Housing standards:

evidence and research

Applying housing standards:

London case studies

A report prepared by CABE with the

assistance of Richards Partington
Architects in May 2010.
CONTENTS

1 Introduction Page 1

2 City Quarter Page 2

3 Church Street Page 7

4 Barking Riverside Page 12

5 Mortimer Road Page 13

6 Curwen Apartments Page 15

A1 Appendix 1 Compliant Typologies Page 16

A2 Appendix 2 Further Details on Sites Page 19

1. INTRODUCTION, SCOPE
AND METHODOLOGY
This technical paper presents the findings of
CABEs research into the capacity
implications of applying minimum housing
standards, developed in the context of
proposals being advanced by the Mayor of
London and which will be the subject of an
examination in public (EIP) in July 2010.
This report was prepared by CABE with the
assistance of Richards Partington
Architects. It is a useful background
document to inform CABE and others
thinking on the implementation of minimum
housing standards.
The purpose in preparing the technical
paper was to:-
1. Consider design solutions (in schematic
form) which are compliant with the proposed
housing standards contained within the
London Housing Design Guide (LHDG)1;
2. Deliver housing capacity (i.e. unit
numbers) in line with existing density
policies within the London Plan2.
granted. This is because a full analysis of each
1
London Housing Design Guide, Mayor of
London, July 2009 Consultation Version
2
As contained in the density matrix within
London Plan (Feb 2008) Policy 3A.3 / Draft
replacement London Plan (Oct 2009) Policy 3.4
Five sites in London have been used,
drawing on housing sites which have been
prominent in key parts of London.
Information relating to the existing proposed
schemes on these sites are in the public
domain as they have all been the subject of
planning applications. Further details of the
sites are shown in Appendix 2.
It is noted that the brief of this work was not
to deliver housing capacity in line with any
existing scheme on the five sites. Rather, we
considered that our work would be more
robust if the schematic design solutions
were developed to comply with housing
density policies within the London Plan3.
The methodology for this work was as
follows:-
1. An analysis of the existing proposals on
site and undertaking an assessment of
the schemes against the LHDG to
identify significant areas of non-
compliance4.
Barking Riverside Barking & Dagenham
3
This work is for comparison and discussion
purposes only, with the schematic designs being
theoretical assessments and not necessarily
schemes for which planning permission would be
site (i.e. in relation to matters such as
overlooking, etc.) has not been undertaken.
4
It should be noted that any areas of non-
compliance is not a criticism of the existing
proposal on each site, as the requirements within
the LHDG were not a factor in their original
design.
Significant non-compliance was defined as a
problem requiring alterations that would
require changes to the overall size of
dwellings, and the overall configuration of
the buildings.
2. Problems that could be addressed
through, for example, the rebalancing of
internal areas were not considered
significant. Bearing in mind these
problems and the London Plan density
matrix, alternative proposals were drawn
up for each non-compliant scheme.
A range of standard LHDG compliant
designs were developed and are illustrated
in Appendix 1. These helped make the
process of designing schemes for each site
more efficient.
The five sites considered are set out below.
SITE BOROUGH
City Quarter Tower Hamlets
Church Street Newham
Mortimer Road Brent
Curwen Apartments Newham
The purpose of identifying areas of non-
compliance retrospectively is simply to enhance
the understanding of the impacts of the LHDGs
requirements.
1
2. CITY QUARTER FIGURE 1 - CITY QUARTER EXISTING SITE AND PROPOSAL

Analysis of the Current Proposal

City Quarter in the London Borough of

Tower Hamlets is a 0.25 hectare site on the
eastern fringe of the City of London. The site
has the highest level of accessibility (PTAL
6b). The site is part of the wider
redevelopment of Goodmans Fields. The
part of the project considered here
comprises the conversion of a listed
commercial building, The Sugar House, and
the construction of a new-build apartment
building alongside.

The current proposals have a density of 348

units per hectare. This is within the 215-405
units per hectare range set by the London
Plan density matrix.

