An investigation of how six social landlords with major refurbishment programmes addressed accessibility issues.
The Decent Homes Standards set social housing providers government targets on a range of issues. The standards (to be achieved by 2010) do not specifically include any requirements about the accessibility of properties.
Using a set of 13 access issues, this study:
Download as PDF, 4 pages, 0.09 MB
The Decent Homes Standard sets government targets for social housing in England on a range of issues but does not specifically include any requirements about the accessibility of properties. This study considered the approach of six English housing associations with large refurbishment programmes following the transfer of previously council-owned stock. It looked at whether there had been a missed opportunity in terms of improving accessibility and whether there was any evidence that accessibility had actually been made worse by the works that had been carried out. The study found that:
As part of an attempt to link increased spending to better outcomes, the Government wants to bring all social housing within England into a 'decent' condition by 2010, using four main criteria. Social housing must:
There has been some concern that there is no specific requirement that a home should be accessible to meet the standard (though guidance and advice do infer that accessibility should be considered). This has led some organisations to question whether an opportunity to improve accessibility is being lost. Some have even suggested that access standards may become worse as a result of refurbishment programmes. Evidence (including results from the English House Condition Survey) suggests that only a very small proportion of existing housing stock is currently accessible.
This study sought to investigate how social landlords with major refurbishment plans were addressing accessibility questions. It focused on housing associations to which previously council-owned stock had been transferred, and which had in place large-scale improvement programmes.
The researchers identified thirteen indicators of the level of accessibility that might be achieved through refurbishment works. Six English housing associations were contacted to assess their approach to these factors:
All six associations improved the external approach where there was a specific requirement for the current resident. Those housing associations that had flats with communal entrances also improved the general approach. However, this would not be done as a matter of course for individual homes, cost being cited as the main reason for not doing this work.
All of the housing associations met this requirement in that none introduced a new threshold of over 15mm high at the front door. However, it was usual to leave steps in place and add a new threshold of 15mm onto the step. This meant that the value of the lower threshold was limited, since there was not enough level area for someone to rest whilst opening the door or stepping in.
New storage areas were not usually created, lack of space often (though not always) prohibiting this. Some properties had existing storage, often old coal stores, which might take a pram or small wheelchair; most, however, would not accommodate large wheelchairs or power scooters.
New doorways were not generally being created. All six housing associations stated they would provide wider doors whenever possible where an individual tenant had a specific requirement.
All six housing associations installed new sockets in kitchen refurbishments and these would comply with Building Regulations. Few moved existing sockets in the rest of the property, so these remained at about 350mm from floor level in most cases. Only one of the housing associations planned to move light switches and sockets as standard.
None of the housing associations specified spare spurs on new fuse panels, but it seemed that in some cases new fuse panels did have this facility.
None of the housing associations removed downstairs toilets. However, they did not reinstate them when they had been removed by previous tenants. All six offered a choice of taps. Cross-head taps were always an option and most tenants chose these, with few choosing lever taps. None of the housing associations offered large-handled flush toilets as a standard option. Enlarging the toilet room was not feasible in most cases due to the original layout.
All of the six housing associations had installed new windows. In some instances tenants had been given a limited choice of the style of window to be installed. Most windows were side opening, with easy-to-grip handles installed at mid-height. There was often an additional top window which opened at high level, although one of the housing associations did include bottom-opening windows within the mainstream range.
The overall size of the kitchen was not altered in most refurbishments. However, removing built-in larders had enlarged some kitchen spaces. All tenants had some choice in the design of their new kitchens.
In the refurbishment programmes, this primarily applied to kitchens and bathrooms. In all cases, tenants were given a choice of the colour and style of kitchen units and worktops. Tenants were not made aware of the impact of tonal/colour choice in terms of accessibility.
Few of the housing associations had matt wall tiles as a choice at the time of the research, but they now intend to offer this option.
None of the six housing associations did this as standard in individual homes.
Not all of the housing associations had properties with lifts but where they were present and had been refurbished or replaced, all control panels had been lowered and their lighting improved.
Two of the six housing associations had an access statement in place that was incorporated into tender documents. Some of those whose access strategies were being developed had been focusing attention on employment issues and the running of the organisation, rather than on issues relating to the accessibility of stock.
At the outset of the research there was concern that not only might refurbishment schemes not address access improvements, but also that some issues could be made worse. There were no examples of this in the results from this particular study, but there was evidence of a particular – and relatively narrow – standpoint on access improvements. This does suggest that an opportunity to improve the accessibility of existing stock is being missed.
The findings suggest that social housing providers may see access improvements as the province of those they regard to have 'special needs' rather than viewing improved accessibility across their stock-holding as an important mainstream issue. Whilst impressive efforts were made to assist individual tenants, there was little evidence of engagement with general accessibility or universal design concerns beyond works to communal areas.
Some access improvements were viewed as prohibitively costly. Others, with no or minimal resource implications, were also not generally undertaken, and some may have been adversely affected by aspects of tenants' choice. For example, second handrails were not being fitted to staircases, even where there was room to do so, and other simple access-related issues were not being considered, such as selecting matt wall tiles over high gloss to reduce glare.
The housing associations involved in the research were, however, willing to consider for the future a number of the issues that had been raised in the course of the study. This suggests that it is partly a lack of awareness that is impeding possible progress on mainstream access improvements.
The researchers conclude that social housing providers should develop a comprehensive access strategy, taking on board the issues that relate to the physical housing stock that they own and manage. This would provide a framework through which to detail the accessibility issues that could be addressed in refurbishment programmes, identifying current barriers and how they could be removed. Although the research looked specifically at the English situation, there are also broader lessons for the UK as a whole.
The researchers were Pam Thomas and Marcus Ormerod of the SURFACE Inclusive Design Research Centre, University of Salford. A desktop study was undertaken to establish the potential impact of Decent Homes Standards on accessibility issues. From this a set of thirteen distinct areas were identified: these formed the basis for investigation in the case studies.
The case studies involved six housing associations in England which had been involved in stock transfer and which were undertaking refurbishment programmes. Key staff were interviewed, a selection of homes were visited and data on access issues collected.