Mr. Eddie Punch:

Inconsistency is a problem but I would be a bit nervous that it would be solved by going to the worst possible level of consistency.

I do not say that lightly. There is a lot of ideology coming into this around one-off houses, aesthetics and energy ratings. There is a whole list of things that are fundamentally going to act as a barrier to progress, to be blunt about it. We need to have a reasonable and pragmatic approach to what is needed. At the end of the day, people need a home at a reasonably affordable price.

Many people as they grow older find themselves living in a house that is too big for their needs. That issue is relevant to this discussion. It reminds me of a family of four I know who are living in a rented house while the family farmhouse is being used by the remaining parent. The family is now renovating an old stone farm building for the mother to move into. There is a lot of potential for good succession plans here. One of the issues with family farms and succession is that the farm will not provide enough income for two houses. Part of that is linked to the cost of living. The cost of living is really about the younger family and how they pay the mortgage. In some cases, they may end up building a new house or renting or buying a house in the nearest town while the solution is there in front of them. The younger family with the kids should move into the old farmhouse and the parents should downsize into what could be a renovated shed or other building on the farm. There are many possibilities for practical solutions but the potential barriers are bureaucracy, ideology and planning officials who have a "can't do" rather than a "can do" attitude.