From which it sounds as if those caught up in the world of planning think this mix is fixed in stone - or even brick, timber or concrete. But the fact that properties can be converted into flats says that such designations are not permanent, and conversions can surely also be converted back if the demand for family houses increases. Obviously there are costs to such conversions, both the actual costs of making the changes, but also the cost of ending up with less satisfactory accommodation for the given household size than would have been possible if the original building had been planned with this size in mind.michael wrote:There are some areas of London (and I understand that New Cross and Brockley are reasonable examples of this) where there really is a shortage of family housing, and more is being lost all the time through conversion.
When couples living in their 1/2 bed flat chose to have children in these areas they have to move away from the area to find a place with enough space for them. This is not necessarily through being priced out, but because there is a shortage of family units in these areas - a phenomenon that is recognised in Lewisham Planning Policy for the last decade, possibly longer. What ends up happening is that these areas have high turnover of residents and no real sense of community.
These were some of the issues raised by some of the amenity societies and ward assembly coordinating groups, particularly those around Brockley/Telegraph Hill. We are very lucky in Sydenham and Forest Hill that there is a massive range of housing types and neither high rise/high density or family mansions dominate the urban environment. Getting the right mix is key to a quality urban community.
But people must have thought about this - most likely working for the BRE (formerly known as ''Building Research Establishment'). Well built housing should last for over 100 years - a length of time over which we can't possibly predict what household sizes they will be needed for. So surely someone will have thought about how to design flexible housing, in which changing the unit size can be done with minimal cost and other adverse impact? Could we have planning policies to favour such new build rather than commit us to specific numbers of bedrooms?