On 01/10/2010 21:39, Hugo Nebula wrote:
[Default] On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 22:15:50 +0100, a certain chimpanzee,
Gareth , randomly hit the keyboard and wrote:

How strict is the "no worse" bit? If I have the same arrangement as I
do currently but with uPVC instead of wood it will be slightly worse
because the uPVC frames are slightly thicker.

Strict; I don't know a BCO who would be prepared to accept an opening
which is less than 450mm, or less than what was there previously. For
those of us with long memories, the requirement was 550mm wide up to
about 10 years ago. The reduction in the width was thought at the time
to be a retrograde step. Imagine trying to get out of a narrow window.
Now imagine trying to get IN wearing breathing apparatus. Do you
really want it narrower?

If you want side hung openers, how about a window with two casements,
and a 'false' central mullion? These are quite common where the
appearance of a central mullion is required.

Thanks for that idea. The local window man suggested two openings with
a "flying mullion" down the middle, which he said would be a bit more
expensive but his quote was still less than 1/4 the price Everest quoted
for what now appears to be non-compliant arrangement.