Daily Mail just had an article on something similar - but costing $5,000, a tenth the price.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2568168/Tiny-houses-help-address-nations-homeless-problem.html

290 a week rent for 280 sq feet? That's in the neighborhood of $1,200 a month, thought this would be under $300 a month. Oh well back under the bridge it is mate!

I know it is difficult (sometimes impossible) to apply what one knows, based on their own experience and environment, to the live and experiences of the broader population of ones own country let alone the wider world but this is, to me, truly astounding.
I simply can't wrap my mind around the fact that approximately $1200US per month for 280 square feet of living space is a viable alternative to being homeless.
If this rent is being paid by the individual I just don't know what to say simply because I have no frame of reerence to judge such economic circumstances against.
If, however, this rent is being heavily or completely subsidised by the government it seems that the money could be better spent. But then again my opinion is skewed since I don't know the intricacies of the British governmental and social support systems.

Way too dear for what it is - Daily Mail had a DIY fancied-up garden shed / backyard 'den' kit recently would do the same job for much less! It looked virtually the same size and shape too. Put an 'ablutions' block every so often in the complex to solve the toilet problem (ensuite mentioned, but could then be smaller for more interior room) and you're on the go!

The rental prices are ridiculous - You can rent a good 3 bedroomed house in some parts of the country for less, even in the south. The question is why does everyone have to pile into London with its high prices - if you can't afford London prices get out of there - and there is life and jobs outside London.
Correction - There is a better life to be had outside London!

So the depreciation/capital repayment on the build is crica $100 a week, so that means it's still costing $200 a week for the cost of being on a tiny piece of brownfield land - so rental of $10k per annum just for the privilege of parking your box in London! Perhaps that should just stick the boxes somewhere land is cheaper!

I agree with it being placed where land is expensive and the rent would be lower.
I think it is along the lines of the tiny house movement. Some are really small and the price varies. A good e-mag is Tiny House Magazine. http://www.tinyhousemagazine.co/
Living small could be the next big thing. :)

This is no solution, it is simply designed to make more money off the young. Let's do the math. Costs $50,000 to build Lasts 60 years or 3,120 weeks rent per week (we'll go with the low end of $205 per week) $205 per week times 3,120 weeks (designed lifespan) = $639,600
Look at that return on investment! pay $50,000 now, receive $639,600 over the next 60 years.

No surprise they're expensive per square meter/foot because they require much the same plumbing as an ordinary 1 BR apartment and, apparently, have to be strong enough to support the weight of 2 other units. As for why London rather than elsewhere where land is cheaper, that's obvious all the way from the American West Coast. It's where the jobs are. The middle class & the wealthy in service heavy economies are affluent because there's many other people paid low wages. The term brownfield is usually used in the USA to describe sites where inhabited buildings can't be placed.

Lots of empty shipping containers can be had for the ready made and stack-able frames. Then you just hab out the insides and side the outsides.