22 Planning in London

HHOOUUSSIINNGG DDEESSIIGGNN || MMIICCHHAAEELL HHOOWWEE && DDUUNNCCAANN BBOOWWIIEE

The Mayor’s newhousing design guide

‘Design for London’ commissioned architects mæ to work with them todevelop the London Housing Design Guide to address the lamentable standardof much of London’s housing provision. Its author Michael Howe explains.

Michael Howe is apartner in mæarchitects.

FFeeww ooff uuss will need reminding thatthese are straightened economictimes, especially for the constructionindustry. In a bid to mitigate thissituation the government announceda programme in the last budgetaimed at revivifying £400 millionworth of stalled housing constructionprojects. The programme, Kickstart,received additional resources of £660million on 29th June. All in all this isa lot of money for the Homes andCommunities Agency to distribute todevelopers and house builders. Thehope being that by making up the

short fall in their projected profits orability to organize project finance,(caused by the credit crunch), theywill be persuaded to restart projectsthey pulled last year.

In the spring the programmemust have seemed like a great dealfor the government, they would beseen to be doing something decisiveto protect jobs and the economy.Added to this the record of RSLfailure to get anywhere near theGovernment’s housing targetswould be improved. By paying forthe completion of projects which

have already received PlanningPermission a large number ofvaluable housing units would bedelivered quickly, and because thebanks still find themselves unable toprovide mortgages to many firsttime buyers, these units could thenbe bought at a song by the RSLs, bishbash bosh, job done.

However there is a fly in theointment. One that was evident tothose who cared to see it back in2008 when the housing market firststalled. Anyone remotely connectedto the world of housing provision at

TThhiiss iiss nnoott the first attempt in recent years tointroduce a minimum standard. The original 2004London Plan did in fact have an objective ofmaximising internal and external space standardswithin its broader urban design policy.

“para 4.42 New building projects should ensurethe highest possible space standards for users, in bothpublic and private spaces inside and outside the build-ing, creating spacious and usable private as well aspublic spaces. In particular, buildings should providegood storage and secondary space and maximisefloor–ceiling heights where this is compatible withother urban design objectives.“

This statement remained in the 2008 revised planat para 4.102. Neither plan however prescribed aminimum space standard nor did the Mayor inpractice seek to use his planning powers to ensurethat these objectives were achieved – apart fromoccasional discussion on floor to ceiling heights or thelimitations of single aspect.

In the preparation of the 2008 revisions, the

option of a space standard was actively considered. Infact in Ken Livingstone’s December 2005 Statementof Intent, he explicitly stated that he would ‘ considerthe possibility of introducing internal and externalspace standards’ as well as ‘ ensuring that largerhouseholds, including families, have access to appro-priate housing’. However while the density matrixwas revised to remove the inherent bias in favour ofsmaller units and a 10sq m per child/ youth playspacerequirement was introduced, the proposal for internalspace standards was abandoned. This was despite theevidence of falling standards and specific proposalsfor the operation of a new standard set out in areport commissioned from Andrew Drury of HATCand Oldfield King – Housing Space Standards, whichwas published by the GLA in August 2006. The mainreason why the issue was not pursued was thathousebuilders objected to further specification oftheir product by local planning authorities – or as onehousebuilder put it – the nationalization of theirindustry. The argument for standards was however

not abandoned by other interests, with the campaignbeing pursued first by Building for Life and then morebroadly within the RIBA, culminating in the Space atHome seminar in July 2008. Meanwhile at a nationallevel, English Partnerships introduced their ownstandard for sites they owned – a standard which infact was more generous than the one Ken Livingstonehad turned down. Ken has been reported as sayingthat he now regretted the missed opportunity.Meanwhile the Homes and Communities Agency iswrestling with the dilemma of how to combine the EPstandard which applied to all tenures with theHousing Quality Index standard applied by theHousing Corporation to grant funded schemes. TheHCA states that it aims to have a harmonious set ofcore standards in place by April 2011, which willevolve through consultation and collaboration withpartners and key stakeholders.

