Comparison of London Housing SPG Standards (LHDG) and CLG Housing Standards Review

Comparison of London Housing SPG Standards (LHDG) and CLG Housing Standards Review

Greyed text = assumed no issue, yellow highlight = major issue, green highlight = CLG standards are more arduous than Housing SPG

London Housing SPG Standards / Class. / Source / CLG Housing Standards Review / Comment /
1.0 / Shaping Good Places /
1.1 / Defining places /
1.1.1 / 1.1.1 Development Proposals should demonstrate:
a. how the design responds to its physical context, including the character and legibility of the area and the local pattern of building, public space, landscape and topography.
b. how the scheme relates to the identified character of the place and to the local vision and strategy or how bolder change is justified in relation to a coherent set of ideas for the place expressed in the local vision and strategy or agreed locally. / Baseline / LP Policy 7.4 and Building For Life / Not addressed in CLG Standards
May be addressed in other CLG Guidance / Assume this could still be covered by other London Plan Policy, although practitioners find it useful alongside other standards. /
1.1.2 / Development proposals should demonstrate:
a. how the scheme complements the local network of public spaces, including how it integrates with existing streets and paths.
b. how public spaces and pedestrian routes are designed to be overlooked and safe, and extensive blank elevations onto the public realm at ground floor have been avoided.
c. for larger developments, how any new public spaces including streets and paths are designed on the basis of an understanding of the planned role and character of these spaces within the local movement network, and how new spaces relate to the local vision and strategy for the area. / Baseline / LP Policy 7.5 (also 7.3, 5.10, 6.9 and 6.10) and Building for Life / Not addressed in CLG Standards
May be addressed in other CLG Guidance / Assume this could still be covered by other London Plan Policy, although practitioners find it useful alongside other standards. /
1.2 / Outdoor spaces /
1.2.1 / Development proposals should demonstrate that they comply with the borough's open space strategies, ensuring that an audit of surrounding open space is undertaken and that, where appropriate, opportunities to help address a deficiency in provision by providing new public open spaces are taken forward in the design process. / Baseline / LP Policy 2.18 and Building for Life / Not addressed in CLG Standards / Assume this would still be covered by other London Plan Policy, although practitioners find it useful alongside other standards. /
1.2.2 / For developments with a potential occupancy of ten children or more, development proposals should make appropriate play provision in accordance with the LP SPG, Providing for Children and Young People's Play and Informal Recreation. / Baseline / LP Policy 3.6
Building for Life / Not addressed in CLG Standards / Assume this would still be covered by other London Plan Policy, although practitioners find it useful alongside other standards. /
1.2.3 / Where communal open space is provided, development proposals should demonstrate that the space:
a. is overlooked by surrounding development;
b. is accessible to wheelchair users and other disabled people;
c. is designed to take advantage of direct sunlight;
d. has suitable management arrangements in place. / Baseline / LP Policy 2.18 and Building for Life / Not addressed in CLG Standards / Assume this could still be covered by other London Plan Policy, although practitioners find it useful alongside other standards. /
2.0 / Housing for a Diverse City /
2.1 / Appropriate density /
2.1.1 / Development proposals should demonstrate how the density of residential accommodation satisfies LP policy relating to public transport accessibility levels (PTALs) and the accessibility of local amenities and services, and is appropriate to the location in London. / Baseline / LP Policy 3.4 and Building for Life / Not addressed in CLG Standards / Assume this would still be covered by other London Plan Policy, although practitioners find it useful alongside other standards. /
2.2 / Residential mix /
2.2.1 / Development proposals should demonstrate how the mix of dwelling types and sizes and the mix of tenures meet strategic and local borough targets and are appropriate to the location in London. / Baseline / LP Policy 3.8 (also 3.10) and Building for Life / Not addressed in CLG Standards / Assume this would still be covered by other London Plan Policy, although practitioners find it useful alongside other standards. /
3.0 / From Street to Front Door /
3.1 / Entrance and approach /
