Beyond Quiet Rooms: Four Myths Holding Back Neuro Inclusive Design (and What Works Instead)

Why is neuroinclusive design important?

Over the last few years, one of the most exciting areas where we have seen progress in terms of more inclusive workplaces has been around the design of buildings that support greater neuro-inclusion. We are hearing more clients ask about it, more architects and interior designers engaging with it, and more organisations appreciating that a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to workplace design is now outdated. 

While it is of course important that staff are properly trained in understanding neurodiversity and that operational approaches also consider this – there has been a real shift in understanding that the design of workplaces itself plays a fundamental role in how inclusive (or exclusive) they are to neurodivergent people.

Around 1 in 5 people experience some form of sensory processing difference or neurodivergence, meaning a significant portion of the workforce is currently navigating environments that may not have originally been designed with their needs in mind – or sadly in many cases avoiding these environments altogether.  And when workplaces overwhelm the senses or place additional cognitive load on employees (either neurodivergent or neurotypical), the impact on organisations is measurable – be it through lost talent, reduced productivity or increased absenteeism. Learn key neurodiversity terms with Altruist's The Ultimate Neurodiversity at Work Glossary.

Conversely, when buildings are designed to be intuitive, predictable, calming and comfortable, everybody benefits. Workplaces like these allow for clearer thinking, enable better collaboration, and ultimately result in a more equitable experience for all employees.

However, as with any emerging area of design, misunderstandings and myths still persist. Neuro-inclusion is still all too often reduced to a quiet room, a sensory pod, or some hastily added acoustic panels. While these gestures are typically well-meaning, they do not take a holistic approach to embedding neuro-inclusion into workplace design and understanding what people truly need to thrive.

To gain this understanding, we can turn to PAS 6463: Design for the Mind – Neurodiversity and the Built Environment. This ‘Publicly Available Specification’ was the first design guidance of its kind from a national standards body, and sets out a clear, evidence-based approach for creating environments that deeply support a wide range of sensory and information-processing differences. Having contributed to its development and put the PAS into practice at a number of workplace buildings, our Inclusive Environments team at Buro Happold was keen to use this article to explore how it can help us to move beyond these myths and towards workplaces that genuinely support diverse minds.

By unpacking some of the most common misconceptions and grounding them in what PAS 6463 actually says, we can design spaces that don’t just avoid harm, but that actively enable people to do their best work.

Myth 1: “We’ve got a quiet room – that’s enough.”

‘Quiet’ or ‘restorative’ rooms absolutely do play a valuable role in supporting neuro-inclusive workplaces – and as such, the PAS gives clear guidance on how these should be designed and where they should be located. However, they should never be viewed as ‘the core strategy’. Without proper caution, the ‘quiet room’ can easily become just a box-ticking exercise – a symbolic space too often tucked away into an awkward windowless corner.

True neuro-inclusion begins with the rest of the workplace, and embedding an inclusive approach into all of the spaces outside of the quiet room. It is about creating environments that are legible, offer choice, and that are low stress from the moment somebody enters the building to the moment they leave.

This is likely to include circulation routes with clear signage and visual calm, collaboration spaces that don’t bleed noise into surrounding focus areas, and desk neighbourhoods that avoid clutter and glare and which give users the ability to adjust and personalise them. When these foundations are right, quiet rooms become what they should be: the last 10%, acting only as a safety-net for the moments when people become overwhelmed – rather than a substitute for good design throughout the building.

Myth 2: “This is just good design – any competent designer already knows how to do this.”

It is tempting to assume that neuro-inclusive design is just “good design done well.” As an architect myself, I know that most architects and interior designers do care deeply about user experience, comfort and accessibility. However, the reality – and the reason the PAS was commissioned – is that even highly skilled design teams can’t be experts in everything.

Modern architectural and design practice demands fluency across a dizzying range of subjects, be it fire safety, sustainability, contract administration or heritage considerations – to name but a few! Expecting every designer to also have an up-to-date, evidence-based understanding of sensory processing, cognitive load and the diverse ways in which we all experience the built environment is simply unrealistic.

