Özer, S and Jacoby, S (2024) Space standards in affordable housing in England. Building Research & Information, 52(6), pp. 611-626. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
This paper examines the state of affordable housing in England, with a focus on regional variations in space standards and standardized dwelling layouts widely used by volume housebuilders. Space standards are not statutory and therefore adopted inconsistently across development types or building typologies in England. The study draws on data obtained from planning applications, analysing 153 housing developments and 9876 newly constructed affordable housing units from different regions in England that were completed and marketed in 2021. Based on this, the study compares space standards and their effectiveness as well as the use of standardized unit types. The analysis reveals that apart from London, the most recent Nationally Described Space Standard (2015) is not yet widely used. Instead, Housing Quality Indicators that preceded the new national standards continue to be the norm for houses built outside of London. The findings demonstrate that there is a high level of standardization in affordable housing in terms of dwelling size and layout, with widely used standard house types often determining the design and size of dwellings more than space standards.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | affordable housing; housing supply; regional differences; space standards; standardized unit types; planning application data |
| Index terms: | effectiveness, housebuilder, housing, affordable housing, London, housing development, England, building typology, quality indicator, standardization, variation |
| Subjects: | performance measurement, contractual condition, project delivery, Geography, construction type, performance management, practitioner |
| Topics: | Geographical Context, Contract Administration, Quality Management, Roles and Professions, Construction Technology |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here