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

4. Sections 1 to 6 of Part 1 of the current Housing for Varying Needs (HfVN) design guide

This chapter presents the analysis of responses to Question 1 and Question 2, which cover Sections 1 to 6 of Part 1 of the current Housing for Varying Needs design guide. Clauses within Sections 1 to 5 provide information on people’s needs, contain a set of assumptions on issues such as the extent of a person’s ability to reach things within the home and equipment sizes (for example, the typical dimensions of walking aids), discuss the location of housing and the design of the surrounding environment, and provide guidance on the layout and form of a development or group of dwellings. Section 6 contains a few clauses covering the overall plan of a dwelling.

Question 1. How do you feel about the proposal to not include the clauses within Sections 1 to 5 of Part 1 of the current Housing for Varying Needs design guide in the updated guide?

Nearly half (45%) of the respondents who answered Question 1 agreed in full with the proposal to not include the clauses within Sections 1 to 5 of the current guide in the updated guide, 26% felt that some clauses should be included and 20% disagreed and felt all clauses should be included. Nine per cent neither agreed nor disagreed. Agreement was higher among organisations, 52% of whom agreed with all of the proposal compared to 14% of individuals, whereas 43% of individuals felt all clauses should be included in the updated guide (compared to 15% of organisations). Fourteen per cent of individuals were neutral, compared with 8% of organisations.

Potential advantages

Just over half of all consultation respondents provided open comments. Several respondents, most of whom agreed with the proposal, argued that removing these clauses would reduce duplication with other standards and regulations, such as Building Standards and Affordable Housing Supply Programme guidance.

“We agree with the proposal as information is provided in the Affordable Housing Supply Programme process and [procedures] guidance.” - Organisation

Potential disadvantages

However, many respondents argued that some or all of the clauses should be retained because they provide helpful context. These respondents suggested this content would help building, housing and design professionals understand the needs of different groups and the rationale for the requirements in the guide. This theme was more prevalent among health, equality and safety organisations, local authorities and housebuilders and property developers than other respondent groups. Some also pointed out that it is helpful to have all the relevant information in one document rather than having to refer to multiple publications.

“Sections 1 to 5 give essential advice for those using this guide and especially useful to those who are otherwise less familiar with Housing for Varying Needs but nevertheless are required to make use of the guide in their design process.” - Organisation

Specific clauses respondents would like to be retained

Some respondents identified specific clauses they would like to be retained in the updated guide. Responses were wide-ranging but, for example, two suggested Section 1 should be retained, two identified Section 2, and Section 4 was also specified by two. Others identified specific clauses or sections for retention such as 1.1 to 1.5.1 (people’s needs), 4.2 to 4.4 (public pavements and paths, street furniture and lighting) and 5.4 to 5.7 (the appearance of the dwelling, outlook, garden areas and building form). Arguments for retaining all of Sections 1 to 5 were made by some, while a few commented that certain clauses should be retained but did not specify which. Some argued that clauses should be retained but updated to reflect modern needs and terminology.

“We would like to see clauses 1.1 to 1.5.1 remain with updated information and language – we were pleased to see the consultation acknowledge that ‘some of the language referenced in the current guide – which relates, for example, to a person’s health or abilities – is outdated and may cause offence’ and look forward to seeing this presented in the ‘respectful, positive, and non-discriminatory way’ detailed in the consultation. We hope this will apply to language around older people’s needs and abilities, as well as those with varying disabilities.” - Organisation

Specific clauses respondents would like to be removed

Some identified clauses that they agreed could be removed. Again, many suggestions were given but included clauses in sections 4 and 5 of the current guide because respondents argued they are covered elsewhere in the Housing for Varying Needs design guide or in other documents including Building Standards.

Question 2. How do you feel about the proposals for Section 6 of Part 1 of the current guide?

Forty-five per cent of respondents who answered the question agreed with the proposals to (a) include within the updated Housing for Varying Needs design guide those clauses within Section 6 of the current guide (with minor wording adjustments where required) which are considered still appropriate in the context of developing homes with high levels of accessibility and adaptability and (b) not include those that are considered no longer necessary given, for example, that they have been superseded by building standards. 43% of respondents agreed with some but not all of the proposals, 6% disagreed with all of the proposals and 6% neither agreed nor disagreed. With 88% of those answering agreeing with all or some of the proposals, this was the joint second highest level of agreement recorded across the 34 questions which asked respondents if they agreed with all, some, or none of the proposals presented at a specific question. Half (49%) of organisations agreed with all the proposals compared to 27% of individuals.

Just over half of all consultation respondents provided open comments in response to Question 2.

Specific proposals that respondents agreed or disagreed with

Several respondents disagreed with some of the proposals. Comments were again varied, but some argued that the following reference in 6.2 of the current guide (‘stairs should be able to take a stair lift and allowance should be made for the possible installation of a through floor lift’) should not be included in the updated guide because they feel the provision for a future stair lift in existing building regulations is sufficient, and two disagreed with retaining 6.3.5 (which applies to dwellings specifically for older or disabled people) because door closers could potentially trap an individual in a room in a fire.

A few specified clauses they agreed with. These included, for example, in contrast to the disagreement noted above, the retention of aspects of 6.2. This refers to minimising the use of load bearing partitions, and stairs being able to take a stair lift and allowance being made for the possible installation of a through floor lift (in the context of referencing features which help provide flexibility and less costly adaptation).

Potential advantages and disadvantages

Some respondents reflected on the potential advantages and disadvantages of the proposals. Responses were mixed, but comments included, for example, some who felt that removing some clauses would reduce duplication and help streamline different sets of standards, while a few argued that retaining clauses would provide helpful contextual information for building, housing, and design professionals.

“I agree that those clauses already covered by the Scottish Building Standards should be deleted in order to avoid conflict, or confusion, between the two documents.” - Organisation

Some commented on the perceived cost implications of the proposals, and a few called for alignment with English Building Regulations.