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

2. Overarching themes

This chapter provides an overview of the overarching themes emerging from the consultation responses. It provides a summary of the responses to the closed questions before discussing the recurring themes that were raised repeatedly in open comments across the consultation.

Quantitative summary

Analysis of the closed questions shows broad support for the proposals put forward in the consultation. Typically, for each question, over half of the respondents who answered agreed with all the proposals outlined in the question, with around seven to eight in 10 agreeing with either some or all proposals in questions where multiple proposals were presented.

Across the 34 questions where respondents were asked if they agreed with all, some, or disagreed with the proposals, the highest levels of agreement – that is, agreed with some or all of the proposals – among those who answered were recorded for the following proposals for the updated Housing for Varying Needs design guide:

• 92% agreed (70% agreed with all) – 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, eight power sockets in the living room, six power sockets in each remaining room, that is any other room which is not a bathroom or WC compartment, and at least six power sockets elsewhere in the home; that power sockets within the above requirement should be included at the designated desk or work space, and at both the telephone and television outlets; and that a power socket in addition to the above requirement should also be provided at each flight of stairs within a dwelling to allow, for example, for a future stair lift installation?
• 88% agreed (53% agreed with all) – Question 26, In cases where a wet floor shower facility is not provided in the dwelling, how do you feel about the proposal to update clause 14.2.6 of the current guide to require: that an electrical connection and a capped drainage connection should be installed in the main bathroom to allow for its future installation; that the floor build up in the proposed area for a future wet floor shower should be able to accommodate a tray former and associated plumbing with minimal disruption at a later date; that if the floor is of solid concrete construction, a dropped section should be built in to meet the requirement of the second [bullet] point above; and that adjacent walls should be of robust construction to be capable of supporting a shower screen to enclose the shower area or grab rails if required? (This question applied to all dwellings except for those specifically designed for wheelchair users (where separate design standards are provided).)
• 88% agreed (45% agreed with all) – Question 2, How do you feel about the proposals for Section 6 of Part 1 of the current guide? [overall plan of the dwelling]
• 88% agreed (45% agreed with all) – Question 27, How do you feel about the proposal to update clause 14.8.2 of the current guide to require: that accessible sanitary accommodation located on the principal living level, where the accessible bath or shower is located on another level, should be capable of being adapted to accommodate a future shower or form a larger space for wheelchair users at a later date; that this space allowance should contain an electrical connection and a capped drainage connection; that the floor build up in the proposed area for a future wet floor shower should be able to accommodate a tray former and associated plumbing with minimal disruption at a later date; that if the floor is of solid concrete construction, then a dropped section should be built in to meet the requirement of the third [bullet] point above; and that adjacent walls should be of robust construction to be capable of supporting a shower screen to enclose the shower area or grab rails if required? (This question applied to all dwellings except for those specifically designed for wheelchair users (where separate design standards are provided).)
• 87% agreed (79% agreed with all) – Question 32, How do you feel about the proposals for Section 15 of Part 1 of the current guide? [interior finishes]
• 87% agreed (56% agreed with all) – Question 35, How do you feel about the proposals for Section 17 of Part 1 of the current guide? [heating, ventilating and water services]
• 87% agreed (51% agreed with all) – Question 10, How do you feel about the proposals for the rest of the clauses within Section 8 of Part 1 of the current guide? [communal access areas, stairs and lifts to flats]

Question 16 and Question 17 recorded the least support across the 34 questions which asked respondents if they agreed with all, some, or disagreed with the proposed changes to the Housing for Varying Needs design guide:

