I was very pleased to see a proposal that all new dwellings should at least satisfy the M4(2) standard of accessibility. In the relatively flat county of Cambridgeshire, entrances without steps are straightforward to achieve, and toilet provision with space requirement at least adequate for a part-time wheelchair user to use would be a huge step forward from the supposedly visitable M4(1) regulations (where most either cannot get on the toilet at all or must have the door open). There should be the expectation that disabled people want to visit family and friends for a reasonable length of time, as is expected for everyone else. It should not be regarded as a privilege.

I hope you will extend your proposals to make the M4(2) toilet size already specified in the regulations for places of 3+ bedrooms the requirement for all size of dwellings. This would allow people to visit the one and two bedroom places too. M4(2) is not without its faults toilet-wise though, even with the bigger downstairs toilet proposed for 3+ bedroom dwellings. In particular, putting a basin to the side of a toilet, as in Diagram 2.5 option d, will stop a side transfer from a wheelchair very effectively, whereas option c should work well enough for an occasional full-time wheelchair user visitor to manage. Oddly, it seems that it in M4(2) it is not essential for a kitchen to be part of the living area on the entrance storey (2.24 a). Step-free access to a kitchen should surely be in place if, for example, an elderly person is to continue to live in an M4(2) home long term.

Suggesting some properties are built to M4(3) wheelchair standards is a step forward too, but why only for affordable housing? There are plenty of people who would benefit from M4(3) houses, either because they are in unsuitable accommodation now or because they have a deteriorating condition which will lead ultimately to wheelchair use. There should be houses of all sizes to buy and rent as well as “affordable” ones. Interestingly, the M4(3) wheelchair adaptable homes don’t seem to be required to have quite as big rooms as the M4(3) wheelchair accessible ones. This is a strange situation which is likely to lead to houses adapted at a later date not being as good as those purpose built from the start. I hope you will request that all M4(3) dwellings are built to the wheelchair accessible size, and any second toilets do not suffer from the Diagram 2.5 option d problem as detailed above. If the first occupant is to be a disabled person, then they should also have the opportunity to discuss their own personal needs with the builder.

The bottom line with adhering to any M(4) level is that although developers say that making places accessible or adaptable adds to the cost, the extra space involved improves a house whoever lives in it. For example a storage space designed for a wheelchair will be extremely useful for a pram or a bike or...

Finally, if any houses are built to a particular standard of accessibility, there should be the requirement that they must not be changed to become less accessible. For example, it is not uncommon for houses ramped at the main entrance when they were first built to have the ramp removed and replaced by one or more steps. If such a thing happens then the owner should be liable to pay for and reinstate the feature immediately it is noticed, and with no time limit.