I notice (Debate August 30) that Andrew Beharrell sees the possible three-tier system of space standards outlined in the Housing Review as being too complex and perhaps intended to kick the problem into the long grass.
How right he is! He calls for a basic national standard, and that must surely be the simple way of dealing with the scandal of builders cutting space beyond the bone.
But we should not be too hopeful of any action because the influence of the housebuilding industry on the report is all too apparent. The consultation states that “in many respects the market is performing well in the absence of national space standards, and the government’s preference remains for market-led solutions”.
Later, it again states that “the government’s preferred approach would be for market-led voluntary mechanisms such as space labelling to meet consumer needs, rather than the mandatory application of space standards”.
And, to cap this, The Guardian reported that communities minister Don Foster had “dashed campaigners’ hopes that the government would come out in favour of new minimum space standards”.
Having carried out an impressive review the government will now rely on voluntary mechanisms which we all know from experience in other fields do not work. So the market will lead the way into the long grass. How weak of government — and how depressing.
Anthony Pearson
Bath
Postscript
Email letters to buildingdesign@ubm.com including your postal address. We reserve the right to edit all correspondence
No comments yet