New homes - enhancing accessibility, adaptability and usability: consultation analysis

9. HfVN Part 1 Section 11: Living and sleeping areas

This chapter presents the analysis of two questions, Question 20 and Question 21.

Question 20. How do you feel about the proposal to update clause 11.1.2 of the current guide to require:

• that the space that is needed for circulation and access to each item of furniture and to the windows, heating appliances etc within the living room(s) and all bedrooms must be 800mm wide
• that there should be space for a wheelchair to turn through 180º, that is a circular area of 1800mm diameter, in the living room(s) and all bedrooms to enable a wheelchair to turn through 180º?

Half of the respondents who answered this question (which applied to dwellings specifically designed for wheelchair users) agreed with all the proposals, 32% agreed with some but not all, 10% disagreed with all and 8% neither agreed nor disagreed. Individuals (77%) were more likely than organisations (45%) to agree with all the proposals.

Cost implications

Just over half of all respondents provided open responses to this question. The main theme raised by some who agreed with all the proposals and a few who disagreed with all, was the perceived cost implications of the proposals. This theme was most prevalent among Registered Social Landlords and local authorities.

Comments about existing standards and guidance

Some argued that the existing requirements are adequate, while a few proposed standardising the guidance with relevant English regulations.

“From our extensive experience the existing guidance is sufficient in 98% of cases and the change incurs unjustifiable additional cost versus the limited gain.” – Organisation

Other themes

Some respondents described the proposals as unnecessary for all wheelchair users and called for them to be implemented where there is need but not ‘as standard’. One organisation argued the proposals could help future-proof properties by including space for a hospital bed if needed, and a few proposed the standard should apply to all dwellings, not just those for wheelchair users. These respondents argued this could help with future-proofing by, for example, providing extra space in case ambulant residents need a wheelchair in the future.

Question 21. How do you feel about the proposals for the rest of the clauses within Section 11 of Part 1 of the current guide?

Half of the respondents who answered this question (51%) agreed with the proposals for the remaining clauses in Section 11 of Part 1 of the current guide (as set out in Annex K of the consultation paper). Just under a third (30%) agreed with some but not all, 4% disagreed with all and 14% neither agreed nor disagreed. Levels of agreement were broadly similar among individuals and organisations.

Potential advantages

Just under two-fifths of all respondents provided open comments in response to Question 21. Providing space for all residents to work or study from home in clause 11.2.1 was praised by some respondents. A few respondents felt the proposals had other benefits for residents including, for example, increased space for more home-based activities, such as exercise and socialising, and more space for storage. One said that allowing space for a hospital bed could help people to live at home rather than in a hospital or other care setting.

“We also understand the need to accommodate people working from home and the opportunities that open up for people with disabilities as a consequence of this - all very positive.” – Organisation

Updating furniture requirements

Some respondents argued that the furniture referred to, especially in sections 11.2 and 11.4, needs to be updated to reflect current technology, trends and needs. Suggestions included allowing space for a hospital bed if needed for people with chronic long-term health conditions, acknowledging that televisions can now be wall-mounted, and reducing storage space given that CDs and DVDs are now largely redundant.

“Furniture specification is outdated for current lifestyles, greater flexibility is required to meet changing needs of families, most tenants prefer open plan flexible living spaces that they can change to suit the changing needs of their families through the years. Living rooms are not used in the same manner as they were in the past.” - Organisation

Calls for more information

Some respondents called for more information or clarification on specific clauses about allowing space for living room, dining room and bedroom furniture. For example, respondents requested more clarity about, what is meant by ‘easy seating’ in 11.2.1, the measurements of built-in shelved storage to compensate for drawer storage referred to in 11.4.1, and which members of a household require a bed with access on three sides in 11.4.4 (relating specifically to dwellings for older or disabled people).

Potential disadvantages of the proposals

A small number commented on the proposals’ perceived cost implications. One called for adequate space to be provided for families to avoid the use of bunk beds for children under six years old due to safety concerns. Some respondents were opposed to any of the proposals being required ‘as standard’.