• 60% agreed (33% agreed with all) – Question 17, How do you feel about the proposal: to require that a through floor lift should be installed between floors in cases where the dwelling is specifically designed for wheelchair users and is constructed on more than one level; to require that the entry to the lift at any level should not be in an area which impacts on an occupant’s privacy, for example, in a bedroom; to require that the floor of the lift should be a minimum size of 1650mm by 1100mm; and to require that there should be space allowance for an 1800mm clear turning circle directly outside of the entrance to the lift on each floor?
• 69% agreed (41% agreed with all) – Question 16, How do you feel about the proposal to update clauses 10.2.1, 10.2.2 and 10.2.3 of the current guide: to require that corridors in individual dwellings should be at least 1200mm wide; to require that other than on a wall opposite a doorway, an obstruction such as a radiator should project by no more than 100mm, reducing the corridor width to not less than 1100mm over a maximum length of 1200mm; and to include reference within the updated guide to the fact that, in cases where a corridor has an exposed right angle turn, a splay of 200mm to 300mm at the corner would allow easier circulation? (This question applied to all dwellings, with the proposed design criteria outlined in the first and second [bullet] points being noted as being delivered ‘as standard’ in future.)

Seven further questions presented respondents with one specific proposed update to the Housing for Varying Needs design guide and asked if they agreed, disagreed or were neutral. Agreement with these specific proposals was typically lower than recorded in the 34 questions asking about multiple proposals, but this could again reflect the nature of the answer options.

• the highest agreement with a proposal was recorded for Question 23 – 72% agreed with the proposal to require that pelmet lighting under wall units should be provided in kitchens
• question 33 garnered the least support of these seven questions – 50% agreed with 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

In questions about the Scottish Accessible Homes Standard:

• at Question 42, 64% agreed with some or all of the exceptions that the Scottish Government is proposing be used to identify the design criteria within the updated Housing for Varying Needs design guide that will not be transposed into building standards
• just over two-fifths (43%) of respondents who answered Question 43 felt that all the proposed criteria would be appropriate to apply to all new housing across all tenures and 38% said some but not all criteria would be appropriate

Differences by respondent type

There were some differences in responses among individual and organisational respondents across the consultation. In general, among respondents who answered the closed questions, individuals tended to be more supportive of the proposals than organisations. For example, 80% of individuals agreed with all the proposals set out in Question 16 which related to proposed updates to clauses 10.2.1, 10.2.2 and 10.2.3 of the current Housing for Varying Needs design guide in relation to corridors, while 32% of organisations agreed with all and 34% agreed with some. However, there are also examples where organisations were more supportive than individuals. For instance, 78% of organisations agreed with some or all the proposals for Sections 1 to 5 of Part 1 of the current Housing for Varying Needs design guide (Question 1), compared with 43% of individuals.

Among organisations, responses from housebuilders and property developers who answered the closed questions tended to be less supportive of the proposals within the consultation than other types of organisation. It is important to note however that a large number of housebuilders and property developers did not answer the closed questions because they submitted campaign responses which did not directly align with the consultation questions. However, the campaign responses also indicated opposition to many proposals.

Proposals for the Housing for Varying Needs design guide laid out in Question 4, for example, about entrance platforms requiring to have dimensions of at least 1500mm by 1800mm in cases where a communal entrance door opens outwards in buildings containing dwellings, attracted little support from housebuilders and property developers, 67% of whom disagreed with the proposal, compared with 23% among all organisational respondents. Similarly, 75% of housebuilders and property developers disagreed with proposals for the Housing for Varying Needs design guide which would require kitchens in dwellings specifically designed for wheelchair users to be of a size that allows a clear space of 1800mm in front of fittings and appliances to allow a wheelchair user space to manoeuvre and turn through 180^o (a circular area of 1800mm diameter) (Question 24). This compared with 28% of all organisations.

In the question-by-question analysis presented in Chapters 4 to 20 in this report, a summary of the responses to closed questions is included alongside the analysis of each question. Further details, including a full breakdown of responses by organisation type, are in Appendix B.

Overarching qualitative themes

While responses to the closed questions were broadly supportive, a range of views were expressed in open comments. On average, half of respondents who responded via Citizen Space left a qualitative comment at each open question, and some explained their views in alternative format responses. In the same way the quantitative analysis is based only on those respondents who answered the closed questions, the qualitative analysis represents the views of respondents who chose to comment.

