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

14. HfVN Part 1 Section 16: Windows

This chapter presents an analysis of Question 33 and Question 34.

Question 33. How do you feel about the proposal to require that the main living room within the dwelling should be provided with a glazed area of not less than 1/8th of the floor area of that room?

Half of the respondents who answered Question 33 agreed with the proposal, 18% disagreed and 32% neither agreed nor disagreed. This proposal recorded the least agreement of the seven questions which asked respondents about a specific proposal. Support was higher among individuals, with 62% agreeing, than organisations (48%).

Potential advantages

Open responses to Question 33 were provided by half of all respondents. Several commented favourably about the increased natural light that this proposal would create in dwellings, citing benefits for health and wellbeing.

“In principle, [the organisation] agrees with the proposal for glazing, recognising the benefits that increased natural daylight has for people with dementia and for general health and wellbeing.” - Organisation

Potential disadvantages

The most prevalent drawback identified by respondents centred on the risk of overheating in the summer and heat loss in the winter. Many commented on this issue. A few identified other disadvantages including compromised privacy for residents and restrictions on placement of furniture within the room.

“Has summertime overheating been considered?” - Individual

Comments about other standards and regulations

Several respondents noted the importance of considering the relationship between the proposal with other standards and regulations focused on thermal efficiency, such as the Scottish equivalent to Passivhaus.

Other themes

Some respondents argued the proposal should not be implemented ‘as standard’. A few argued the proposal should go further by increasing the required glazed area, and by applying to all rooms in a dwelling, not solely the main living room.

Question 34. How do you feel about the proposals for the rest of the clauses within Section 16 of Part 1 of the current guide?

Just over half (53%) of those who responded to this question agreed with all the proposals for the rest of the clauses within Section 16 of Part 1 of the current guide (as set out in Annex P of the consultation paper), 28% agreed with some but not all, 3% disagreed with all and 17% neither agreed nor disagreed. Individuals (62%) were more likely than organisations (51%) to agree with all the proposals.

Potential disadvantages

Nearly two-fifths of all respondents provided open responses to this question.

Safety concerns were mentioned by several. These included dangers related to cleaning the outside of windows from inside, overheating, and children being able to open windows. However, building standards technical handbooks (section 4) address these issues and make provisions for protective barriers to prevent accidental falls. Some noted other disadvantages such as reduced privacy, limited options for the layout of furniture, and aesthetical drawbacks because of prescriptive design requirements.

“Moreover, a lower sill height could limit internal layout possibilities. It is essential to seek clarification on the definition of the impact on privacy, especially since this is anticipated to affect all bedrooms.” - Organisation

Opposition to implementing proposals ‘as standard’ was voiced by some because of their prescriptive nature.

Specific proposals that respondents disagreed with

Some identified specific proposals they disagreed with. A small number, for example, argued that the maximum 600mm sill height outlined in 16.2.1 (relating to living room windows and bedroom windows where privacy is not affected) may be unsuitable in some locations or rooms, one disagreed with the proposal for 16.3.2 due to its impact on bathroom layouts, and one suggested clause 16.3.3 should refer to locking mechanisms.