Why even eco new house design is a damp squib!

As many will know, I am a passionate advocate of offsite/modular housing and all the speed, cost and performance benefits the transition to modern methods of construction (MMC) will afford the much-maligned UK housing sector.

However, in the obsession with built performance (and let's face it that should be the very least we should require from a 21st century building!) there are missing design factors that severly affect the functionality of a home; and in some cases are actually contributing to major health issues for the future.

Top of my list is INDOOR DRYING SPACE. In the UK, we live in a temperate climate. It rains. A lot. So hanging clothing outside is often not an option, even in the summer; and of course many don't have access to private outdoor space. So why is laundry drying not designed into new or refurbished homes? Dryers are a very expensive, high carbon option and aren't suitable for all fabrics anyway. Family households and Homes of Multiple Occupancy (HMOs) in particular are vulnerable because of the volume of laundry, in the case of families, or for HMO occupants because the only space they may have to dry laundry is their living/bedroom.

The extreme health consequences of exposure to damp/mould arising from laundry are well-documented; yet many still refer to it as a 'behavioural' issue and one that involves 'educating the occupants' not to hang their damp laundry on radiators. Really? Surely anyone with half an alternative would not wish to live in a space that looks like a scene from Widow Twanky's Washeteria. And suggesting that windows are opened to create essential ventilation for people already struggling to heat their homes only adds insult to injury.

No I'm sorry the people who need 'educating' are those in the design stage of new homes, refurbishment and HMO licensing!

The solution in most scenarios is very simple: create drying cabinets. The vast majority of kitchens have an external wall and can be vented to the outside. Almost all kitchens without a utility room have space for a washing machine. All that is required is to create a full-sized cabinet, probably at the end of the unit run, that houses the washing machine and has drying rails above. The rails ideally should be of the pull-down variety so the damp clothes can be loaded directly onto the rails and raised back into position inside the cabinet. Close the door and you have a ventilated drying space that ensures clothing can be air-dried safely. These spaces could be potentially heated or a mechanical system could be installed but it isn't essential. If washing machines are provided they should have a 1600+ spin speed and occupants encouraged to spin at the highest speed to ensure laundry is as dry as possible when it is hung up. This may not work for everything (bedding being a notable example) but if the majority of clothes and towels are air dried in the cabinet, the damp and mould issues in the living spaces are radically reduced.

The cost of these cabinets, especially if designed-in, would be negligible compared to the long-term issue of dealing with damp, mould and condensation - so why aren't drying solutions a Building Regulations requirement? I asked a manager from a major house-builder recently why they didn't include such innovations. The answer: "people are only interested in kitchens and bathrooms". That's like a car manufacturer saying they won't innovate as customers are only interested in the colour.

My second major issue is SPACE STANDARDS and more especially, the size of bedrooms. I realise developers are always trying to present their proposition in the most favourable light (I am a qualified marketer, I know how it works); but a bedroom has to fulfil a number of functions and household composition varies enormously in modern times. I have visited many new homes recently that are proudly asserting their performance credentials in terms of energy efficiency. That is fantastic and we need to keep up the good work! However, one near-zero carbon '3-bed' home I visited recently could by no stretch of the imagination be called a three bedroom home. At best it was one double bedroom in that it contained a double bed - but no space for a wardrobe, another room that could accommodate a single bed and not much more, and a third space for a desk or cot at the most. I am sorry but this is blatant 'Trades Description' fibbing of the highest order! Again minimum space standards to use a description should be enshrined in Building Regs and strictly enforced. People buying off-plan are unlikely to understand room sizes to that degree and showhomes, for those lucky enough to afford to buy, are almost always presented with minimal dressing to trick the viewer into thinking the room is bigger and seduce them with shiny kitchens and bathrooms ... it just isn't right.

What if a 3-bed semi is for two parents and two teenagers? Not every small house is a starter home. If I were to go further, I would say that bedrooms should include closets, as almost every other nation does, as this is the most space-efficient way of dealing with clothes storage. But if the developer opts to scrimp on this, they should be forced to provide enough space in each room for an appropriately-sized bed, wardrobe, chest of drawers and bedside cabinet for each occupant. In the main room, a dressing table and in children's rooms, a desk, could also be argued to be pre-requisites for functional space.

Again this isn't about being demanding or fussy. There is growing evidence that occupants in open-plan living spaces, especially teenagers, suffer from lack of privacy and especially quiet space to do homework, if their bedroom isn't big enough for a desk. So they often end up trying to work in a noisy area with TV and family noise or lying on their bed working from their laptop - hardly conducive to quality study.

Given that anything we build now will have a lifespan of 50-100 years, shouldn't we be trying a little harder to resolve as many issues as possible, so that homes are designed to be the best they can, not the least a developer can get away with? The idea here is to flag up a couple of examples of ways our mass housing sector is improving at a snail's pace compared to the holistic thinking that should ensure that the speed/cost gains that we can achieve with modular housing, can be translated into higher quality homes that are flexible, fit for purpose and fit for the future, in respect of occupant needs.

Sarah Daly

Sustainable Development Strategist

@SustSarah

Tel: +44 7818 888333