In both buildings there are a significant

number of units that fail to achieve the
overall sizes required by the LHDG.
Consequently, many of the internal rooms
are also too small. Many of the apartments
do not achieve the dual aspect requirement.

2
Analysis of the Current Proposal

The drawings on the right show for the

typical floors in both building, those units
that do not meet the LHDG requirements FIGURE 2 - EXISTING PROPOSAL SHOWING UNITS NOT MEETING KEY LHDG REQUIREMENTS
relating to dual aspect or minimum floor
area. A significant number of units fail to
meet the minimum sizes and a small
number of single aspect 1-bedroom units
are north facing and therefore do not meet
the requirements.

Within the Sugar House the constraints of

the existing structure are responsible for the
undersizing of three out of the four affected
units. Both buildings comply with the
requirement for no more than 8 units per
floor to be served by a single stair core.

Top Hoopers Yard typical floor

Below Sugar House typical floor

3
Analysis of the Current Proposal
The drawings on the right show for the FIGURE 3 - EXISTING PROPOSAL SHOWING UNITS NOT MEETING KEY LHDG REQUIREMENTS
typical floors in both building, those rooms
within dwellings that do not meet the
minimum space standards.

Typically, where units are undersized overall

there is a consequential shortfall in the sizes
of bedrooms and living areas. In a few
situations, the living area appears to be
disproportionately large at the expense of
the bedrooms and thus a rebalancing of the
internal layout would be possible to bring the
design into compliance with the LHDG.

It also shows those units that have no or

insufficient private outdoor space. In the
case of the Sugar House, it is clear that its
listed faade is one of the reasons why
outdoor space has not been provided to
some apartments. In other cases, however,
the provision that exists is simply insufficient
to meet the requirements.

Top Hoopers Yard typical floor
Below Sugar House typical floor

4
Compliant Proposals
The London Plan Density Matrix range of

215-405 units per hectare translates into a
range of 54 101 units for this site. Within the
new-build Hoopers Yard a reconfiguration of
the layout allows all units to meet the LHDG FIGURE 4- HOOPERS YARD TYPICAL FLOORPLAN - LHDG COMPLIANT DESIGN
(see left). Within the existing Sugar House
building some improvement is possible but
the constraints of the structure mean that
some units are too small to qualify as 1-
bedroom flats. Because of listed building
status some units do not have the required
external space provision.

Unit Mix

24 x 2-bed, 4-person flats

18 x 2-bed, 3-person flats

36 x 1-bedroom flats

12 x studios (less than 50m2)

TOTAL UNITS - 90

Note: The figures above are based on the

assumption that all floors have the same
layout, since full floor plans were
unavailable.

Compliant Proposals

Working within the listed existing structure of

the Sugar House imposes certain
constraints that make it difficult to fully
comply with the LHDG. Despite the
difficulties it is possible to bring several of
the undersized apartments into compliance.
FIGURE 5 - SUGAR HOUSE TYPICAL FLOOR - LHDG COMPLIANT DESIGN
However, in two instances it is not possible
to enlarge the flats sufficiently to become 1-
bedroom flats and must therefore be classed
as studios. Due to the need to preserve the
outward appearance of the building it is not
possible to provide balconies on the street
side. Therefore, four of the flats do not have
any outdoor space provision. However, for
the other three, it is possible to provide
larger balconies on the courtyard side in line
with the LHDG requirement.

6
3. CHURCH STREET
FIGURE 6 - CHURCH STREET EXISTING SITE AND PROPOSAL

Analysis of the Current Proposal

Church Street, Plaistow is a 0.2 hectare site

in a mixed urban setting in East London.
The site has a high level of accessibility:
PTAL 4.

The current proposals have a density of 264

units per hectare. This is slightly above the
70-260 units per hectare range set by the
London Plan Density Matrix.

The accommodation is divided between two

buildings. The building at the rear of the site
complies with most aspects of the LHDG
although there are some rooms that do not
achieve the minimum required widths.

