Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2

Original poster

Why on earth is their not a compulsory minimum bedroom size for new build properties?

40 replies

Skinnywhippet · 05/04/2013 21:10

I recently looked around a show home in which one of the bedrooms couldn't actually fit an adult sized single bed. It me that is bizarre! Why was this house allowed to be marketed as 3 beds when it was clearly only really 2. I understand that new houses have small plots and gardens, but really, the stupid bedrooms really annoy me. There are so many different regulations on new houses, why not something simple like this to prevent a generation of matchbox sized houses.

OP posts:

Jan49 · 05/04/2013 23:00

I agree with you, OP. I don't think a room should be described as a bedroom unless it can fit an adult single bed.

Kendodd · 05/04/2013 23:15

I agree with you, OP. I don't think a room should be described as a bedroom unless it can fit an adult single bed.

Me too. Surely the definition of a bed room is a room with a bed in it, if you can't get a standard single bed in it then it's simply not a bedroom. Couldn't this be some sort of issue for Trading Standards? Afterall I doubt you could get away with selling hair-dryer that was really a hoover.

Kendodd · 05/04/2013 23:19

I helped a woman get rehoused by the council once, she was in a two bed place with her four children. The council moved her to a three bed, you know the style, two bed and box room with just enough room for a single bed, except, they had also put the hot water tank in the box room so now there was no way to get a bed in there. The council insisted it was a three bed though.

Anifrangapani · 05/04/2013 23:22

Parker Morris standard is still used but it only applies to social housing.

Anifrangapani · 05/04/2013 23:25

Kendodd all social housing must comply to minimum house sizes. 3 bed = 77sq m. Which la was it?

MintyyAeroEgg · 05/04/2013 23:26

Yanbu, I agree with you op. If you can't fit a bed into a bedroom then it is not a bedroom.

Kendodd · 05/04/2013 23:29

Somerset. I'm sure the house did meet the sqfoot requirements, it's just that they had then put a massive great water tank in the smallest bedroom.

lisianthus · 05/04/2013 23:35

YANBU it's an appalling misdescription that allows greedy developers to rip people off. Once these horrible shoeboxes are built, they are there for a very long time, so once they are up, there is no easy fix. When Britain has such a small supply of land, it's dreadful that builders are allowed to get away with covering it with rubbish poor quality buildings which won't properly house the inhabitants.

oldraver · 06/04/2013 00:32

I think it shocking the size of some so called bedrooms nowadays. One thing we liked about this house was the bedrooms all fit a double and have fitted wardrobes. I think in the US you have to have fitted wardrobes for it to be called a bedroom, that would be a good idea for here but I dont think it would ever happen

BreconBeBuggered · 06/04/2013 00:45

I know a family of five squeezed into a two-bedroom modern house that is almost certainly smaller than my first one-bedroom flat. Their tumble drier and coat hooks are both in the sitting room. The entire ground floor is smaller than my sitting room, mine being in an ex-council 3-bed semi, so hardly palatial in dimensions.

Sparrowp · 06/04/2013 04:35

Of course you can fit a single bed in there, you just have to put it upright and sleep standing up.

And if you have 2 children in there, you'll just have to stunt their growth. Try feeding them lots of coffee.

Haha.

Yes to building regulations.

LovelyBigBertha · 06/04/2013 05:07

I com

LovelyBigBertha · 06/04/2013 05:13

Whoops! I meant to say:

I completely agree it should be a trading standards issue. I'm amazed it's not but I suppose the Market doesn't seem to demand it. I would go further and say a 'bedroom' should be able to fit an adult sized single bed and a small wardrobe or chest of drawers and still be able to open / close the door unhindered. A 'boxroom' is still a useful room (for storage /cot etc) but should hardly be described as a bedroom.

CalamityJ · 06/04/2013 05:57

Loads of 1970s semis in our village have what I call 2 1/2 bedrooms. We wanted to stay in our house till DCs are 5+ so waited till the right house with 3 double bedrooms came on the market rather than settling for a 2 1/2 bed house. So it's nothing new OP. However all the 2 1/2 bed houses are occupied so it obviously doesn't bother other people as much as it bothers you and me!

TeWiSavesTheDay · 06/04/2013 07:57

I think they got away with it because people were buying 2/3 bed houses before they had children yet.

However most new buyers I know now are much older and won't buy if the bedroom is too small for a single (and therefore too small for bunks, ir anything else helpful in a small room!) So it is mostly investors buying them and renters living in them.

There should be regulation. A standard single bed is 6'3" it shouldn't be hard to build a room big enough. the rooms are often only a few inches too small, or have doors/cupboards in the wrong place. it's just really bad design.

legally I agree that these rooms should not be described as bedrooms.

Flip

1 2