It is important to note that supporters of proposals often acknowledged potential challenges or impacts to implementing the proposals, many of which were also raised by those who opposed the proposals. Therefore, the qualitative analysis should be used to understand the range of views expressed, while the quantitative analysis demonstrates levels of agreement with each proposal.

Given the broad nature of the consultation, many themes were evident in responses to each open question. These are discussed in the question-by-question analysis later in this report. However, a few themes emerged repeatedly across the consultation questions. The most prevalent of these was cost implications. Other common themes included potential advantages and disadvantages for residents, opposition to implementing proposals ‘as standard’, and calls for more information and clarification. These are detailed below in order from most to least commonly mentioned.

Cost implications

Respondents who responded via Citizen Space discussed the perceived cost implications of the proposals in response to nearly every open question. This was a significant theme, but with varying prevalence in each question, and there was little discussion of the specific costs involved or any other supporting evidence. This theme was more prevalent in responses to questions about the updated Housing for Varying Needs design guide but was also raised in relation to the Scottish Accessible Homes Standard.

Comments focused on perceived costs related to the installation and maintenance of items required to implement the proposals, such as through floor lifts (in cases where the dwelling is specifically designed for wheelchair users and is constructed on more than one level), as well as the increased cost of building larger properties, which many respondents assumed will be necessary to accommodate the requirements outlined in the proposals. Respondents argued the proposals could increase costs for developers and landlords. This could translate to inflated property prices and rent costs, reduced housing affordability, and decreased supply of homes, especially smaller, more affordable properties.

For example, with respect to the Housing for Varying Needs design guide, many respondents commented on the assumed costs of the proposals for (a) entrances to individual dwellings (Question 3) (b) communal entrances (Question 7) (c) the area inside the entrance door in dwellings for wheelchair users (Question 14) and (d) corridors in dwellings (Question 16). Several respondents also warned about costs for proposals for the Housing for Varying Needs design guide relating to (a) entrance doors to communal access areas (Question 6) (b) kitchens in dwellings specifically designed for wheelchair users (Question 24) and (c) bathrooms in dwellings specifically designed for wheelchair users (Question 28).

Across the questions noted above, organisations were more likely than individuals to comment on potential cost implications, especially local authorities, housebuilders and property developers and Registered Social Landlords.

Participants across some consultation events noted that increased Scottish Government funding may be required, especially for social landlords, to meet the proposals for the Housing for Varying Needs design guide.

“In principle, we agree with these proposals. However, these changes will result in additional floor space and additional costs. When considering affordable housing, this may result in fewer units being delivered for the same or a more expensive cost. This must be matched by Scottish Government subsidy.” – Organisation

“We agree this makes sense, however implementing the standard will impact on cost due to having to increase the footprint of the accommodation to allow for the additional circulation space.” - Organisation

Less commonly, other costs for residents were identified in responses to some questions about the Housing for Varying Needs design guide. For example, some called for clarity about how far residents would be responsible for maintenance costs related to through floor lifts in dwellings which are specifically designed for wheelchair users and are constructed on more than one level (Question 17). Similarly, some assumed that the proposals outlined in Question 16 about corridors in dwellings would increase the size of dwellings and lead to potentially higher energy bills as a result of having a larger area to heat. Some referred to potentially increased costs due to the proposal for the area inside the entrance door (for all dwellings except those specifically designed for wheelchair users) (Question 13).

“There may be fuel poverty implications for tenants as larger spaces will cost more to heat.” - Organisation

The 20 campaign responses submitted to the consultation (see Chapter 3) did not align with the consultation questions and were analysed separately. However, potential cost implications were the focus of these responses, five of which included additional text elaborating on the impact of the proposals on the supply of affordable housing in rural areas. The perceived cost of the proposals was also a recurring theme across consultation events.