Well so much for the history. What is helpfulabout the new guide drafted for the Mayor by Maearchitects, in conjunction with Urban Initiatives, isthat it seeks to be comprehensive in that thecontentious issue of internal standards is only onepart of a package which includes density, residentialmix, mix of uses, car parking, cycle storage, refusedisposal, circulation space, privacy, daylight andsunlight, floor to ceiling heights, environmentalperformance, energy and carbon emissions, water useand flood risk , ecology and the use of materials, with

a section on the design process – all within 87 pages.As a consolidation of existing guidance – both statu-tory requirements and best practice, the document isinvaluable. The guide however does not treat density,amenity, sustainability and space standards as if theyare separate issues, which has been a problem withpast policy and regulation at all levels of our complexgovernance structure, of which the bizarre separationof development control and building regulations isonly one symptom.

It is for others to comment on the details, andwhether or not there are circumstances wherewaivers should be justified. Instead, I will focus onthey key issue of whether space standards should bea matter for some form of regulation. What is curiousabout contemporary construction, architecture anddesign in England, in contrast with other countries,both developing and developed, is our failure toremember the extent to which planning and housingpolicy, and to a certain extent residential architecture,originated from the public health movement and aconcern that public intervention, both throughregulatory standards as well as from direct publicsector development, were necessary if the combina-tion of overcrowding and disease were to beovercome. This has been supplemented by a growingcertainty in more recent years that the market knowsbest and that any regulation, which constrains themarket, is inherently bad as it is anti-competitive.

What has clearly been proven by the experienceof recent years of residential development in Londonis that the market did not know best – not just interms of the longer term requirements of London’spopulation, but actually in terms of what was actuallymarketable in the short and medium term The analy-sis of London’s housing output previously published inPIL has demonstrated the extent to which London’snew housing output has shifted away from what wasneeded not just in terms of affordability and tenuremix, but also in terms of household size, and thedeviation of the development programme fromplanning and housing policy targets which haseffected though to a more limited extent, so called‘affordable’ housing output as well as the pure ( ifthat is an appropriate descriptor) market sector. Therather sad consequence has been, as referred to inMichael Howe’s article, that many unsellable markethomes cannot be used for social housing, eitherbecause they are predominantly bedsits and onebedroom homes – or because they do not meet theHousing Quality Indicator standards.

It is therefore not surprising that so little of theHomes and Communities Agency kickstartprogramme is being spent in London. This is incontrast with the last market crash in 1990-1991,when the Housing Corporation bought out somegood quality market homes, many in Docklands, foruse as social rented housing for families. We should

have learnt the lesson that if housing is to be builtwhich can be moved between tenures as marketcircumstances change, or if the availability of publicsubsidy increases, we need housing outputs which arenot just targeted at a single component of the marketor type of occupant. This flexibility can be bestachieved through standards which apply acrosstenures, a point no doubt recognized rather belatedlyby some housebuilders who have got their fingersburnt by building homes for a market which does notcurrently exist – if only we had introduced aminimum standard in the boom time. Well, hopefullythe lesson is now learnt – the best way to prepare forthe recovery is to get our requirements and imple-mentation tools and funding in place now. The Mayorhas asked whether the guide should apply to all newdevelopment and be adopted as statutory planningpolicy. As the HCA already has its standards, there isnot much point in having another standard, whichapplies just to ‘ social housing’. We all have an obliga-tion to look beyond the short-term market, and toguarantee all households a decent quality of livingenvironment. The answer must be a resounding andunconditional yes – and yes now!

Duncan Bowie is Reader in Urban Planning andRegeneration at London Metropolitan Universityand was a member of the Mayor's London Planteam from 2002 to 2007.

NNoo mmoorree hhoobbbbiitt hhoommeessThe draft Housing Design Guide is long overdue and most welcomeand Boris Johnson’s commitment to ‘no more hobbit homes’ takes upan important issue which his predecessor failed to pursue says DuncanBowie.

23Issue 71 October-December 2009

HHOOUUSSIINNGG DDEESSIIGGNN || MMIICCHHAAEELL HHOOWWEE && DDUUNNCCAANN BBOOWWIIEE

this time would have been aware ofrumors of knock down offers beingmade to RSL’s by various volumehouse builders. The RSL’s didn’t buytheir products then, and unless thehouse builders have improved theirmethods in the interim, they proba-bly will not buy them now. Housebuilders can’t shift surplus, (un-sellable), stock onto HousingAssociations because their designand build quality isn’t good enoughto meet government fundingrequirements.

