It has occured to me that people who go to the following link may not appreciate the humour implicit in the exchange. The only reason I have included this excerpt from Hansard is the stupidity of the response from Mr. MacColl. His comment that the standards "cannot be applied if the number of people is not known when the house is being built." is utterly absurd.
He is arguing that to build a house too big would be a disaster, and he is attempting to ally the number of occupants with the building materials to be used. While there is a very good argument for mandating minimum space standards for a given number or people inhabiting a dwellng (hence Parker Morris) there is no law against a smaller number of people buying or renting a large house.
Therefore it is ridiculous for a house builder to claim that they cannot build a house until they know how many people are going to live in it, or to argue that they don't know how large to make the rooms. It is simply a pathetic excuse to weasel his way out of building large rooms and allocating sufficient space for the occupants. That is why I have included the quote on my blog.
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1967/dec/08/parker-morris-standards
Every time I read this it bothers me that I've got it wrong and yet I don't think so. In the days when local authorities were designing and building houses then yes they would have allocated numbers of people per dwelling, and in the case of maximum occupancy that still applies, hence the overcrowding claims in social housing.
But where a speculative builder is knocking up executive four bedroom homes I don't imagine they give a damn how many people are going to live in it. Probably a couple with three teenage children.