1 / 27

Resident Post Occupancy Feedback on the Design of New Build Wheelchair Accessible Housing

Resident Post Occupancy Feedback on the Design of New Build Wheelchair Accessible Housing. Jacquel Runnalls, Senior OT in Housing MSc Dissertation 2011. Background to Dissertation. Post Occupancy Feedback rarely obtained from

jaafar
Download Presentation

Resident Post Occupancy Feedback on the Design of New Build Wheelchair Accessible Housing

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Resident Post Occupancy Feedback on the Design of New Build Wheelchair Accessible Housing Jacquel Runnalls, Senior OT in Housing MSc Dissertation 2011

  2. Background to Dissertation Post Occupancy Feedback rarely obtained from residents of new build wheelchair accessible housing Emerging issues relating to newer design guidance and research, building to higher density with increasing consideration to sustainability, energy efficiency and management. Updating Waltham Forest’s Wheelchair Housing Design Guide & producing Supplementary Planning Guidance document - anecdotal supporting evidence and background.

  3. Dissertation Aims & Objectives • To provide a historical background to the concept, design and provision of wheelchair accessible housing • To provide a critical appraisal of relevant design guidance • To analyse the design issues and challenges when providing wheelchair accessible housing • To identify features which residents feel contribute to, and impact on, the design of wheelchair accessible housing • To highlight the importance of considering a range of issues when designing wheelchair accessible housing

  4. Literature Review • Concept of Wheelchair Accessible Housing Design • Universal and Inclusive Design • Legislation • Planning Policies and Provision • Good Practice Guidance • Evidence Base Supporting Design Guidance • Demand for and Supply of Wheelchair Accessible Housing • Post Occupancy Evaluation, User Studies & Activity Analysis

  5. Research Methodology • Qualitative - small scale social study with user feedback and opinion, data analysis • Semi-structured interviews with ten residents • Sampling - identified twenty previous housing applicants who moved to properties of varying type, size & tenure designed to be wheelchair accessible. Developments of varying size & location, one steeply sloping site. • Use of pre-determined questionnaire, observation, user demonstration/activity analysis, images and planning drawings

  6. Justification • Planning permission for units approved on condition of Waltham Forest Wheelchair Housing Design Standard but often seen as ‘desirable’ (Habinteg 2nd Edition or less) • Revised design guidance/SPD undergoing revisions at the time (not formally approved until 2011) • Issues arising due to building to higher density e.g. blocks of flats, viability of 2 lifts, need for space/larger footprint, communal access, parking etc • Issues arising due to building more ‘sustainably’ e.g. energy efficiency (heating type/condensing boilers)

  7. Findings – Household Information • 8 out of 10 residents from BME background • 7 disabled adults • 3 disabled children • Wheelchair/Mobility Equipment use • 3 EPIOC users (2 also had attendant propelled wheelchairs) • 1 outdoor powered & indoor manual & gutter frame • 4 both self & attendant propelled wheelchairs (two -2 each) • 1 attendant propelled outdoors & walking stick • 1 outdoor manual wheelchair • Most people used > one item

  8. Findings – Property Type & Tenure • Property Type • 1 x 2 bed bungalow • 2 x 1 bed ground floor flat • 2 x 2 bed ground floor flat • 1 x 3 bed ground floor flat • 1 x 2 bed second floor flat (1 lift) • 1 x 3 bed Maisonette – 2 Storey – ground and first floor • 1 x 3 bed House – 2 storey – ground and first floor • 1 x 4 bed House – 2 Storey – ground and first floor • Tenure • 8 Social Rent • 1 Intermediate Rent • 1 Private/For Sale

  9. Findings – External Areas Access • 1 direct access to property entrance and parking (house) • 7 gated access from street to parking area (flats & maisonette) • 2 automated communal gates into development then direct access (bungalow and house) • 1 direct access from street to property’s front entrance in addition to automated gates to secure rear parking area with ramped access to the property’s rear entrance (maisonette) • 5 accessed via automated communal doors to both front entrance and from rear parking areas, 1 automated access only to rear. • 1 accessed via lift from basement parking to rear communal entrance • 1 access via lift from basement parking through separate block’s communal entrance

  10. Findings – External AreasParking Parking - all units had dedicated bays • 2 within curtilage of property with canopy • 3 within development and covered by overhang of building or fixed structure i.e.canopy • 3 within development and uncovered • 2 on-street and uncovered • 2 on-street had additional basement parking

  11. External Areas – Resident Feedback • 9 felt property well located • 1 felt local pavements/kerbs difficult to negotiate • 1 difficulty negotiating ramp to rear of property from raised parking area, another on same development did not • Basement parking did not have fully automated doors • 1 unaware of basement parking • 1 aware of basement parking space but accessed through another block and did not have fob access • 1 unaware of dedicated bay within development • 1 had no automated access to front of building, only rear

