I am all for equality and diversity, even though they do clash at every level, but here is a thought.
In the UK there is disability living allowance, a payment that varies depending on the level of disability. My lodger receives this (and rightly so in my opinion), but she expect me to pay for any modifications/extra to my house. Her argument is that the rent covers that (she pays about the going rent for a room only, even though she uses the whole house).
Now the government has recently reduced/capped what she can claim for rent, placing a greater burden on me (have not increased her rent since the increase got refused by the council over 2 years). And now they want to pass that burden onto the house designers/builders as well. There seems to be a number of dodgy accounting methods going on here.
Just an opinion you understand

Posted By: djhI think the aim of making sure that newly-built houses are more usable by everybody and easier to adapt for specific users such as bedridden people and wheelchair users is very sensible, since it can be done at relatively low cost when building compared to later (e.g. walls in WCs that are strong enough to fit handrails).

I have to say that I find this all a bit like making every car suitable for use by diabled people and actually adds a significant amount to building. For instance in Scotland *every* house must have an accessible shower on the ground floor. That is a significant chunk of floor space especially as most of the bedrooms are on the GF but making one of the En-suites accessible was not good enough! Wider doors I can live with but a shower makes me mad.

Posted By: borpinI have to say that I find this all a bit like making every car suitable for use by diabled people and actually adds a significant amount to building. For instance in Scotland *every* house must have an accessible shower on the ground floor. That is a significant chunk of floor space especially as most of the bedrooms are on the GF but making one of the En-suites accessible was not good enough! Wider doors I can live with but a shower makes me mad.

I think in England and Wales the entrance-level WC needs to be accessible and you should make provision for a future shower (e.g. the drainage must be already laid in the slab). We plan to have an accessible shower anyway so I'm a bit hazy on the minimum requirement, and I think they change next year. Our accessible shower will be an en-suite but it has to have a second door onto the hall. If most of the bedrooms are on that floor, I don't understand why having a reasonable sized bathroom (2.1 x 2.1 m is recommended) gives you a problem?

I don't see a problem with calling the smallest bedroom a home office, having a drying line over the bath and having a small shed either. But the CfSH things are mix and match anyway.

djh - why does your shower need a second door out to the hall? Does your postman come in for a quick washdown during his rounds? I see nothing in the Building Regs about this but was told by a BCO a few years back that it was "good practice". When I asked why he wasn't able to give an answer so out went the door (the one to thehall that is).

Posted By: pmusgrovedjh - why does your shower need a second door out to the hall? Does your postman come in for a quick washdown during his rounds?

It's not the shower that needs it but the fact that it is the accessible WC, which I think is required by Building Regs. So visitors, including needy postmen in wheelchairs, need access without traipsing through a bedroom that might contain an invalid.

Posted By: pmusgroveAh so.. if the house isn't built yet (or past the planning stage) perhaps it would be better to call the downstairs bedroom a study. Then you could get rid of a door

But then the guest bedroom wouldn't have an ensuite. Not good for SWMBO's relatives.

Posted By: pmusgrovesave on Council Tax as one of the first things that gets counted in on the valuation is the number of bedrooms.

Ah .. hadn't realized that. One of the upstairs bedrooms is definitely a study/office then! Can you have two studies?

Posted By: pmusgroveWe seem to be transfixed by bedroom numbers in the UK whereas we should be looking at making living spaces multi-use and reducing the amount needed.

I am sure you are not suggesting that we cram people into smaller spaces or we will have families living in bedsits.

We should be releasing land to build decent homes on that people want, in places they want to live, not restricting supply and forcing people to take second best or whatever is available.

Posted By: SteamyTeaWe should be releasing land to build decent homes on that people want, in places they want to live, not restricting supply and forcing people to take second best or whatever is available.

And the cause for this situation, IMO, is the broken and not fit for purpose Planning Process

I have just had impressed on me how massively convenient it is to have wide level access into the house when you have a baby in a pushchair.

For previous kids I lugged baby/pushchair combo up steps to door, result sore back and sqawking child.
Before latest arrival, we had extra door added. By good chance this has level threshold due to sloping plot. The difference is magic, just wheel pushchair in, child stays asleep, you get on with stuff.

Not everyone will need a wheel chair, but we all spend couple of years in a push chair, so well worth designing access.

Our previous place was a 4th floor flat...

Posted By: PaulJI have just finished a 3 storey house and I feel that if a future occupier were to become disabled to the extent that they would install a through floor lift and a bedroom and bathroom hoist, they would do better to move to a bungalow.

In many areas, older couples continue to live in large family houses long after their children have left. Does the concept of "Lifetime Home" mean that this will be even more prevalent?

I have some sympathy with the idea that there's a bit of a political correctness movement that's in danger of going too far, but I don't think your scenario is quite right.

The provision for a hoist is intended, AFAIK, for people who are temporarily bedridden, perhaps as a result of an accident or operation. So it seems unreasonable to expect them to move house. Similarly, a person who needs a lift doesn't have to be old, they could even be a child, and living in the house with their family seems a better plan than moving.