Government's Modular Housing Plan: A Capitulation to Populism Without Proper Scrutiny
The Government's decision to permit modular housing units up to 45sq m in back gardens without planning permission is criticized as a populist move lacking proper research. This approach risks creating substandard housing, exacerbating existing problems, and wasting public funds. Critics draw parallels to past economic crises caused by deregulation and unchecked market influence, urging a focus on affordable, family-suitable housing.
The Government's decision to allow modular housing units up to 45sq m in back gardens without planning permission is seen as a capitulation to a populist idea lacking proper scrutiny. This «shedsit» proposal, or auxiliary habitable dwellings, originated from a lobby group claiming it could deliver up to 350,000 small homes.
Critics argue the Government conducted no meaningful research into how these units would integrate with building regulations (e.g., disability access, ventilation), fire safety, infrastructure (sewage, water), existing communities (parking, overlooking), title issues, or the landlord-licensee relationship. Concerns also exist about the potential for an unpoliceable, substandard, cash-rent black market. The actual research behind the lobbyists’ plan estimated only 6,700 such homes, based on a sample of just 200 houses.
This move is part of a broader trend where politicians accept housing narratives without robust assessment, risking wasted time and taxpayer money on ineffective or exacerbating solutions. Past economic crises, like the 2008 property crash, were linked to domestic failures, including banks' herding instincts and poor risk insight, as highlighted by economists Klaus Regling, Max Watson, and Peter Nyberg. They emphasized the need for regulation to challenge market interests.
Currently, housing policy is industry-led, with a push for deregulation and lowered standards, including permitting «shedsits» and reducing apartment sizes to 32sq m studios. This echoes the deregulation in the finance sector that contributed to the economic crash. The lack of critical questioning on policies like subsidizing developers or increasing rents, coupled with a blind ideological belief in market efficiency, risks creating unsuitable, poor-quality, high-priced housing, leading to economic burdens, homelessness, and social division. Politicians should focus on promoting affordable, family-suitable, and purchasable housing.