Sensory rooms are often described as calm spaces, but designing one effectively requires far more than selecting soft finishes or muted colours. A successful sensory environment must balance emotional comfort with clarity, flexibility, and long-term usability, while responding to the diverse needs of its users. This project explored how thoughtful spatial planning, lighting strategy, and material choices can support regulation, choice, and well-being within an educational setting.

The initial brief focused on creating sensory rooms for neurodivergent students, to support emotional regulation, rest, and decompression. These spaces needed to feel welcoming without being overwhelming, adaptable without being confusing, and robust enough to function as part of a busy university environment. From the outset, it was clear that the design needed to be grounded in research and user experience rather than assumptions about what a sensory space “should” look like.

A key challenge in sensory design is acknowledging that there is no single sensory profile. What feels calming to one person may feel under-stimulating or even uncomfortable to another. As a result, the design approach prioritised choice, control, and clarity over a fixed aesthetic outcome.

Early research explored sensory processing differences, particularly in relation to light, sound, texture, and spatial organisation. This research informed decisions around zoning, circulation, and environmental control, ensuring that users could select spaces that best suited their needs at any given time. Importantly, the aim was not to create a “one-size-fits-all” solution, but a collection of environments with varying sensory qualities.

Equally important was understanding how the rooms would be used in practice. These were not isolated, one-off spaces, but part of a wider educational building, accessed by students and managed by staff. This highlighted the need for intuitive layouts, clear boundaries between zones, and design decisions that would remain effective beyond initial use.

The general arrangement of the sensory rooms was structured around clear sensory zones, each supporting different modes of use. Quieter, low-arousal areas were positioned away from circulation routes, while more active or tactile zones were designed to be easily identifiable and visually distinct. For example, the Cloud Room was placed as far away from the elevators and subsequent noise as possible.

Clear zoning helped reduce cognitive load, allowing users to quickly understand how the space was organised and where they might feel most comfortable. Visual cues, changes in materiality, and subtle shifts in lighting levels were used to define zones without relying on signage or instructions, keeping the environment intuitive and calm.

Circulation was designed to be simple and legible, avoiding unnecessary complexity or tight thresholds. This supported ease of movement and helped prevent feelings of disorientation or crowding, which can be particularly challenging in sensory environments.

Lighting played a central role in shaping the atmosphere and usability of the rooms. Rather than relying on a single lighting solution, a layered lighting strategy was developed to accommodate different activities and sensory preferences.

Soft, diffused lighting was prioritised to reduce glare and harsh contrasts, while adjustable elements (such as lava lamps, fibre optic lights and bubble tubes) allowed users or staff to modify the environment as needed. This flexibility acknowledged that sensory needs can change throughout the day and that users benefit from having control over their surroundings.

Material choices were guided by both sensory and practical considerations. Finishes were selected to feel comfortable and reassuring, without being overly stimulating or fragile. While natural fibres are preferred, they are often more expensive and less readily available, so synthetic materials were a good alternative. Texture was used carefully to provide sensory interest in specific areas, while smoother, quieter surfaces helped balance the overall environment.

Colour palettes remained restrained, favouring natural and muted tones that supported emotional regulation and longevity. Rather than relying on strong visual statements, the design focused on creating a cohesive and adaptable backdrop that could accommodate different users and uses over time.

Durability and maintenance were also considered throughout, ensuring that the spaces could withstand regular use without losing their intended atmosphere. This practical layer of decision-making was essential in translating research-led concepts into viable, long-term environments.

Designing sensory rooms requires careful listening, flexibility, and a willingness to prioritise user experience over visual impact. This project reinforced the importance of research-led decision-making, clear spatial organisation, and adaptability in creating environments that genuinely support wellbeing.

While rooted in an educational context, the principles explored here, choice, clarity, and emotional awareness. are relevant across many sectors. Ultimately, the project demonstrated how thoughtful interior design can move beyond aesthetics to create spaces that are supportive, inclusive, and purposeful in everyday use.