The children that time forgot: Reframing housing standards to incorporate children's needs

This paper presents the findings from a recent study funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation examining the housing and neighbourhood needs of 44 visually impaired children. Our research found that disabled people’s needs have been too narrowly based on ‘accessibility’ criteria, which do not take into account the health and safety issues so important for children. Indeed, the home environment is the main site of accidental death or injury for young children under 4 years, and children from low income families are particularly susceptible to burns, scalds, falls, swallowing foreign objects or poisonous substances within it (CRDU 1994). As disabled children are statistically more likely to be in low income families, this places them at high risk. If ‘accessibility’ is to be reconceived as design for usability throughout the lifecourse, this challenges us to move beyond the pragmatic but limited application of design prescriptions for disabled people as a separate and adult group, and to re-think all of the dimensions of the housing quality framework in the light of this expanded approach.

Regulation and innovation: Rethinking 'inclusive' housing design

The Lifetime Homes (LTH) concept initiated in 1989 by the Helen Hamlyn Trust, and subsequently promoted by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, emerged at a point when there was growing awareness of the decline of both private and public sector housing quality, especially in relation to floorspace standards (Karn & Sheridan, 1994). LTH were intended to offset the concerns of first, the house buying public of the appearance and affordability of homes suitable for successive generations, second, the private house building industry of the cost and marketability of incorporating 'inclusive' design features, and third, Registered Social Landlords (RSLs), who had to balance cost constraints with addressing the needs of a growing number of households with older and/or disabled people. Approved Document Part M of the building regulations was extended in 1999, from public buildings to private dwellings, and currently requires that all new housing meet minimal 'visitability' criteria. Indeed, although the signs are that Part M will be incrementally extended to comprise LTH principles, the paper argues that in their existing form they are insufficient to act as a key component of the government's 'new agenda for British housing'. This paper therefore explores how they might usefully be expanded from an approach, largely based on compromise, to one that inspires innovative, flexible and inclusive house forms, which also challenge design conventions.

Burn-in policies for products having dormant states

Many systems might have a long time dormant period, during which the systems are not operated. For example, most building services products are installed while a building is constructed, but they are not operated until the building is commissioned. Warranty terms for such products may cover the time starting from their installation times to the end of their warranty periods. Prior to the commissioning of the building, the building services products are protected by warranty although they are not operating. Developing optimal burn-in policies for such products is important when warranty cost is analysed. This paper considers two burn-in policies, which incur different burn-in costs, and have different burn-in effects on the products. A special case about the relationship between the failure rates of the products at the dormant state and at the operating state is presented. Numerical examples compare the mean total warranty costs of these two burn-in policies.

Burn in policies for products having dormant states

Constructing a building is a long process which can take several years. Most building services products are installed while a building is constructed, but they are not operated until the building is commissioned. The warranty term for the building service systems may cover the time starting from their installation to the end of the warranty period. Prior to the commissioning of the building, the building services systems are protected by warranty although they are not operated. The bum in time for such systems is important when warranty costs is analyzed. In this paper, warranty cost models for products with burn in periods are presented. Two burn in policies are developed to optimize the total mean warranty cost. A special case on the relationship between the failure rates of the product at the dormant state and at the I operating state is presented.

Optimal maintenance policies under different operational schedules

In the reliability literature, maintenance time is usually ignored during the optimization of maintenance policies. In some scenarios, costs due to system failures may vary with time, and the ignorance of maintenance time will lead to unrealistic results. This paper develops maintenance policies for such situations where the system under study operates iteratively at two successive states: up or down. The costs due to system failure at the up state consist of both business losses & maintenance costs, whereas those at the down state only include maintenance costs. We consider three models: Model A, B, and C: Model A makes only corrective maintenance (CM). Model B performs imperfect preventive maintenance (PM) sequentially, and CM. Model C executes PM periodically, and CM; this PM can restore the system as good as the state just after the latest CM. The CM in this paper is imperfect repair. Finally, the impact of these maintenance policies is illustrated through numerical examples.

Housing supply and planning controls: the impact of development control processing times on housing supply in England

The National Housing and Planning Advice Unit commissioned Professor Michael Ball of Reading University to undertake empirical research into how long it was taking to obtain planning consent for major housing sites in England. The focus on sites as opposed to planning applications is important because it is sites that generate housing.