Thread: Sacraficial ...
View Single Post
  #21   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
Robin Robin is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,681
Default Sacraficial ...

On 02/03/2020 10:55, Andrew wrote:
On 02/03/2020 10:37, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 02 Mar 2020 03:03:26 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 01/03/2020 23:05, Steve Walker wrote:
On 01/03/2020 20:27, Brian Gaff (Sofa 2) wrote:
I often wonder why nobody builds houses on stilts these days.
Â*Â* Brian

While it makes sense from a flood point of view, it does rather cause a
problem with the level access requirements of Part M.

Ramps, or simply say that disabled people should not visit or live
there.


The problem with a statement like this, is that is gives the impression
the **** writing it has never considered that someone can become
"disabled" in the blink of an eye.

So they move somewhere more suitable. What's the issue ?.

Why should every new house have to have those silly ramps at the
front entrance when the vast majority of properties will never be
occupied by someone in a wheelchair ?.

Scrap part M, and replace it with a small levy on every new build,
along the lines of S106, and allow LA's to hand out grants for
alterations to those properties where an occupant suddenly needs
it, without any conditions like "More than 16K savings etc". Base
it on need only. Let the LA impose a charge on the property if
necessary so that on death or relocation the money can be
recovered by the LA.

If an owner occupier suddenly becomes bed-ridden then even a
new build complying with Part M is no use.


I'm all for flexibility if it saves money but am unclear how that would
work for disabled people who need to rent somewhere to live.


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid