exempt from the Lifetime !omes level access standard
W 0-ellings over more than one storey -ith no more than t-o bedrooms may instead be designed -ith
a Part ) compliant ," at entrance level / floor drain should be provided to allo- for an accessible
sho-er to be installed at a later date
X /de3uate fixing and support for grab rails should be available at any location on all -alls -ithin a
height band of 300mm 5 1;00mm from the floor
A;
/ppendix 2 8 'ibliography
'arlo- J et al1 Land fo& Housing: %u&&ent 7&atie and .utu&e =#tions1 JPS in
association -ith the Joseph +o-ntree Eoundation1 2002
'artlett 7 et al1 %onsume& %hoie in Housing: "he 'eginnings of a house 'uye&
&e(olt1 Joseph +o-ntree Eoundation1 2002
'"%S1 .i(e Fea& Re(iew of @G Housing1 +%"S1 200&
'ill P1 =Si@e matters to 'oris -hen it comes to flats*1 Evening Standard1 2A June 200;
'o-ie 01 =Bo more hobbit homes*1 Planning in London1 %ssue A11 ?ctober50ecember 2004
'retherton J and Pleace B1 ResidentsC Diews of New .o&ms of High Density
Affo&da'le Li(ing1 Joseph +o-ntree Eoundation1 200;
"/'E 9"ommission for /rchitecture and the 'uilt Environment:1 Affo&da'le Housing
Su&(ey: A &e(iew of the Auality of affo&da'le housing in England1 2004
"/'E1 ='uilding for Life Be-sletter 0AG Storage Space*1 July 200(1
---cabeorgu2CfilesCbuilding5for5life5ne-sletter5issue5Apdf
"/'E1 Design Re(iewed: @&'an Housing1 200$
"/'E1 Housing Audit: Assessing the Design Quality of New Homes (London, the
South East and the East of England)1 200$
"/'E1 No ;o&e "o>i Assets: .&esh thin+ing on housing Auality1 2004
"/'E1 S#ae in New Homes: what &esidents thin+ (summa&y &e#o&t)1 2004
"/'E1 )hat Home *uye&s )ant: Attitudes and deision ma+ing among onsume&s1 200&
"/'E1 )hat 5tCs Li+e to Li(e "he&e: the (iews of &esidents on the design of new
housing1 200&
"/'E1 =,hy -e need standards for housing design*1 )arch 20101
httpGCC---cabeorgu2CarticlesC-hy5-e5need5standards5for5housing5design
"armona )1 Housing Design Quality, "h&ough 7oliy, ,uidane and Re(iew1 Spon
Press1 2001
"L. 9"ommunities and Local .overnment:1 7lanning 7oliy Statement :: Housing1 200(
A4
"L. !ousing Statistics1 Live #ables on !ouse 'uilding1 updated /ugust 20041
---communitiesgovu2ChousingChousingresearchChousingstatisticsChousingstatisticsb
yChousebuildingClivetablesC
"ope !1 %a#ital ,ains: ;a+ing high density housing wo&+ in London1 London
!ousing Eederation1 2002
"ope !1 Highe& Density Housing fo& .amilies: A design and s#eifiation guide1
London !ousing Eederation1 200$
"ousins )1 Design Quality in New Housing: Lea&ning f&om the Nethe&lands1 #aylor L
Erancis1 200;
"roydon "ouncil1 S&utiny 5n(estigation: Room si6es in new housing de(elo#ments1 200;
0avis S and "apie +1 7lanning fo& the .utu&e: Life in affo&da'le housing1 !ousing
"orporation and "hartered %nstitute of !ousing1 200;
0esign for !omes and Levitt 'ernstein1 Highe& Density Design fo& Quality and Low
;aintenane: a good #&atie guide1 Borthern %reland !ousing Executive1 200;
0esign for !omes et al1 Reommendations fo& Li(ing at Su#e&density1 0esign for
!omes C B!'"1 200A
0)/. 90ata )anagement and /nalysis .roup: 6pdate1 =0emographic Pro>ections
for the draft London Plan*1 13520041 .reater London /uthority1 ?ctober 20041
