Accessible Homes Design Assurance Platform

Accessible-housing requirements are often checked late, drawing by drawing and across separate planning, technical-design and building-control workflows. Unit schedules change, M4(3) homes can become clustered in less desirable positions, exceptions are weakly evidenced and a compliant planning schedule may not survive value engineering or construction change.

Liverpool's draft Policy H12 would require almost all new homes to meet M4(2), with 10% M4(3)(2)(a) on schemes of ten or more dwellings and 10% of affordable-rented homes fully fitted to M4(3)(2)(b). The requirement applies across tenure and expects a mix of dwelling sizes, aspects and floor levels. This is a data and assurance problem as much as a design problem.

- Disabled and older residents whose housing choices are restricted by inaccessible stock. - Wheelchair users and families needing suitably sized, located and fitted homes. - Architects, technical coordinators and housebuilders managing changing unit schedules. - Registered providers nominating residents and accepting completed homes. - Planning and building-control officers checking evidence under time pressure.

Local evidence: - Draft Policy H12 requires M4(2) for new homes other than defined exceptions, 10% M4(3)(2)(a) on schemes of 10+ homes, and 10% fully wheelchair-accessible M4(3)(2)(b) within affordable rent. - The policy expects M4(3) homes across tenures and distributed by aspect, floor, view, unit size and type rather than concentrated as residual units. - Liverpool's housing-needs assessment identifies a need for 3,500 wheelchair-user homes and supports a 10% M4(3) requirement.

Wider evidence: - National guidance requires planning authorities to identify older and disabled people's housing needs and consider accessible, adaptable and specialist housing.

Commercial implication: - Per-unit assurance is measurable, repeatable and valuable to developers, providers and authorities at several project gateways.

- An explicit percentage requirement creates a calculable compliance workload on every eligible scheme. - The identified 3,500-home wheelchair need shows a material gap between demand and suitable stock. - Planning conditions and building-control evidence create multiple paid assurance points. - Registered providers have a direct operational interest in correct fit-out and nomination-ready handover.

Current alternatives include manual design reviews, access consultants, Part M checklists, BIM rule-checking and building-control inspection. These services are trusted but often episodic and document-led.

Differentiation is a unit schedule that remains linked to requirements and evidence through design changes, plus portfolio analytics showing accessible-home delivery by tenure, type and location. Professional reviewers can use the platform rather than be displaced by it.

A project workspace that imports a unit schedule and PDF or BIM drawings, calculates the M4(2)/M4(3) obligation, tests distribution and records evidence at planning, technical design, pre-handover and occupation. Changes to unit mix automatically expose compliance drift.

A resident-nomination handover module can securely record which M4(3)(2)(b) homes are fully fitted and ready, without exposing health information to unnecessary project users.

Underserved score 85/100

Evidence 25/25 + severity 18/20 + buyer urgency 16/20 + market gap 11/15 + timing 8/10 + delivery feasibility 7/10 = 85/100. Confidence is 90/100 because policy thresholds and the 3,500-home need are explicit and the workflow is technically bounded; willingness to pay and professional-liability structure still require validation.