COMMENT Does size really matter? Well, like most things in life it depends on who you talk to.
This is certainly the case when it comes to creating a national space standard for housing, with differing views and approaches among councils, developers, architects and planners, resulting in uncertainty in planning to deliver much-needed housing across the country.
When the Nationally Described Space Standard was introduced in the Planning Practice Guidance nearly four years ago, there were clearly set rules, which must be met if a council wanted to utilise it.
Councils had to demonstrate a need for the NDSS, that it would not affect viability and should be introduced through the local plan with an appropriate transition period. However, in practice it seems most local authorities refer to the standard, but few have formally adopted it.
This has created uncertainty in the minds of developers and planning authorities when the NDSS was supposed to achieve the opposite.
Horses for courses
What the NDSS ignores is a “horses for courses” approach, with different authorities requiring differing housing policies. A one-size-fits-all inflexible standard may have damaging consequences as it does not distinguish between different types of housing needs or demands. And this is in a period when the housing market is becoming more sophisticated and tailored to meet different sectors’ requirements.
Historically, the issue has revolved around providing appropriately sized habitable space, generally for families. There has been growing concern that with escalating land prices, and consequent increasing cost of homes, developers were cramming more and more smaller units on to their schemes to make them viable.
For many, size and quality go hand-in-hand. The smaller the unit, the poorer and shoddier the home.
However, this doesn’t have to be the case, nor should it be. Well designed and planned smaller homes fulfil an increasing important role in the urban housing landscape, especially in the starter home and affordable markets.
A changing market
As a society we have to accept there are structural changes taking place in the housing market. The past five years have seen a fundamental shift towards the build-to-rent market and at a pace not seen since the 1920s and 1930s when financial institutions owned vast swathes of residential property in cities like London.
Today we are seeing new trends such as co-living, micro-living, work-live and capsule homes making their appearance in the housing market. We have also seen a veritable explosion of student and retirement accommodation.
None of these housing subsectors sit happily within the NDSS guidelines – nor should they. These sectors challenge our long-held views of appropriate housing and space design. But they are becoming increasingly important in a fast-changing urban landscape where costs, needs and demands are dramatically altering our views of what is a suitable home for the current and future generations of city dwellers.
The requirement for the NDSS to apply to all tenures is flawed. There are a number of types of accommodation to which the standard should not be applied. Currently the NDSS could apply to all types of residential developments: from family houses in a suburbia to city – centre flats for young professionals.
A more flexible approach
Space standards are often applied to other types of developments, including retirement and student accommodation. With the housing crisis gripping the country, a more flexible approach to space standards is needed. Many of the submissions on the draft local plans which are introducing the NDSS echo this sentiment.
Councils such as Leeds realise that some housing delivery models (eg student housing) are not consistent with the NDSS, are adapting their decision-making accordingly and explicitly excluding student housing from being considered.
The council’s endeavours to introduce the NDSS in Leeds has, unsurprisingly, been resisted by the development industry, given the city’s diverse housing market. It will be very interesting to review the inspector’s verdict on this aspect of their Core Strategy review in coming months.
More flexibility is also required when providing new homes in listed buildings. The conversion of listed buildings often requires provision of homes that do not comply with the NDSS in order to protect the significance of the heritage asset.
It is unclear if the space standard is here to stay.
A space standard might be appropriate in some typical, large-scale new housing estates, but not in specialised housing or city centre developments.
RIBA’s Case for Space and Julia Park in her excellent summary of the history of space standards, One Hundred Years of Housing Standards, argue that the NDSS should be included in the building regulations.
However, given the contested nature of a space standard and the complexities of bringing forward viable housing schemes in certain areas, it should remain a planning consideration rather than a statutory rule. This enables all parties to engage in a debate of whether a council should or should not adopt it in line with PPG.
In the meantime, developers need to be aware of the NDSS, where it is applicable and whether a council intends to adopt it in the local plan.
David Smith is associate director at Indigo
