Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
door widths - too narrow?
I'm considering putting narrower doors on my 2 bedrooms. They
are currently 762mm (30in), but making one of them narrower (686mm, 27in) enables a much better use of space in the back bedroom; thus to keep them matching I should probably change both (the doors are near each other). Any comments? I want the space advantages, but am wary of finding out after the fact that they seem annoyingly "too narrow". I'm not too concerned about furniture sizes, since ours is mostly all flatpack. #Paul |
#2
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
door widths - too narrow?
|
#3
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
door widths - too narrow?
|
#4
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
door widths - too narrow?
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Its illegal to do that actually. Disabled access ********. Basically if you 'materially alter' a door width, it then comes under building control and is required to be altered to comply with disability legislation. Which is probably 850/900mm Get a narrower wheelchair? JGH |
#5
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
door widths - too narrow?
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
wrote: I'm considering putting narrower doors on my 2 bedrooms. They are currently 762mm (30in), but making one of them narrower (686mm, 27in) enables a much better use of space in the back bedroom; thus to keep them matching I should probably change both (the doors are near each other). Its illegal to do that actually. Disabled access ********. Basically if you 'materially alter' a door width, it then comes under building control and is required to be altered to comply with disability legislation. Which is probably 850/900mm Admittedly it's many years since I've read the Building regs, but that statement is news to me regarding the access regs for the disabled in *PRIVATE* dwellings - especially as it's almost unheard of in modern, private dwellings to have internal doors wider than 2' 6" (762mm) in normal circumstances. Could you provide a link to the relevant regulation for *private* dwellings please? Any comments? I want the space advantages, but am wary of finding out after the fact that they seem annoyingly "too narrow". I'm not too concerned about furniture sizes, since ours is mostly all flatpack. Just don't tell the BCO. I didn't realise that there is actually a need to inform the BCO about that type of alteration (the mortgage lender possibly if they're pedantic, but not the BCO). Cash |
#6
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
door widths - too narrow?
|
#7
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
door widths - too narrow?
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... wrote: I'm considering putting narrower doors on my 2 bedrooms. They are currently 762mm (30in), but making one of them narrower (686mm, 27in) enables a much better use of space in the back bedroom; thus to keep them matching I should probably change both (the doors are near each other). Its illegal to do that actually. It might be a breach of building regs, that doesn't make it illegal tim |
#8
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
door widths - too narrow?
On Sep 26, 10:11*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote: wrote: I'm considering putting narrower doors on my 2 bedrooms. They are currently 762mm (30in), but making one of them narrower (686mm, 27in) enables a much better use of space in the back bedroom; thus to keep them matching I should probably change both (the doors are near each other). Its illegal to do that actually. Disabled access ********. I think the only ******** is courtesy of TNP. Please quote the regs that say that. MBQ |
#9
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
door widths - too narrow?
tim..... wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... wrote: I'm considering putting narrower doors on my 2 bedrooms. They are currently 762mm (30in), but making one of them narrower (686mm, 27in) enables a much better use of space in the back bedroom; thus to keep them matching I should probably change both (the doors are near each other). Its illegal to do that actually. It might be a breach of building regs, that doesn't make it illegal tim Building regulations have teeth... -- Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers. |
#10
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
door widths - too narrow?
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... tim..... wrote: "The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... wrote: I'm considering putting narrower doors on my 2 bedrooms. They are currently 762mm (30in), but making one of them narrower (686mm, 27in) enables a much better use of space in the back bedroom; thus to keep them matching I should probably change both (the doors are near each other). Its illegal to do that actually. It might be a breach of building regs, that doesn't make it illegal tim Building regulations have teeth... that still doesn't pass the test for "illegal" tim |
#11
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
door widths - too narrow?
In article ,
tim..... wrote: "The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... tim..... wrote: "The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... wrote: I'm considering putting narrower doors on my 2 bedrooms. They are currently 762mm (30in), but making one of them narrower (686mm, 27in) enables a much better use of space in the back bedroom; thus to keep them matching I should probably change both (the doors are near each other). Its illegal to do that actually. It might be a breach of building regs, that doesn't make it illegal tim Building regulations have teeth... that still doesn't pass the test for "illegal" It is a legal requirement to comply with the Building Regulations. Failing to comply is therefore "illegal". Some people mistakenly think the word "illegal" only applies if criminal law is involved. -- From KT24 Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18 |
#12
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
door widths - too narrow?
On 27/09/2012 12:20, charles wrote:
In article , tim..... wrote: "The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... tim..... wrote: "The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... wrote: I'm considering putting narrower doors on my 2 bedrooms. They are currently 762mm (30in), but making one of them narrower (686mm, 27in) enables a much better use of space in the back bedroom; thus to keep them matching I should probably change both (the doors are near each other). Its illegal to do that actually. It might be a breach of building regs, that doesn't make it illegal tim Building regulations have teeth... that still doesn't pass the test for "illegal" It is a legal requirement to comply with the Building Regulations. Failing to comply is therefore "illegal". As I read The Building Act 1984 it is not actually a legal requirement to comply with the Building Regulations. The Act merely gives the Local Authority the right, within a limited period of time, to take enforcement action against someone who has breached them, which is not the same thing. I would therefore conclude that failing to comply with the Building Regulations is unlawful, but not illegal. Colin Bignell |
#13
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
door widths - too narrow?