3.1.1 / All main entrances to houses, ground floor flats and communal entrance lobbies should be visible from the public realm and clearly identified. / Baseline / Building for Life / Not addressed in CLG Standards (not even under Security) / This is not difficult to achieve, and fairly common sense, but worth stating for a minority of cases. /
3.1.2 / The distance from the accessible car parking space of requirement 3.3.4 to the home or to the relevant block entrance or lift core should be kept to a minimum and should be level or gently sloping [Lifetime Homes Criterion 2]. / Baseline / Lifetime Homes Criterion 2 / CLG 2.4_L2 communal parking close to entrance or lift core and level or gently sloping / No issue, if London is able to adopt Level 2 Standards /
3.1.3 / The approach to all entrances should preferably be level or gently sloping [Lifetime Homes Criterion 3]. / Baseline / Lifetime Homes Criterion 3 / CLG Access 1.1 All Levels - ramped approach (i.e gradients between 1 in 20 and 1 in 12) added to level or gently sloping allows stepped access only where unavoidable. / This is broadly acceptable provided that level or gently sloping (i.e. gradients between 1:20 and 1:50) is the preferred baseline standard /
3.1.4 / All entrances should be illuminated and have level access over the threshold, Entrance doors should have 300mm of clear space to the pull side, and clear minimum opening widths of 800mm or 825mm depending on the direction and width of approach. Main entrances should have weather protection and a level external landing [Lifetime Homes Criterion 4]. / Baseline / Lifetime Homes Criterion 4 / Detailed description of illumination in Security standards and external lighting for All Levels in 1.6 to communal approach routes and in 3.6 to communal entrances.
5.5_L2 covers 300mm pull space for individual entrances and 3.8_L2 in communal entrances
5.2 covers 800mm clear opening width for individual entrances and 3.1 for communal entrances.
3.7 says entrance landing area should be “fully covered” / Broadly covered in various places /
3.2 / Shared circulation within buildings /
3.2.1 / The number of dwellings accessed from a single core should not exceed eight per floor, subject to dwelling size mix. / Good practice / Design for Homes/Secured by Design / Not addressed in CLG Standards / This is very important for a number of reasons including security, environmental and social sustainability. It is not particularly difficult, as HATC baseline study found 80% of schemes in London already comply with this. /
3.2.2 / An access core serving 4 or more dwellings should provide an access control system with entry phones in all dwellings linked to a main front door with electronic lock release. Unless a 24 hour concierge is provided, additional security measures including audio-visual verification to the access control system should be provided where any of the following apply:
i. more than 25 dwellings are served by one core; or
ii. the potential occupancy of the dwellings served by one core exceeds 100 bed spaces; or
iii. more than 8 dwellings are provided per floor. / Baseline / Secured by Design / Security 3.1_L2 appears to cover this / No issue, if London is able to adopt Level 2 Standards /
3.2.3 / Where dwellings are accessed via an internal corridor, the corridor should receive natural light and adequate ventilation where possible. / Baseline / Not addressed in CLG Standards / Important for sustainability and security. Needn’t be very difficult to achieve. /
3.2.4 / The minimum width for all paths, corridors and decks for communal circulation should be 1200mm. The preferred minimum width is 1500mm, and is considered particularly important where corridors serve dwellings on each side (‘double loaded’) and where wheelchair accessible dwellings are provided. / Baseline / Lifetime Homes guidance / 1.10_L2 communal approach routes should be at least 1200mm wide. However L1 allows 1000mm for stepped access and 1500mmm passing space only included in L3 / Broadly aligned, but 1500mm preferred in corridors serving wheelchair accessible homes
BS 9266 requires 1500mm by 1500mm in front of each individual flat entrance door. /
3.2.5 / For buildings with dwellings entered from communal circulation at the first, second or third floor where lifts are not provided, space should be identified within or adjacent to the circulation cores for the future installation of a wheelchair accessible lift. / Good Practice / DD266 [has been replaced by BS 9266:2013, which asks for a lift or platform lift to serve 3 storeys (G+2), one lift to serve 4 storeys (G+3)] / 4.3._L2 requires lifts to first floor and basement. (see para 38 regarding the change to the LTH standard to require step free access to all LTHs).
