Although the main crux of the article was the 1935 standard on overcrowding, I think one very important point was missed. In 1935 we were building real homes: made of bricks or blocks and mortar with real internal walls. The rooms were, in the main, large enough for the beds they were expected to accommodate and the walls soundproof enough to maintain privacy.
Today we apply 1935 rules to the cardboard palaces we have been building in more recent years. Houses with bedrooms where the double bed has to be moved every time you need access to the wardrobe. Children's bedrooms that are so narrow that one set of bunk beds just fits with 12-18 inches by the side. You could not possibly sleep more than two children in those conditions safely.
It could be argued that, instead of changing the standard, we ought to make modern buildings meet the 1935 standard. However, I am sure there are financial restraints that would prevent that happening.
The decent homes standard seems likely to become the joke that "affordable homes" has been. I remember once asking on a housing course for "affordable homes" to be explained to me. A very clever gentleman from a university explained how it meant affordable to the government, affordable to builders and affordable to housing providers. However, he could not come up with an equation that made them affordable to the tenants. Similarly, "decent homes" discussions don't seem to be asking existing tenants to evaluate needs and priorities.
Therefore, it would seem that fitting pints into half-pint pots will continue, as will the housing of families in flats where there is nowhere for children to play without annoying others; where parents cannot have a private conversation without the rest of the family being able to listen in; where there isn't enough room for a dining room table; and where the lack of privacy within the accommodation and externally is a major cause of relationship breakdown.
Is it any wonder that youngsters are on the streets causing havoc? They don't have anywhere at home to call their own and invite their friends – and their parents are so fraught with their endless struggles with benefits agencies, noisy neighbours and lack of jobs they are glad to see the back of them.
I know that these problems exist in private accommodation as well as social housing, and that building standards in general should be addressed. But in the main, tenants in social housing don't have the choice over where they live.
And the situation is going to get worse, not better. As house prices continue to rise, lower-income households are being squeezed out of the chance of improving their lot by buying their own home. Are we going to perpetuate this situation, or are going to challenge the rules and remember that our first priority is to our tenants?
Source
Housing Today
Postscript
Gwen Turner-Peard, Plymouth
No comments yet