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

16. HfVN Part 1 Section 18: Power and communications

Question 36 and Question 37 covered proposals about power and communications.

Question 36. How do you feel about the proposal to update clause 18.2.3 of the current guide to require that all dwellings should have:

• at least eight power sockets in the kitchen
• at least eight power sockets in the living room
• at least six power sockets in each remaining room, that is any other room which is not a bathroom or WC compartment
• at least six power sockets elsewhere in the home
• that power sockets within the above requirement should be included at the designated desk or workspace, and at both the telephone and television outlets
• that a power socket in addition to the above should also be provided at each flight of stairs within a dwelling to allow, for example, for a future stair lift installation?

Seven in 10 (70%) of those who answered Question 36 agreed with all the proposals, 22% agreed with some, 1% disagreed with all and 7% were neutral. Responses were similar among individuals and organisations. With 92% of those answering agreeing with all or some of the proposals, this was the highest agreement recorded across the 34 questions which asked respondents if they agreed with all, some, or none of the proposals.

Potential advantages

Just over two-fifths of all respondents provided comments at Question 36. Two respondents felt the proposals could enhance residents’ safety. For example, providing more sockets allows for more options for furniture layout and could consequently reduce the risk of trips. One noted that additional sockets would help to accommodate the increasing amount of technology that helps people to live independently at home.

Suggested revisions

Many suggested revisions to the proposals or additional considerations. For example, some noted that a fused spur may be better than a socket for any future stairlift. A few noted the need to consider the height of sockets from the floor, especially for those who are unable or find it difficult to bend. One, for example, suggested most power sockets should be between 600mm and 1100mm off the floor. Provision for an overhead hoist should be considered according to a few, and two respondents each suggested a power supply for a profile bed in bedrooms, and more sockets in kitchens.

“A spur for the stairlift is probably the best way to facilitate use of the future stairlift provision and may be more useful to for instance people with hip replacements where the stairs are the biggest issue to them achieving full use of their home.” - Organisation

Calls for more information and clarification

Several respondents called for more information about various aspects of the proposals. Most notably, some requested more detail about the proposal for at least six power sockets elsewhere in the home. Other requests included information about locations and positions of sockets to suit wheelchair users, minimum requirements for upper and lower hallways, and more specificity about the location of sockets in kitchens.

Standard is already achieved

Several respondents reported meeting this standard already, with some noting the proposal aligns with existing standards.

“Requirements are generally in line with those currently implemented.” - Organisation

Potential disadvantages

Some respondents commented on the perceived cost implications of the proposals, and a few noted safety concerns such as trip hazards if power sockets are provided at the top of stairs.

Question 37. How do you feel about the proposals for the rest of the clauses within Section 18 of Part 1 of the current guide?

Among those who answered Question 37, 56% agreed with all the proposals for the rest of the clauses within Section 18 of Part 1 of the current guide (as set out in Annex R of the consultation paper), 23% agreed with some but not all, 1% disagreed with all and 20% neither agreed nor disagreed. Individuals (77%) were more likely than organisations (52%) to agree with all the proposals.

Potential advantages

Open comments were provided by a third of all respondents at Question 37. A few argued the proposals could help to future-proof properties by reducing the need for adaptations in the future. Two commented on enhanced accessibility and one suggested that providing individual door entry systems for first floor flats with an individual entrance door at ground level (clause 18.5.1) could reduce the risk of falls caused by people rushing downstairs to answer their door.

Calls for more information and clarification

Some respondents called for more information and clarification, most commonly about what is meant by ‘all dwellings should be digitally enabled at the point of handover’ in the proposed new clause for the guide. These respondents were unsure if this meant the dwelling should be ready for broadband connection at the time of handover or in the future, or something else.

Opposition to implementing proposals ‘as standard’

Some were opposed to implementing proposals ‘as standard’. Most of these respondents provided general comments in opposition to implementing proposals in Section 18 ‘as standard’ because they felt this was too prescriptive. A few identified specific clauses and questioned, for example, whether the proposed requirement for dwellings to be digitally-enabled at the point of handover should be ‘as standard’.

Potential disadvantages

A few commented on the proposals’ assumed cost implications and a small number noted that some clauses can be technically challenging such as 18.2.9 (the positioning of mains switches and consumer units) and 18.5.4 (which relates to future proofing dwellings specifically for older or disabled people).

Singular concerns about potential impacts on residents include security risks related to door opening systems, and a risk that the requirements could make housing resemble an institutional setting.