4.4_L3 requires two lifts to any core serving 30 or more homes where one or more are to L3. / This is beyond the London Standards and will be difficult to achieve dense low rise housing types (e.g. flats above shops, stacked maisonettes). This also goes beyond current Lifetime Homes Standards and the newly published BS 9266 - It has been introduced by CLG on the basis that a Lifetime Home on an upper floor has to be accessed by a lift /
3.2.6 / All dwellings entered at the fourth floor (fifth storey) and above should be served by at least one wheelchair accessible lift, and it is desirable that dwellings entered at the third floor (fourth storey) are served by at least one such lift. All dwellings entered at the seventh floor (eighth storey) and above should be served by at least two lifts. / Baseline / 4.3_L2 requires lifts to first floor and basement.
Seventh floor lift access not addressed in CLG Standards (two lifts are only required where Level 3 homes are reached by a core serving 30 or more homes) / This is far beyond the London Standards and will be difficult to achieve, and is very restricting in terms of dense low rise housing types. /
3.2.7 / Every designated wheelchair accessible dwelling above the ground floor should be served by at least one wheelchair accessible lift. It is desirable that every wheelchair accessible dwelling is served by more than one lift. / Baseline / WHDG / 4.3_L3 broadly covers this. / Broadly aligned, although the preference for more than one lift is not covered in CLG standards /
3.2.8 / Principal access stairs should provide easy access* regardless of whether a lift is provided. Where homes are reached by a lift, it should be fully wheelchair accessible [Lifetime Homes Criterion 5]. / Baseline / Lifetime Homes Criterion 5 / This appears to be covered for all levels in 4.1 and 4.2 / No issue, if London is able to adopt Level 2 Standards /
3.3 / Car parking /
3.3.1 / Standard 3.3.1 (and Policy 6.13) - All developments should conform to LP policy on car parking provision (see Annex 2.3 of this SPG for guidance on implementation of relevant policy including LP Policy 6.13 and associated standards below). In areas of good public transport accessibility and/or town centres the aim should be to provide no more than one space per dwelling. Elsewhere parking provision should be broadly as follows, depending on location as indicated in Annex 2.4:
a. 4+ bedroom dwellings: 1.5 - 2 spaces per dwelling
b. 3 bedroom dwellings: 1 - 1.5 spaces per dwelling
c. 1 - 2 bedroom dwellings: Less than 1 per dwelling / Baseline / LP Policy 6.13 / Not addressed in CLG Standards / This would still be covered by other London Plan Policy, although practitioners find it useful alongside other standards. /
3.3.2 / Each designated wheelchair accessible dwelling should have a car parking space 2400mm wide with a clear access way to one side of 1200mm. ** / Baseline / DD266 [replaced by BS 9266 which also requires accessible bays of 3.6m wide] and WHDG / 3.3_L3 requires accessible parking bays for Level 3 houses / Broadly aligned /
3.3.3 / Careful consideration should be given to the siting and organisation of car parking within an overall design for open space so that car parking does not negatively affect the use and appearance of open spaces. / Baseline / Building for Life / Not addressed in CLG Standards / Important point to include in standards. Needn’t be very difficult to achieve. /
3.3.4 / Where car parking is within the dwelling plot, at least one car parking space should be capable of enlargement to a width of 3300mm. Where parking is provided in communal bays, at least one space with a width of 3300mm should be provided per block entrance or access core in addition to spaces designated for wheelchair user dwellings [Lifetime Homes Criterion 1]. / Baseline / Lifetime Homes Criterion 1 / 2.3_L2 and 2.4_L2 cover this / No issue, if London is able to adopt Level 2 Standards /
3.4 / Cycle storage /
3.4.1 / All developments should provide dedicated storage space for cycles at the following levels:
i. 1 per 1 or 2 bedroom dwelling; or
ii. 2 per 3 or more bedroom dwelling / Baseline / LP Policy 6.9 / Not addressed in CLG Standards / Assume this would still be covered by other London Plan Policy, although practitioners find it useful alongside other standards. /