The building at the front of the site is more

problematic, as it contains a significant
number of single aspect flats including
several north facing one-bedroom
apartments.

Generally, most units lack the necessary

provision of external space.

7
Analysis of the Current Proposal

The drawings on the right show for the
FIGURE 7 - EXISTING UNITS NOT MEETING KEY LHDG REQUIREMENTS
ground floor and a typical upper floor, those
units that do not meet the LHDG
requirements relating to dual aspect.

It should also be noted that the building at

the front of the site facing onto Church
Street has more than 25 dwellings served
from a single lift.

Whilst an additional lift in these situations is

not a mandatory requirement of the LHDG, it
is recommended.

LEFT Ground Floor / RIGHT Typical Upper Floor




8

Compliant Proposals

The drawings on the right show for the
ground floor and a typical upper floor, those
rooms within dwellings that do not meet the
minimum space standards. FIGURE 8 - EXISTING UNITS NOT MEETING KEY LHDG REQUIREMENTS

It also shows those units that have no or

insufficient private outdoor space.

Despite these shortcomings, all dwellings do

at least appear to meet the overall areas
required by the LHDG.

LEFT Ground Floor / RIGHT Typical Upper Floor

Compliant Proposals

The London Density Matrix range of 70-260

units per hectare translates into a range of
15-54 units for this site. FIGURE 9 - CHURCH STREET LHDG COMPLIANT DESIGN

The study shows that a range of units sizes

can be provided on the site that comply both
with the LHDG and the London Density
Matrix. The proposed building would have 5
storeys, as per the existing proposals.

Unit Mix

4 x 4-bedroom duplex

9 x 3-bedroom flats

21 x 2-bedrom flats

13 x 1-bedroom flats

TOTAL UNITS - 47

Note: The proposed unit mix achieves

habitable rooms/ unit ratio of 3.36, which fed
into the London Density Matrix results in
revised maximum of 255 units/ha or 47
units.

FAR LEFT Ground Floor

ABOVE RIGHT Building Massing Before
BELOW RIGHT Building Massing After

10
FIGURE 10 - CHURCH STREET LHDG COMPLIANT DESIGN

LEFT Second Floor

CENTRE Third Floor
RIGHT Fourth Floor

11
4. BARKING RIVERSIDE

Analysis of the Current Proposal

Barking Riverside is a large development in

the Thames Gateway. The site has a
moderate level of accessibility: PTAL 2/3.

The BEBO block is one of the housing FIGURE 11

typologies that form part of the overall BARKING RIVERSIDE
masterplan. Analysis of one of these blocks EXISTING SITE AND PROPOSAL
has shown that the number of units achieved
falls within the 70-170 units per hectare range
set by the London Density Matrix, equivalent
to 167 units per hectare.

The analysis has identified that the design is

largely compliant with the LHDG.

Importantly, the overall units sizes, open
space provisions, floor to ceiling heights,
access arrangements and dual aspect
provisions are fully compliant. There are a few
minor issues to do with room sizes that it was
thought could be resolved without difficulty.

Consequently, alternative proposals were not

developed for this site.

12
5. MORTIMER ROAD

Analysis of the Current Proposal

Mortimer Road, Brent is a 0.1 hectare site in a
suburban setting of terraced houses. The site
has a very high level of accessibility: PTAL 6a.

The current proposals for Mortimer Road,

Brent have a density of 142 units per hectare.
This is slightly above the 70-130 units per
hectare range set by the London Plan Density
Matrix.

The three storey building has two stair cores

and contains 14 units. Some internal rooms FIGURE 12
failed to meet the required sizes and in MORTIMER ROAD
particular the bedrooms are too narrow.
EXISTING SCHEME
The portion of the site available for building
appears to be constrained by the general
building frontage line along the street and a
right-of-light for an adjacent property. The
height also appears constrained to three
storeys.