---londongovu2CsitesCdefaultCfilesC0)/.<206pdate<20135
2004<200emographic<20Pro>ections<20for<20the<20London<20Planpdf
0ublin "ity "ouncil1 Ahie(ing Li(ea'le Sustaina'le New A#a&tment Homes,
Da&iation (No. 4/) of the Du'lin %ity De(elo#ment 7lan 4229?42//1 adopted 3
0ecember 200A
English Partnerships1 Quality Standa&ds: Deli(e&ing Quality 7laes1 200A
EP0Savills +esearch for "/'E and ?0P)1 "he (alue of housing design and layout1
#homas #elford1 2003
.allent B1 et al1 5nte&national Housing S#ae Standa&ds in 5taly and England:
%om#a&ing the BonditionsC of &egulation1 Ei'+E Series1 +%"S1 2010
.reater London /uthority1 London 7lan Annual ;onito&ing Re#o&t <1 2010
.D/ .rimley1 D&aft London Housing Design ,uide: %ost and deli(e&y im#at
assessment, #&e #u'liation d&aft1 London 0evelopment /gency1 2010
!/#"1 Housing S#ae Standa&ds1 .reater London /uthority1 200(
;0
!/#"1 Room to Swing a %at! "he amount and use of s#ae in new dwellings in
London and the South East1 2010
!/#" and %psos )?+%1 Resident Satisfation with S#ae in the Home1 "/'E1 2004
!ome 'uilders Eederation1 =Bational Be- !ome "ustomer Satisfaction Survey*1 20101
---hbfcou2CfileadminCdocumentsCbar2erC"ustMSatisfactionM2010MprintMreadypdf
!omes and "ommunities /gency1 Design and sustaina'ility standa&ds onsultation
(housing)1 20101 ---homesandcommunitiescou2Cdesign5sustainability5standards
!ousing "orporation1 Design and Quality Standa&ds1 200A
!ousing "orporation1 Design and Quality St&ategy1 200A
!ousing "orporation1 Housing Quality 5ndiato&s, (e&sion E (fo& NAH7 4220?//)1 200;
!ousing "orporation1 =Bo home-or2 space for the )ySpace generation*1 Be-s
+elease1 1( ?ctober 200(1 ---housingcorpgovu2CserverCsho-C"on,eb0oc;A&$
=!ousing Pro>ect of the Jear1 'uilding /-ards 2010*1 'uilding -ebsite1 /pril 20101
---buildingcou2Chousing5pro>ect5of5the5yearC31(21&2article
!urst ,1 =.overnment fails on pledge for good design*1 'uilding 0esign1 2 ?ctober 200;
%reland 0epartment of the Environment1 !eritage and Local .overnment1
Sustaina'le @&'an Housing: Design Standa&ds fo& New A#a&tments, ,uidelines fo&
7lanning Autho&ities1 200A
7intrea 7 and )organ J1 E(aluation of English Housing 7oliy /81934222, "heme ::
Housing Quality and Neigh'ou&hood Quality1 ?ffice of the 0eputy Prime )inister1 200&
Leishman " et al1 7&efe&enes, Quality and %hoie in New?'uild Housing1 Joseph
+o-ntree Eoundation1 200$
Levitt 0 and Par2 J1 =Space probe*1 +%'/ Journal1 %ssue 0&1 )ay 200;
London /ssembly Planning and Spatial 0evelopment "ommittee1 Si6e ;atte&s1
.reater London /uthority1 200(
London 'orough of South-ar21 Residential Design Standa&ds Su##lementa&y
7lanning Doument1 200;
)argoles S and "o-ard S1 ;ode&n Housing: HouseholdsC (iews of thei& new homes1
B!'" Eoundation1 200A
;1
)ayor of London1 Housing in London: "he e(idene 'ase fo& the London Housing
St&ategy1 .L/1 2004
)ayor of London1 London Housing Design ,uide: D&aft fo& onsultation1 published by
London 0evelopment /gency1 2004
)ayor of London1 London Housing St&ategy1 .reater London /uthority1 2010
)ayor of London1 7lanning fo& a *ette& London1 .reater London /uthority1 200;
)ayor of London1 "he London 7lan: S#atial De(elo#ment St&ategy fo& ,&eate&
London, %onsolidated with alte&ations sine 422E1 .reater London /uthority1 200;