Nightjar wrote:
On 27/09/2012 12:20, charles wrote: In article , tim..... wrote: "The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... tim..... wrote: "The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... wrote: I'm considering putting narrower doors on my 2 bedrooms. They are currently 762mm (30in), but making one of them narrower (686mm, 27in) enables a much better use of space in the back bedroom; thus to keep them matching I should probably change both (the doors are near each other). Its illegal to do that actually. It might be a breach of building regs, that doesn't make it illegal tim Building regulations have teeth... that still doesn't pass the test for "illegal" It is a legal requirement to comply with the Building Regulations. Failing to comply is therefore "illegal". As I read The Building Act 1984 it is not actually a legal requirement to comply with the Building Regulations. The Act merely gives the Local Authority the right, within a limited period of time, to take enforcement action against someone who has breached them, which is not the same thing. I would therefore conclude that failing to comply with the Building Regulations is unlawful, but not illegal. Colin Bignell "If a person carrying out building work breaks the Building Regulations, the local authority or another person may decide to take them to the magistrates' court where they could be fined up to 5000 for the contravention, and up to 50 for each day the contravention continues after conviction." (http://www.findlaw.co.uk/law/propert...ions/9026.html) I'll leave people to decide for themselves whether that makes it 'illegal' or not. -- Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers. |
#14
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
door widths - too narrow?
In article ,
Nightjar wrote: On 27/09/2012 12:20, charles wrote: In article , tim..... wrote: "The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... tim..... wrote: "The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... wrote: I'm considering putting narrower doors on my 2 bedrooms. They are currently 762mm (30in), but making one of them narrower (686mm, 27in) enables a much better use of space in the back bedroom; thus to keep them matching I should probably change both (the doors are near each other). Its illegal to do that actually. It might be a breach of building regs, that doesn't make it illegal tim Building regulations have teeth... that still doesn't pass the test for "illegal" It is a legal requirement to comply with the Building Regulations. Failing to comply is therefore "illegal". As I read The Building Act 1984 it is not actually a legal requirement to comply with the Building Regulations. The Act merely gives the Local Authority the right, within a limited period of time, to take enforcement action against someone who has breached them, which is not the same thing. I would therefore conclude that failing to comply with the Building Regulations is unlawful, but not illegal. but the local authority probably has a relevant by-law. -- From KT24 Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18 |
#15
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
door widths - too narrow?
The relevant Building Regulation is Part M, section applicable to Existing Dwellings.
#1 - Essentially you can not alter a doorway to make it worse than it was before, this is pretty general across building regulations when push comes to shove. #2 - If the bedrooms are not on the Principal Storey then the matter becomes even less important. #3 - If the bedrooms are on the 3rd Storey or multiple occupancy you hit other issues. Frankly Part M should be watered down, and instead a set # of houses within a catchment area should comply fully with Part M either a) as new houses are built or b) as conversion. Building Regs are increasingly creating a ridiculous overhead - and I have two relatives wheelchair disabled so understand very well. The solution is a temporary structure which is easily removed at house sale or if someone were to become disabled. Note that is not "temporary" in legal terms, simply so you can reverse it at a future date. It is very common for upstairs landing & bathroom & toilet access to be 650mm wide - which utterly eliminates any chance of wheelchair access. To increase that access to that required (900mm wide corridor for Direct Approach) you need to move the walls inwards. Even if that is physically possible (built on floors) it may require a) substantial joist reinforcement to comply with BR "A" and even new ceilings where they are differing heights or b) put walls in front of bay windows. Imbecile councils have ended up with "b)", one house subject to such is now derelict as no money to reverse the conversions as the person moved into care (forced into care by an O/T on grounds of Council Policy and her ownership in the relevant Care Agency she mandated, too costly to challenge). |
#16
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
door widths - too narrow?
To add, Building Regulations in general state what one way of complying.
For example ONE way is light switches below 1200mm from finished floor level, you can instead use PIR or wireless solutions. You can even use a different figure where it can be shown that is more appropriate for the usage. One person who has a "Japanese disabled solution" has things below 450mm because the entire downstairs is cushioned as they rejected wheelchair & hoisting & banana boarding. Instead they "3 legged" around the downstairs and are VASTLY more active as a result, they are physically fit rather than merely battling bed sores, obstinate care agencies and horrendously abysmal to superb O/Ts. That extends to the toilet, it is little more than a Japanese style hole in the floor, specially built for them, but a long way from bed-pan or "stuff a tena pad in your pants". They were an architect... on a motorbike... and their own fault. |
#17
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
door widths - too narrow?
