Long-term planning

Architect Julia Park, Head of Housing Research at Levitt Bernstein and Associate Director for Homes at the Centre for Ageing Bett er, makes the case for accessible housing to be more than an aft erthought

Despite the inescapable fact that, unless we die young, we will all grow old, we have been painfully slow to factor ageing into the way we design and construct the built environment. Even in those parts of the world where older people are revered for their wisdom and cared for by families, litt le thought has been given to eliminating the physical barriers that limit many peoples’ lives. This stubborn laziness has allowed the view to become entrenched that older people, and those living with disabilities, are bett er off at home. Ironically, we failed there too; the concept of accessible housing is barely 30 years old.

Lifetime Homes, a 16-point standard devised to make life easier for older people, was developed by the Joseph

Rowntree Foundation in the early 1990s.

Though renowned and respected, as a voluntary standard it gained relatively litt le traction. In 1999, a watered-down version was taken into regulation through

Part M, which, until then, had dealt only with public buildings. It was an important step, but it wasn’t until 2015, when the government-led Housing Standards

Review concluded, that the requirements came close to where they needed to be.

And there was a catch. Sett ing a new precedent, two higher levels of accessibility (referred to as optional requirements) were added to the meagre baseline that, among other things, required step-free access to the main entrance (unless it was too diffi cult) and a small ground-fl oor WC (unless there were no habitable rooms on that fl oor). That was renamed M4(1) Category 1: Visitable dwellings and remains the default. The two optional requirements (one very similar to the full version of Lifetime Homes) and the other for wheelchair users (now M4(2) Category 2: Accessible and adaptable dwellings and M4(3) Category 3: Wheelchair user dwellings, respectively) have to be justifi ed before being invoked. Local planning authorities must fi rst prove need and viability, and then defi ne the proportion of new housing that should meet each of these categories in their area.

If you are thinking it all feels a bit complicated, you’re right.

Informally, local authorities were expected to require something like 3050% of new homes to meet Category 2 and 5-10% to meet Category 3. In reality, the proportions vary from 0% to 100%. While London (which has one of the country’s youngest populations) requires 90% of new homes to meet Category 2 and the remaining 10% to meet Category 3, many local authorities still require nothing more than the baseline, partly because developers fi ght back if they try.

main features required for even the lowest level of accessibility, and 85% of today’s homes will still exist in 2050. Having ignored the implications of rising life expectancy for so long, we have a huge amount of catching up to do. Covid-19 and the “Only 9% of homes climate change emergency reinforce the need to do bett er. The lockdowns that provide the continue to curtail our lives have given all of us a main features required for glimpse of what, for many older and disabled people, is an everyday reality. Our even the homes have been tested and many haven’t scored lowest level of well. Factor in age-related Quality of living accessibility” mobility problems with the daily challenges that arise This is one of many from living in a home that reasons why the recent government fails to meet our basic daily needs, and the consultation inviting feedback on the shortcomings intensify. proposition to make Category 2 the In terms of climate change, the need to minimum requirement is so welcome. The reduce embodied carbon is the primary demographic evidence is overwhelming: driver. Experts tell us that climate change by 2050, one in four people will be over 65; demands that every new home we build only 9% of existing homes provide the four today should last at least 200 years. During

The step up to the front door could make access diffi cult for those with mobility issues

that period, we can assume that each will be home to something like 20 households and 70 individuals. Thousands of visitors, of all ages, ethnicities and faiths, will cross each threshold. All will experience bouts of illness, the vast majority will grow old, and most will use a mobility aid at some point.

It is fair to assume that, over two centuries, every home will, at some point, be occupied by someone whose life would be transformed by an accessible home. But it goes beyond that; we all want to visit our friends and family in their homes too. That relies on knowing that we will be able to get through the front door, use the toilet with dignity, and feel relaxed enough to enjoy the company and the change of scene that are so important, particularly to those who live alone. The fact that a Category 2 home benefi ts people of all ages, while putt ing nobody at a disadvantage, is just as important.

The tone of the consultation suggested that at least some of these realities have hit home in Westminster. Three of the fi ve options proposed making Category 2 the new minimum standard. Two of the three prefabricated pods and when building proposed exceptions are for scenarios for rent, for example. Implementation where step-free access is impractical – has been poor; and more work is needed homes above shops or small blocks of to ensure that those who would benefi t fl ats that can’t support most from an accessible the cost of installing and maintaining a lift , for example. Within reason, that is pragmatic. If, as a local authorities were expected to require and adaptable home understand what such homes off er and where to fi nd them. That argues result of this consultation, 91% of future homes are accessible (a complete 30-50% for both local accessible housing registers and for more information in reversal of the current of new homes to marketing literature and statistics), that would be meet category 2 tenancy agreements. a good outcome. The consultation was far from perfect. Regrett ably, the best and 5-10% Winning the batt le for Category 2 is the immediate priority, and I am hopeful that we’re outcome – a combination of Category 2 and the Nationally Described to meet category 3 nearly there. If we learned nothing else from 2020, it is that dealing with the Space Standard (NDSS) – things we can predict will was either rejected or not considered. The put us in a bett er place to deal with those guidance needs to be improved, and we that we can’t. must ensure that adaptable features work for all forms of construction and tenures. For more, visit gov.uk/government/ It would make sense to fully install a consultations/raising-accessibilityshower in ground-fl oor toilets when using standards-for-new-homes