)ayor of London1 "he London 7lan: S#atial De(elo#ment St&ategy fo& ,&eate&
London, %onsultation d&aft &e#laement #lan1 .reater London /uthority1 2004
)ayor of London St&ategi Housing Land A(aila'ility Assessment .L/1 2004
)id Sussex 0istrict "ouncil1 Dwelling S#ae Standa&ds Su##lementa&y 7lanning
Doument1 2004
)inistry of !ousing and Local .overnment1 Design *ulletin <: S#ae in the Home1
!)S?1 14(3
)inistry of !ousing and Local .overnment1 Homes fo& "oday $ "omo&&ow (Re#o&t of
the 7a&+e& ;o&&is %ommittee)1 !)S?1 14(1
)inistry of %nfrastructure of the %talian +epublic 9)%%+:1 Housing Statistis in the
E@ 4229-<1 published 200A
)itchell #1 =!o- to ma2e room for housing*1 #he /rchitects* Journal1 13 )arch 200;
)ulholland +esearch L "onsulting1 7e&e#tions of 7&i(ay and Density in Housing1
0esign for !omes Popular !ousing +esearch1 2003
Bational !ousing Eederation1 Standa&ds and Quality in De(elo#ment: A good
#&atie guide (4nd edition)1 200;
Be- South ,ales .overnment1 0epartment of Planning1 Residential .lat Design
%ode1 2002
Be- South ,ales .overnment1 =State Environmental Planning Policy Bo (& 8 0esign
Kuality of +esidential Elat 0evelopment*1 current version July 200;
---legislationns-govauCmaintopCvie-CinforceCepi<2'&30<2'2002<2'first<2'0<2'nC
;2
Be- South ,ales 6rban 0esign /dvisory "ommittee1 Ahie(ing *ette& Design:
Residential .lat De(elo#ments in NS)1 +ecommendations prepared for the Premier
of BS,1 July 20001 ---planningns-govauCsettingthedirectionCpdfCudacreportpdf
P#Ea and Levitt 'ernstein1 Housing ou& Ageing 7o#ulation: 7anel fo& 5nno(ation
&e#o&t1 !omes and "ommunities /gency1 "ommunities and Local .overnment1
0epartment of !ealth1 2004
P+P /rchitects1 High Density Housing in Eu&o#e: Lessons fo& London1 East #hames
!ousing .roup1 2002
P+P /rchitects and 6rbed1 =Less "ould )ean )oreG Streamlining the development
process to achieve better results*1 submission of evidence to the "allcutt +evie- of
!ousebuilding 0elivery1 200A1 ---callcuttrevie-cou2Cdo-nloadsCprpMarchitectspdf
+%'/ 9+oyal %nstitute of 'ritish /rchitects:1 *ette& Homes and Neigh'ou&hoods1 +%'/
Policy Paper1 200A
+oyal 'orough of 7ensington and "helsea1 Housing Standa&ds Su##lementa&y
7lanning ,uidane1 2002
Shelter1 .ull house! How o(e&&owded housing affets families1 200&
Sheridan L et al1 *uilding Regulations in Eu&o#e, 7a&t 55: A om#a&ison of tehnial
&eAui&ements in eight Eu&o#ean ount&ies1 !ousing and 6rban Policy Studies1 06P
Science1 2002
Silverman E et al1 A ,ood 7lae fo& %hild&en! Att&ating and &etaining families in
inne& u&'an mi>ed inome ommunities1 "hartered %nstitute of !ousing C Joseph
+o-ntree Eoundation1 200&
Ste-art J1 Room to mo(e! Reoniling Housing %onsum#tion As#i&ations and Land?
use 7lanning1 !ome 'uilders Eederation1 200&
Stothart "1 =)ore roomG the demise of the ultra small flat*1 'uilding maga@ine1 1$
/ugust 2004
#unstall +1 Housing Density: )hat do &esidents thin+!1 0epartment of Social Policy1
London School of Economics for East #hames !ousing .roup1 2002
,hitehead "1 "he Density De'ate: A #e&sonal (iew1 East #hames .roup1 200;
,oodman E and .reeves E1 Home - Away: .i(e *&itish A&hitets *uild Housing in
Eu&o#e: "he De(elo#ment of Housing in *&itain /012 3 42201 'ritish "ouncil1 200;
;3