CABE recently reported that lessthan 20 per cent of recent develop-ments in London were rated good orvery good. New homes in Londonhave some of the smallest rooms inEurope with an average size of anewly built home of only 76sq.m,

compared with 109sq.m in Germanyand 88sq.m in Ireland. This situationis not one that can be shrugged offas the inevitable effect of marketchoice, as there has been little realchoice in the market for most peopleliving in London. The effects ofovercrowding impacts directly onlong term public health, (assupported by the 2004 Sheltersstudy “Crowded House”. Rather likeour banking industry the businessmodel and products of housebuilders needs to change.

It is against this potentiallycontentious background that theMayor of London’s Housing DesignGuide, (draft for consultation), wasreleased on Wednesday 8th July. It isintended that the requirements setout will be mandatory for all publicly

funded housing developments inGreater London, with the furtherintention that they become a S.P.D.early 2012.

Some will argue that new legisla-tion is the last thing we need when

the property market is stagnant,prices have fallen and we still haveproblems with affordability.However we would suggest that thepresent construction hiatus is theperfect time to develop

a section on the design process – all within 87 pages.As a consolidation of existing guidance – both statu-tory requirements and best practice, the document isinvaluable. The guide however does not treat density,amenity, sustainability and space standards as if theyare separate issues, which has been a problem withpast policy and regulation at all levels of our complexgovernance structure, of which the bizarre separationof development control and building regulations isonly one symptom.

It is for others to comment on the details, andwhether or not there are circumstances wherewaivers should be justified. Instead, I will focus onthey key issue of whether space standards should bea matter for some form of regulation. What is curiousabout contemporary construction, architecture anddesign in England, in contrast with other countries,both developing and developed, is our failure toremember the extent to which planning and housingpolicy, and to a certain extent residential architecture,originated from the public health movement and aconcern that public intervention, both throughregulatory standards as well as from direct publicsector development, were necessary if the combina-tion of overcrowding and disease were to beovercome. This has been supplemented by a growingcertainty in more recent years that the market knowsbest and that any regulation, which constrains themarket, is inherently bad as it is anti-competitive.

What has clearly been proven by the experienceof recent years of residential development in Londonis that the market did not know best – not just interms of the longer term requirements of London’spopulation, but actually in terms of what was actuallymarketable in the short and medium term The analy-sis of London’s housing output previously published inPIL has demonstrated the extent to which London’snew housing output has shifted away from what wasneeded not just in terms of affordability and tenuremix, but also in terms of household size, and thedeviation of the development programme fromplanning and housing policy targets which haseffected though to a more limited extent, so called‘affordable’ housing output as well as the pure ( ifthat is an appropriate descriptor) market sector. Therather sad consequence has been, as referred to inMichael Howe’s article, that many unsellable markethomes cannot be used for social housing, eitherbecause they are predominantly bedsits and onebedroom homes – or because they do not meet theHousing Quality Indicator standards.

It is therefore not surprising that so little of theHomes and Communities Agency kickstartprogramme is being spent in London. This is incontrast with the last market crash in 1990-1991,when the Housing Corporation bought out somegood quality market homes, many in Docklands, foruse as social rented housing for families. We should

have learnt the lesson that if housing is to be builtwhich can be moved between tenures as marketcircumstances change, or if the availability of publicsubsidy increases, we need housing outputs which arenot just targeted at a single component of the marketor type of occupant. This flexibility can be bestachieved through standards which apply acrosstenures, a point no doubt recognized rather belatedlyby some housebuilders who have got their fingersburnt by building homes for a market which does notcurrently exist – if only we had introduced aminimum standard in the boom time. Well, hopefullythe lesson is now learnt – the best way to prepare forthe recovery is to get our requirements and imple-mentation tools and funding in place now. The Mayorhas asked whether the guide should apply to all newdevelopment and be adopted as statutory planningpolicy. As the HCA already has its standards, there isnot much point in having another standard, whichapplies just to ‘ social housing’. We all have an obliga-tion to look beyond the short-term market, and toguarantee all households a decent quality of livingenvironment. The answer must be a resounding andunconditional yes – and yes now!

Duncan Bowie is Reader in Urban Planning andRegeneration at London Metropolitan Universityand was a member of the Mayor's London Planteam from 2002 to 2007.

