A Royal Institute of British Architects (Riba) report released this week warned that an upcoming review of social housing minimum standards could leave a new generation of homeowners in inadequate housing if government "give the go-ahead for builders to produce another generation of poor-quality homes".
British homes are the smallest in western Europe since Margaret Thatcher's government scrapped minimum space standards for all tenures except social housing in 1980, and Riba fear that further deregulation will lead to the development of even more homes that do not provide the space, warmth or light that residents want.
Writing for the Guardian Housing Network, Riba policy manager Rebecca Roberts-Hughes highlighted the inequality of existing space standards:
Some affordable housing developers have to meet minimum space standards as part of their funding requirement, which has created a bizarre situation in which people who buy and rent homes privately have less space and less flexibility than social tenants and are at a disadvantage if their household changes.
So should minimum space standards be enforced throughout social and private housing? The Home Builders Federation argue that more minimum standards will result in increased costs that will only be passed onto home buyers:
We are opposed to space standards. The objective of all this is to cut red tape and reduce standards, not the other way round. If you increase space standards it takes more land; that will increase the cost of the housing and will reduce the number of people that can afford it.
What do you think? Do we need greater regulation to encourage the development of larger homes across all tenures, or will this merely result in fewer homes being built at a higher cost than necessary?
Cast your vote below and tell us your thoughts in the comments section.
This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. Join the housing network for analysis, best practice and the latest job vacancies