  12. Findings & Feedback – Internal Areas Circulation & Storage • Majority built to WF standards, few issues raised • 1 resident (wheelchair had extended footplate) observed to have slight difficulty manoeuvring • Only 1 lift to 2nd floor flat – CBL Category B • Feedback on Through Floor Lifts generally positive as felt to be more inclusive • Issues arose post design which impacted e.g. positioning of LST radiators, full height glazing heights • General request for more storage despite 6 residents having outside sheds and all units having storage cupboards - during build some cupboards used for condensing boilers, hallway charging areas used for storage, under kitchen worktops

  13. Findings & Feedback – Internal Areas Circulation

  14. Findings & Feedback – Internal Areas Circulation

  15. Findings & Feedback – Internal Areas Circulation & Storage

  16. Findings & Feedback – Internal Areas Circulation & Storage

  17. Findings & Feedback – Internal AreasStorage & Kitchens

  18. Findings & Feedback – Internal AreasKitchens • All units had wheelchair accessible kitchens but not all used by disabled family member • O/O flat – more ‘inclusive’ and bespoke • 2 residents found wall cupboards hard to reach • U-shaped kitchens created issues with use of space/reach • Aesthetics of plumbing/pipework underneath • 9 out of 10 residents used space underneath for storage • All preferred separate kitchen/diner for issues of smell

  19. Findings & Feedback – Internal AreasDining/Living Rooms • 2 residents (house/maisonette) had separate living rooms • 8 had open plan kitchen/diner/living room, some provided more separation than others • Open plan layout meant dining space often compromised • 3 residents had created their own separation • All residents felt a separate kitchen/dining room preferable • Bulky LST’s restricted placing of furniture in some instances • Secondary access doors impacted on clear circulation space • O/O had used designated outside patio space internally

  20. Findings & Feedback – Internal Areas Bath/Shower Rooms • Residents of all 1 & 2 bed flats had only wet floor showers • 3 bedroom flat separate toilet and combined shower/bath • 2 storey properties had ground floor shower/WC and first floor bathroom/WC • All units with 4+ persons had 2 toilets but 1 was inaccessible • 5 residents raised issues with water egress and pooling • Underfloor heating created greater circulation space • O/O had additional pocket door directly into bedroom

  21. Findings & Feedback – Internal Areas Bedrooms • Some bedrooms narrow and further restricted by positioning of radiators, also full length glazing introduced at later stage of build had forced positioning of radiators elsewhere and subsequently furniture. • Not all master/double bedrooms met the newer guidance requirement of 16 metre square.

  22. Findings & Feedback – Internal Areas Controls & Services • 1 resident raised issue of higher sockets and child safety • 5 residents felt door locks difficult to operate • 1 resident difficulty opening stiff window handles • 2 residents did not have intercom handsets in living room • Types of door entry systems varied greatly • Lift controls generally accessible, resident with 1 lift felt fold down seat and audible/tactile controls helpful • External control panels to 3 flats higher than WF guidance

  23. Findings & Feedback– Outside Amenity Space • All residents had access to communal amenity space • 2nd floor flat had access to roof terrace • O/O had chosen to use outside space internally • 2 flats had small private patio areas • 6 properties had private gardens with patio, grass & shed • Residents of 4 bed house felt overlooked • Resident of bungalow felt outside space too vast, difficult to manage and would have been better used internally • All felt private amenity space preferable for child play, supervision, drying washing • 6 had adjustable height clothes driers, 1 did not have paved access to dryer and another had a wall mounted dryer that was too high

  24. Findings & Feedback - Management • 7 residents were given tenant information packs • Majority knew who to contact with queries and said landlords generally quick to respond (1 resident was a priority) • Poor specific communication on moving in e.g. use of parking bays, video intercom, heating systems • Management of communal areas e.g. positioning of communal euro bins, keeping access routes clear • Maintenance of gardens • 1 resident suggested a handyperson for small jobs

  25. Conclusion • Small study but evidenced increasing issues of building to higher density e.g. parking, communal access, storage, management. • POE and direct resident feedback assisted in evidencing real experiences • Most issues could have been addressed during the build process, despite most already being raised at design stages. Evidences need for continued input/advice and need for attention to detail • Consideration of tenure, inclusive design and involvement of disabled people at all stages where possible • Directly influenced Waltham Forest’s SPD ‘Inclusive Housing Design’ http://www.walthamforest.gov.uk/documents/inclusive-design-planning-residential.pdf

  26. Recommendations for Future • Need for larger, evidence based studies which involve a wide range of users and adopt a variety of methods including anthropometric and ergonomic data. • Need to produce up to date wheelchair housing design guidance to reduce confusion, create parity and improve knowledge and understanding. • Need for legislation, robust planning policies and involvement of experienced professionals and disabled people/residents • Wider application of Post Occupancy Evaluation with residents

  27. Thank you for listening! Jacquel.Runnalls@walthamforest.gov.uk

More Related