Red tape strangles creativity in house design

Many rules are pointless, expensive and detrimental to the production of good architecture. The Lifetime Homes Design Criteria — mandatory for publicly funded projects and increasingly a prerequisite for planning approval for any housing project — is one of the worst offenders.

Among its requirements is that all multi-level housing be able to accommodate a lift, have an accessible toilet at the ground-floor level (with provision for a future shower), and have ground-floor bed and living space.

This is on the basis that at some future point an occupier may need (through infirmity) to install a lift and live permanently on the ground floor.

The code was launched in an effort to provide greater flexibility for housing, but we believe it is counterproductive. The code requirements have specific design repercussions in a market that already severely restricts the amount of space available in new housing — as highlighted last week by the RIBA “Homewise” campaign (“RIBA campaigns over shameful shoeboxes” News September 16).

The consequences for housing design is a mismatch between the amount of accommodation required at ground-floor level compared with the space required on the upper floors, the provision of facilities for which there is rarely any need, and additional costs for which there is no obvious benefit.

No one would deny the need to make provision for those who are disabled, old or infirm but there has to be a better way of accommodating these people, who often have very specific requirements (which are often not reflected in the Lifetimes Homes Code) than to constrain the design of all housing with a range of unnecessary demands.

Regulations should be subject to rigorous scrutiny to demonstrate clear and measurable benefits, and designers and their clients should have greater freedom in deciding what makes sense and what doesn’t.

We would also argue that the plethora of codes and regulations should be simplified and better coordinated into a single coherent building code for each building type: the Scottish Building Standards provide an excellent model.

Charles Thomson, London EC2
Peter Barber, London WC1
Walter Menteth, London SE17
Elspeth Clements, London EC2
Annalie Riches and David Mikhail, London EC1

If you would like to add your support to this letter, add your full name and location in the comments below.

Read Amanda Baillieu’s comment on red tape and housing here.