Inclusive design: M4(2) and M4(3) in London applications

London Plan policy D7 requires at least 10 per cent of new dwellings to meet Building Regulations requirement M4(3) for wheelchair user dwellings, with all remaining dwellings meeting M4(2) for accessible and adaptable dwellings. That is the headline every London residential scheme is measured against, and it is secured by planning condition even though the standards themselves are enforced through building control.

The detail that changes schemes is which version of M4(3) applies. Where the borough or a registered provider will allocate the home, it is expected to be wheelchair accessible from the outset rather than merely adaptable, and that difference shows up in the plan, not in a specification note.

What each Building Regulations standard requires

Approved Document M Volume 1 sets three optional levels for new dwellings, and the planning system selects between them.

M4(1) is the baseline visitable dwelling, providing reasonable access for most people including a wheelchair user visiting. It is the default where no higher standard is imposed.

M4(2), accessible and adaptable dwellings, adds step-free approach and entry, wider doors and circulation, a bathroom and WC at entrance level with provision for adaptation, structural provision for a future through-floor lift where the dwelling has more than one storey, and a range of fittings and controls within reach ranges.

M4(3), wheelchair user dwellings, goes further: a dwelling designed so that a wheelchair user can live independently in it, with turning circles, clear widths, a wheelchair accessible bathroom, space for a carer where required, accessible storage and charging for a powered chair, and step-free access from the parking space to the front door. It divides into wheelchair adaptable, where the layout allows the features to be added, and wheelchair accessible, where they are provided from completion.

The proportion of dwellings expected at each standard

The London Plan position is at least 10 per cent at M4(3) and the remainder at M4(2). Boroughs may go further in their own plans, and some set expectations about the distribution of wheelchair units across tenures, unit sizes and floors.

That last point is where schemes get pulled apart at committee. Putting every M4(3) unit at ground floor in the affordable block, all one-bedroom, is compliant on the arithmetic and indefensible on the substance. Spread them across tenures and sizes and say that you have.

Calculate the 10 per cent on the total number of dwellings and round up. Where a scheme is phased, state how the proportion is achieved across the whole development and how each phase contributes, because a phase-by-phase reading of the policy produces arguments nobody needs.

How the requirement is secured by condition

Planning cannot enforce Building Regulations, so the condition does the work. A standard condition requires the development to be constructed to the identified standards, with a schedule identifying which units are M4(3) and whether each is adaptable or accessible.

Submit that schedule with the application rather than leaving it to the condition. A unit schedule cross-referenced to the floor plans, with the standard noted per unit alongside the other requirements in the Design and Access Statement, removes the single most common reason for a request for further information.

The optional requirements also have to be applied through the building control application, so tell the design team early. Retrofitting M4(3) into a layout designed to M4(2) usually costs a unit somewhere.

Designing to wheelchair user dwelling standards

The dimensional requirements shape the plan rather than decorate it. Wheelchair turning circles in the living space, kitchen and bedroom. A bathroom with space beside the WC and a level access shower zone. Clear widths past furniture, not just between walls. A bedroom sized for a hoist and for transfer space on the appropriate side.

Two practical consequences. Wheelchair units are larger than the equivalent standard unit, so the mix and the area schedule have to carry that from the outset rather than absorbing it late. And the parking space matters: an accessible bay with a transfer zone, connected step-free to the entrance, is part of the standard, so a wheelchair unit in a car-free scheme needs the position set out and agreed.

Storage and charging are quietly important. A powered chair needs somewhere to park and charge inside the dwelling, and a plan that shows a chair in the hallway blocking the escape route will be picked up.

Lifts, cores and approach routes

Step-free means step-free the whole way: from the street or the parking bay, through the entrance, into the core, out of the lift and through the flat door. A single 20 mm upstand anywhere on that route defeats it.

Lift provision follows from that. Where any dwelling above ground level is to meet M4(2) or M4(3), the core needs a lift sized for a wheelchair user and, where the building is tall enough or the number of units large enough, more than one so that a single lift outage does not strand residents. Check the borough's own expectations on second lifts, because they vary.

The approach route needs gradients, surfaces, crossfalls and resting places designed rather than assumed, and it needs to survive the landscape design. A resin-bound path with a 1 in 15 gradient on the planning drawings becomes a problem when the levels are value-engineered.

Inclusive design statements and their content

The London Plan expects an inclusive design statement, usually within or alongside the design and access statement. A good one states the inclusive design principles applied, how they shaped the layout, how the scheme performs for people with different impairments, and how inclusion will be managed once the building is occupied.

Include the things people forget: wayfinding and signage, colour and luminance contrast, acoustics in entrance lobbies, seating in long circulation routes, accessible refuse and cycle storage, and how a wheelchair user reaches the amenity space rather than just the front door.

Where a scheme includes new streets or open space, an Equalities Impact Assessment may be expected as well, reflecting the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010 that applies to the authority's own decision.

One caution on management. An inclusive design statement that promises a concierge, a hearing loop or a managed drop-off is making a commitment somebody has to fund after handover, so check it against the service charge model before it goes in. Commitments that quietly lapse are worse than commitments never made, and a borough that has seen one lapse on a nearby scheme will condition the next one tightly.

Evidence boroughs commonly ask for

Four items answer most requests. A unit schedule identifying every M4(3) unit, its tenure, its size and whether it is adaptable or accessible. Annotated plans for each wheelchair unit type showing turning circles and clear widths. A step-free route drawing from the parking bay and from the street to each core. And a short statement on lift provision and resilience.

Prepare them once, properly, and the accessibility point disappears from the officer's report. Leave them out and it becomes the reason the recommendation slips a committee cycle.

PlanScope drafts the supporting statements around your unit schedule, structured to UK planning policy and with facts flagged where they need confirming. Browse the 66 report types to scope the rest of the submission.

This is general guidance, not legal advice; check the position with your local planning authority or a qualified professional before relying on it. PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.