Yes Michael, good point, not forgetting the S106 payments (tax) and the CIL payments (tax). S106 payments including payments for education, NHS, roads, open spaces and other services typically add up to around £10,000 per dwelling. CIL payments in Wandsworth are £575sqm and £50sqm for Mayoral. So that's another £60,000 on to the cost of each house in Government taxes which are passed on to the purchaser. On top of this affordable housing must be provided at offset costs of £71,000 per 3 bed dwelling (Merton affordable housing calculator tool). Add all that up and its an additional £141,000 per dwelling. In addition the amount of information, consultant reports and time required to make a planning application are all adding more cost (payed for by the purchaser). So take the additional £131,000 in badly designed over sized dwellings and add to the £141,000 in taxes and that makes an overall government levy of £272,000 PER 3 BED HOUSE! This is simply not sustainable. The government asks why no houses are being built, well there is the answer, who can afford to pay those additional taxes (and lets not forget stamp duty). The minimum space standards do not help, housing policy is out of control, radical change is required!
Ian / Industry Professional, The whole point is people have to be able to get on the housing ladder and dictating how much space you MUST purchase is wrong. Of course people have children but it does not mean we need to build inefficient houses. If we build to these space standards a new 3b / 5p house / apartment in the SE of England will cost a minimum of £800,000! Most people cannot afford that and will be forced into sub-standard rented accommodation or away from the areas they live, work and go to school in. This fractures communities and increases commuting times / CO2 production and worsens family life. In order for young people to get a start in life smaller accommodation needs to be available, which they can sell on later. The space standards make the situation of most people in the SE worse off and this has not been considered. These £800,000+ dwellings will only be purchased by overseas investors and rented at extortionate rates to those who cannot obtain a mortgage for them. My point was the mini was, and still is, a very well packaged starter car for a family on a budget. This is the accommodation we need in the SE of England.
This is the worst concept ever. What architects should be promoting is good design not minimum space standards. Any good architect should be capable of designing a 35sqm dwelling for 2 people. What is the point of 50sqm? Houses and apartments are already too expensive and dwellings are sold by the sq.ft. 50sqm / 540 sqft at £800 (current average Balham / Highbury prices) is £432,000. Anyone can make a 1 bed flat with 50sqm work, with clever design this can easily be reduced to 35 sqm by just eliminating a corridor. This would bring prices down to £301,000. Why should we be FORCED by these space standards to pay an additional £131,000 for a corridor? In addition mortgage companies typically charge 4x the purchase amount meaning the corridor you have been FORCED to purchase will have cost you £524,000 over 25 years. Lets promote good design, Alec Issigonis radically changed car design with the Mini and architects should be doing the same. We have limited space and resources and the minimum space standards are a step backwards towards the gas guzzling American V8 cars, not forwards.
Why do you always show a shot of strata insinuating it was built for wealthy people? Despite all the unfounded negative press it contains over 100 affordable apartments which are , Managed by family mosaic housing trust. It also has apartments for rent only! The market apartments were sold at manageable prices, under £250k for 1 beds and around £320k for 2 beds. Please don't tarnish this building any more with your biased, un researched information. Please for once, AJ, pick the phone up, do some proper journalistic research and get your facts right!
Comment on: Architects ‘squeezed out of middle class’
Its our own fault, we accept low salaries as we are 'blinded' by the prestige nature of projects. Partners and directors offer 'low' fees to gain prestigious work and then can only offer low salaries which the know will be accepted. If we turn down low paid work and stop doing free work and walk away from that ridiculous low pay offer then things will improve. I have lost count of the number of friends I have who work 80 hours a week, under pressure and stress for average pay (minimum wage if hours factored in) but are then happy as they get free pizza and a taxi home after 8pm and they are working on a mega 200 storey tower for the 19th richest man in the world in some 'BRICK' economy and wont that be good for their CV when they move on to their next low paid exploited job......