Beds is Sheds Don’t Have to Be Terrible

Its better to design a well designed two bedroom house in a back yard than a badly designed big shed.  Accessory dwelling units – and yes even permitted development rights rules – should allow for this.  Who care if you have to enter through a house if the back yard is wide and deep enough.  They can be used as granny annexes. Airbnbs avoiding loss of the main house to Airbnb, houses for members of the extended family, avoiding kitchen and bathroom sharing.  As long as they are no more than 5m high, have a footprint no more than 2 sqm and are at least 15m from the nearest habitable room window of another house they should be allowed under ADU zoning rules or PD (subject to prior approval rules).

 

Seattle ADU by Microhouse

Seattle ADu by SHKS

2 thoughts on “Beds is Sheds Don’t Have to Be Terrible

  1. Uncharateristically simplistic view, of a very complex issue from you Andrew. Taking such a narrow view of the impact – one densely populated large metropolitan areas can cope with approach – is what’s made such a mess of residential developments in recent years. Prescott ruined thousands of housing developments, outside of those built areas with half decent public transport systems, with his lunatic maximum parking standards and it’s been down hill ever since.
    Throwing up a shed in the back garden, just because there’s enough room and it looks nice, ignores the impact on the rest of those who have to live with the intensification of activity that comes with more people. Would it be first come first served, using cumulative impact assessments, at some theoretical trigger point? Or, would everybody be able to have a crack at filling up the back garden, because they had enough space and didn’t mind people walking through the house to get to it? HMO heaven.
    What about the extra private cars these people would inevitably need in those areas not blessed with comprehensive transport systems?
    Knee-jerk housing policies, born out of a political desperation to be seen to be something, is another reason we are in this mess and why we ended up with a planning system of one size fits all, despite all the BS about evidenced based Local Plans. Ultimately, they all look pretty much the same, because that’s what the developers want.
    As a specific example. Why on earth would government produce a National Space Standard and then require the LPA to produce an evidence base to prove that they had sufficient grounds to make it a policy requirement for their plan area? Are people in Southend shorter/taller than those in Stockport? We already build some of the smallest boxes in the western world, yet they still want us to prove that we should stop.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s