>>>

24 Planning in London

product improvements for thefuture. One assumes that the HCA iscurrently carrying out due diligenceand design quality control checks onthe schemes lining up for Kickstarthandouts. It will be interesting to seewhat level of project design qualitywill trigger the release of funding.Too high and few projects will bedelivered and the government will beseen as doing too little to help indus-try, too low and the government willrightly be accused of “buying a pup”,by subsidizing the construction ofslums.

The London DevelopmentAgency’s design resource arm“Design for London” commissionedour office to work with them todevelop the London Housing DesignGuide in part to address the lamen-table standard of much of London’shousing provision. The Guide coversareas such as appropriate housingdensity, street proportion, dwellingspace standards, circulation design,etc. Its recommendations werearrived at as a result of a syntheticapproach to the plethora of existingguidance. If adopted it will cut thedocuments governing Londonhousing design to a fifth of theircurrent number, making life easierfor everyone involved with theprocurement, design and construc-tion of housing.

We believe that Mayor’s Guide isan effective way of assisting theindustry to produce housing thatpeople genuinely want to live in andRSL’s and individuals want to buy.London has a long history of enact-ing forward thinking housingguidance. The most successful, wewould argue, were the Building Actsdeveloped immediately after theGreat Fire of London and continuingto the middle of the 19th century.The Acts were the first buildingcontrol legislation to be adopted,with minor variation, throughoutBritain. Perhaps ensuring that theintroduction of this guidance is ofmore than passing interest for other

metropolitan authorities. One of the strengths of the Acts

resided in their ability to galvanizepolitical will behind the revision ofpermissible building forms andtechniques immediately after thefire. It should be remembered thatthis was in the face of strong resist-ance from large sections of thecapital’s business community whosaw the introduction of fireproofconstruction as a ruinous extrava-gance.

Boris Johnson says “ I am deter-mined to deliver the highest qualityhomes for the long term, innovatingin the best tradition of this uniquecity.” This being the case we wouldargue that this ambition is bestserved by the production of theminimum number of simpleguidance documents possible. Agood example of the benefits ofsimplicity and familiarity, (withregard to housing space standards),followed the publication of theParker Morris standards (1961). Theperiod of standards stability follow-ing their becoming mandatory, somesix years later, allowing all sectors ofthe construction industry to becomefamiliar with their requirements,fostering broad agreement on whatan acceptable house might be, (atleast in terms of size), and how toachieve it cheaply.

Descriptions of the of theMayor’s Guidance in the media hastended to concentrate on spacestandards, this is hardly surprisinggiven the squalid nature of much ofthis countries new build, howeverthe document has something to sayabout other areas pertinent to theproduction of good housing andplace making. The guide is basedaround six themes devised with DfL,these are:• Shaping Good Places.• Housing for a Diverse City: dealingwith issues of appropriate density,residential mix and mix of use. • From Street to Front Door: sharedcirculation, car and cycle ports, refuse

etc.• Dwelling Space Standards.• Home as a Place of Retreat: privacy,noise, internal room height, daylight.• Climate Change Mitigation andAdaptation.

We have attempted to form eachof these requirement simply so thatthey are immediately understand-able by designers, commissionersand constructors, and on the princi-ple that “If everyone has to conformto a standard no-one can claim thatthey are at a disadvantage”.

The Guide does not seek to re-invent the wheel or duplicate exist-ing guides; if another document hasdescribed a situation well it isreferred to in an introduction. Anexample of the intended brevity ofGuide is exhibited in section 5.5“Daylight and Sunlight” this has onlytwo requirements following theintroduction. Of course in order toarrive at this level of brevity a great

deal of testing work was undertakenwith the production of diagrams as akey part of that process, such as theSpace Standards Study and FurnitureSchedule included in the appendix.Anecdotal evidence received by ouroffice, (based on nothing more scien-tific then comment made by otherdesigners), would lead us to believethat this sort of simple visual advicewould perhaps be welcomed on theprinciple that a picture is worth athousand words.

The timely nature of the Mayor’sHousing Guide consultation period isreiterated by current developmentHCA’s own national standards. As anindividual citizen I am quite awarethat getting two Governmentagencies to work together is a littlelike asking turkeys to vote forChristmas, however if they couldpool their resources how useful thatwould be for all of us.

HHOOUUSSIINNGG DDEESSIIGGNN || MMIICCHHAAEELL HHOOWWEE && DDUUNNCCAANN BBOOWWIIEE