13
Compliant Proposals FIGURE 13 - MORTIMER ROAD LHDG COMPLIANT DESIGN

The London Density Matrix range of 70-130
units per hectare translates into a range of 7-
13 units for this site.
The study shows that a range of units sizes
can be provided on the site that comply both
with the LHDG and the London Plan Density
Matrix. OPTION 1

In both cases the proposed building would

have 3 storeys. In option 1 there would be one
stair core. In option 2 there would be two.

Option 1

6 x 3-bedroom flats

3 x 1-bedroom flat

TOTAL UNITS 9

Option 2

9 x 2-bedroom flats

3 x 1-bedroom flat

TOTAL UNITS 12
OPTION 2

14
6. CURWEN APARTMENTS SCHEME

Analysis of the Current Proposal
FIGURE 14 - CURWEN APARTMENTS, JOHN STREET, EXISTING SCHEME
Curwen Apartments, John Street, Stratford is
a 0.6 hectare site in a mixed urban setting in
East London. The site has a high level of
accessibility: PTAL 4.

The current proposals have a density of 172

units per hectare. This is within the 70-260
units per hectare range set by the London
Density Matrix. The analysis identified that the
design was largely compliant with the LHDG.

Importantly, the overall units sizes, open

space provisions, floor to ceiling heights,
access arrangements and dual aspect
provisions are fully compliant. There are a few
minor issues to do with room sizes that it was
thought could be resolved without difficulty.

Consequently, alternative proposals were not

developed for this site.

15
APPENDIX 1
HOUSING TYPOLOLOGIES

To make the process of designing the case
study sites more efficient, a range of different
LHDG compliant building types were
developed.

Example 1 shows buildings which approach

the limit for the maximum allowable number of
dwellings that can be accessed from each
stair core, which is up to 8. These
arrangements work best for stand-alone
buildings and are less easily integrated into
tight urban sites. The orientation of these
blocks is important as the single-aspect 1-
bedroom apartments cannot be north facing or
within 45 of north.

EXAMPLE 1

16


Example 2 shows how two compact 2-

bedroom units can be paried around a single
core. The units are dual aspect and at 70m2
meet the minimum area set out in the LHDG.
A 7m2 balcony is provided and there is 27m2
of living space. The block has a relatively
shallow plan; only 9.5m and so is suitable for
sites with limited depth. Multiple blocks can be
joined together to form a continuous frontage.
This type is particularly suitable for low-rise
blocks as no lift is required if there are fewer
than 4 floors.

Example 3 shows how three units can be

paried around a single core. This type has the
advantage of easily providing a range of unit
sizes. The 2 and 3 bedroom apartments are EXAMPLE 2
dual aspect. The 1 bedroom apartment is
single aspect and must therefore not face
north. The block has a medium depth of
13.5m. Multiple blocks can be joined together
to form a continuous frontage. Balconies are
provided in accordance with the area
requirements of the LHDG.

EXAMPLE 3
17
Example 4 shows how three units can be
paried around a single core. This type has the
advantage of easily providing a range of unit
sizes. The 2 and 3 bedroom apartments are

dual aspect. The 1 bedroom apartment is
single aspect and must therefore not face
north. The block has a medium depth of
13.5m. Multiple blocks can be joined together
to form a continuous frontage. Balconies are
provided in accordance with the area
requirements of the LHDG.

EXAMPLE 4

18
APPENDIX 2 FUTHER SITE DETAILS

The following information relates to the original schemes proposed for each of the sites considered in this technical paper. It is provided for information and
for completeness.

SITE BOROUGH DEVELOPER ARCHITECT

City Quarter, Leman Street Tower Hamlets Berkeley Homes Sheppard Robson

Church Street Newham One Housing Group Allford Hall Monaghan Morris

Barking Riverside Barking & Dagenham Homes & Communities Agency / Bellway Barton Willmore (Agent)

Mortimer Road Brent Crossier Properties Ltd Chassey Last Architects

Curwen Apartments, John Street Newham East Thames Group Greenhill Jenner Architects

19