Potential advantages and disadvantages

Potential advantages of the proposals for the Housing for Varying Needs design guide were also identified repeatedly. Most commonly, respondents, including those who submitted campaign responses, praised the proposals for enhancing housing accessibility by making it easier for people to enter and move around dwellings. Several respondents noted that (a) requirements relating to step free entrances to individual dwellings could enhance homes’ accessibility, especially for groups such as older people and disabled people (Question 3) and (b) colour coding floor levels and providing visual indicators could help people living with dementia (Question 9). Similar views about proposals related to kitchens for dwellings specifically designed for wheelchair users (Question 24) and the proposals related to bathrooms for dwellings specifically designed for wheelchair users (Question 29) were evident. The proposal for communal entrances was identified as beneficial for groups including families with prams and pushchairs in Question 7, and some respondents noted the potentially positive impact of the proposals about increased minimum door width requirements for entrances to individual dwellings (Question 11) on accessibility for disabled people and pram users. Comments about the importance of future-proofing homes and reducing the need for adaptations in the future were also evident, particularly among consultation event participants. Response to Question 43 also praised the proposed Scottish Accessible Homes Standard for its focus on future-proofing.

“We support the increased width of entrance door access, especially for wheelchair and walking frame users and those caring for young children in buggies/prams.” – Organisation

“Lack of turning and manoeuvring space is a huge challenge for people and trying to address this in terms of adaptations is often not possible so we welcome this proposal.” – Organisation

Potential disadvantages were also mentioned across many questions about the Housing for Varying Needs design guide. For instance, some respondents argued that allowing any weather moulding at the base of entrance doors to dwellings to intrude into the clear opening width of the door could reduce accessibility for some people (the consultation paper notes, however, that this was an optional standard) (Question 11). At the same time, some were concerned that proposals for dwellings that do not have an accessible bath or shower on the principal living level could impact space available for other functions such as storage (Question 27) – these particular proposals applying to all dwellings except for those that are specifically designed for wheelchair users.

“Storage space elsewhere cannot be poached to support creation of shower area.” - Organisation

Opposition to implementing proposals ‘as standard’

Another less common recurring theme was opposition to implementing certain proposed requirements in the updated Housing for Varying Needs design guide ‘as standard’. Across some questions, respondents argued that implementing proposals was too prescriptive and that proposals should be applied as needed or on a case-by-case basis. For example, several respondents felt that automatic opening and powered swing doors should not be installed ‘as standard’ at communal entrances in buildings containing dwellings, but would be beneficial in accommodation designed specifically for wheelchair users (Question 7). Similarly, several felt that through floor lifts should not be installed ‘as standard’ between floors in dwellings over one level intended for wheelchair users but should be implemented based on individual residents’ needs (Question 17). In Question 7 and Question 17, Registered Social Landlords, local authorities, and housebuilders and property developers accounted for most respondents who opposed the measures being implemented ‘as standard’.

“The majority of wheelchair houses do not require this. To apply to all would result in significant cost increases and density decreases. This standard should apply to one-off, particularly enhanced need." - Organisation

Similarly, some respondents to Question 43 noted that applying the Scottish Accessible Homes Standard criteria to all new housing across all tenures could be overly prescriptive and restrictive.

Calls for more information and clarification

Calls for more information and clarification were made across some questions about the updated Housing for Varying Needs design guide. These requests were typically made by small numbers of respondents, but, for example, several called for more guidance about the minimum storage space required in proposals in Section 12 (Question 22) and for more clarity about requirements around power sockets (Question 36). Participants at some consultation events, and responses to Question 41 (which asked for any practical suggestions for improving how the updated guide should be structured and/or presented), noted it would be helpful to see more designs, drawings and diagrams related to the proposals. Similarly, responses to Question 43 (which sought views on indicative design criteria that would apply to all new housing across all tenures) included calls for more information about certain clauses related to the Scottish Accessible Homes Standard.

“It may also be useful to mention locations and positions of sockets to suit wheelchair users.” - Organisation