The guidance document was created because the industry recognised this gap, and provides a structured framework that supports, rather than replaces, designers’ existing expertise. Just as architects and interior designers routinely collaborate with fire engineers, acoustic specialists or façade consultants, having an inclusive environments specialist on a design team can be vital in helping to deliver genuinely inclusive places that address nuanced sensory and cognitive considerations consistently and correctly from an early stage in the design process.

Fundamentally therefore, far from undermining designers, the PAS elevates their ability to deliver workplaces that truly work for diverse users.

Myth 3: “Neuro-inclusive design is just about noise and lighting.”

Alongside quiet rooms, the other ‘big topics’ that tend to grab the headlines in terms of neuro-inclusive design are acoustics and lighting. They certainly are key considerations and are vital elements to get right in any inclusive space, hence here at Buro Happold we frequently work as a collaborative group of ‘Acoustics, Lighting and Inclusive Environments’. However, they are only two pieces of a much larger sensory jigsaw puzzle. 

As the PAS explains, people process the world through multiple sensory channels – including the five ‘traditional’ senses of sight, sound, touch, smell and taste, alongside some of our less well known senses like thermoception (knowing whether our environment is too hot or cold) or equilibrioception (sense of balance).

In workplaces, this means discomfort is often caused by factors that may not be discussed as part of the interior design conversations: sudden temperature shifts, strong smells from cleaning products or cafés, or busy circulation routes, for example. While they are important, focusing solely on acoustics and lighting only solves part of the problem.

This also addresses the common misconception that sensory needs are simply “too subjective” to design for. In practice, many sources of stress are predictable or measurable: from ambiguous signage to abrupt lighting transitions, noisy printers positioned close to focus areas, or circulation layouts that force people into bottlenecks. Designing for predictability and legibility helps neurotypical and neurodivergent people alike – even though sensory profiles vary from person to person, environments that are calm, comprehensible and consistent support almost all users.

Myth 4: “Neuro-inclusive design is only relevant for specialist buildings.”

Perhaps because neuro-inclusion is often discussed in the context of autism, ADHD or other sensory processing differences, some organisations or employers assume it is a subject that is only relevant to SEND schools, healthcare facilities, or other highly specialised environments. The new guidance document explicitly rejects this idea – its advice is aimed at the design, creation or management of almost any public or commercial building type. 

The reality is that modern workplaces are full of potential (often hidden) sensory triggers: unpredictable noise, complex layouts and visual clutter – which are often combined with social expectations and the expectation to rapidly switch between complicated tasks. This suggests that workplace design is actually one of the areas where neuro-inclusion can have the biggest impact, especially given that so many adults spend a large proportion of their waking hours in work settings.

A related misunderstanding is the idea that designers should meet the needs of sensory‑seeking (hyposensitive) and sensory‑avoiding (hypersensitive) users equally, sometimes leading to suggestions like providing one highly stimulating entrance and one low‑stimulus one. The stakeholder engagement behind the PAS made clear that this approach is rarely helpful. 

Sensory‑seeking individuals often have flexible ways to meet their needs – for example through movement, stimming, or sensory tools – whereas hypersensitive individuals may potentially experience extreme distress if exposed to overstimulation. Given that hypersensitivity is also estimated to be far more common, prioritising low‑stimulus design reduces harm and benefits the greatest number of people.

Better design for diverse minds is better design for everybody

Ultimately, the aim of neuro‑inclusive design is remarkably simple: to create intuitive, predictable, low‑barrier environments that help everyone navigate their day with less effort and more ease. Far from being a niche add‑on or a specialist concern, sensory‑inclusive workplaces are quickly becoming modern good practice, especially in an era of hybrid-working, open‑plan layouts and high‑stimulus office cultures.

When we overlook neuro‑inclusion, we don’t just risk discomfort, we risk losing out on a huge pool of talent too – or dampening people’s ability to thrive by placing them in environments that unintentionally overload, confuse or simply drain them. And just as we would never design a space that excludes people on the basis of physical mobility or vision, we should no longer accept environments that exclude people because of the way their brains process the world.

PAS 6463 gives us a clear, evidence‑based path forward. By challenging common myths and embracing the principles of sensory‑inclusive design, we can create workplaces that aren’t merely accessible, but genuinely supportive, equitable and enabling. Places where more people, more of the time, can think clearly, feel safe and comfortable, and do their best work.