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
wrote: I'm considering putting narrower doors on my 2 bedrooms. They are currently 762mm (30in), but making one of them narrower (686mm, 27in) enables a much better use of space in the back bedroom; thus to keep them matching I should probably change both (the doors are near each other). Its illegal to do that actually. Disabled access ********. Basically if you 'materially alter' a door width, it then comes under building control and is required to be altered to comply with disability legislation. Which is probably 850/900mm This is for newbuild only, not for existing properties. You only have to look at 90% of old shops and pubs - steps everywhere, but ones opened in the past 10 years, or old ones that have had extensive refurbishments, all have disabled ramps |
#18
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
door widths - too narrow?
On 27/09/2012 19:51, Phil L wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote: wrote: I'm considering putting narrower doors on my 2 bedrooms. They are currently 762mm (30in), but making one of them narrower (686mm, 27in) enables a much better use of space in the back bedroom; thus to keep them matching I should probably change both (the doors are near each other). Its illegal to do that actually. Disabled access ********. Basically if you 'materially alter' a door width, it then comes under building control and is required to be altered to comply with disability legislation. Which is probably 850/900mm This is for newbuild only, not for existing properties. You only have to look at 90% of old shops and pubs - steps everywhere, but ones opened in the past 10 years, or old ones that have had extensive refurbishments, all have disabled ramps Yes. Our local Natwest took over the shop next-door to extend their branch, moved the entrance to that bit and needed a ramp. Now the pavement is very wide and the bank/shops own about a third of it. To me it would seem sensible to have used that third to provide ramp access from one side of the door and steps from the other. Instead they talked to the council and ramped the entire width of the pavement from both sides, with the result that during the winter you have a treacherous, ice covered slope and no flat bit to get around it! SteveW |
#19
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
door widths - too narrow?
On Thursday, September 27, 2012 8:06:18 PM UTC+1, SteveW wrote:
from one side of the door and steps from the other. Instead they talked to the council and ramped the entire width of the pavement from both sides, with the result that during the winter you have a treacherous, ice covered slope and no flat bit to get around it! Council staff can't read BS8300:2001 (or slightly corrected, but imperfect 2009). You can download it online in a few places - a good idea for uk.d-i-y members as it gets things "right" first time re BR or any contractors they use. If there was space to have ramp & steps together, separated by a handrail at least or ideally wall with handrails then they should. It is however making a right mess of the frontage, when a portable ramp for most situations is more suitable. It does require staff to put the ramp out, and the ramp should ideally latch onto suitable fastenings (not difficult) but it works fine. Plenty of black cabs have almost horrible ramps (height, width, internal space), rather ineffective karibiner harness lashing which has no diagonal component. A case of a country of architects, flexible standards and imbecile jobsworths who can't read, think or do much else. Had to redesign one for a lawyers office as the proposed solution looked like switch backs up a mountain with high wall leading to a step just 7" high with 5.2m available on approach. The council miss-read Part M for non-dwellings on every single dimension and their proposed landings obstructed pedestrians at the switchbacks. Ramps should really have inset raised profile rubber grips on one side near the hand rail. Only seen it done once, and that was in Germany - they block paved one area and the blocks were rubber with a very aggressive "boot cleaning" profile like the old railway station engineering blue's. Freezing rail will still ice up anything and a ramp is a softer impact zone than a bull-nose edged tile or step, although not much as an X-ray will confirm. Typical result is £4700 cost for a shop for (to-date) 85p spend by a wheelchair person. The original ramp was confiscated by the council as it "required Loler certification" which was absolute rubbish, the replacement ramp is... an ice rink in winter. Fortunately he kept the steps which had raised rubber step tread and a very good handrail. He moved to France, who have kept their architecture without destroying everything in sight (Brussels may of course change that yet). |
#20
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
door widths - too narrow?
On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 10:59:16 PM UTC+1, (unknown) wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote: Which is probably 850/900mm Get a narrower wheelchair? Heh, Door Width is =/= Clear Opening Width. View a doorway. When the door opens, the door "end" still restricts the width. This reduced opening is called the Clear Opening Width. For a wheelchair you need 750mm Clear Opening Width for Direct Approach. You can remove this "door end" from the width by using Clear Swing hinges. These are cranked hinges which pull the door away, Hafele make some at £29 a pair. There are other makes & solutions out there (some nasty thin rubbish overpriced things too as is traditional with anything care related :-) Very often a doorway will have 1/2" to the wall each side, or even 1". So you can replace the door frame to get yourself up to 775-780mm with a slim frame. That avoids replacing the lintel above (or providing one in the first place, cough). If you are in a wheelchair, you need someone to DIY and someone who Cares and Loves, you do not need nanny state clipboards. Of course, that is not the point of the care industry, with its long drives, country mansions and NHS to public ripping off. (Hint a £18 green made in Korea green cushion is NSH white screen printed and sold to them at £488 each, literally millions is being gouged out that COULD go on preventative & curative patient care. Likewise alternating air mattresses are under £275 yet can be flogged at £1750 if you buy one... £899 if you buy 3). |
#21
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
door widths - too narrow?
Owain wrote:
On Sep 26, 9:54*pm, wrote: I'm considering putting narrower doors on my 2 bedrooms. They are currently 762mm (30in), but making one of them narrower (686mm, 27in) enables a much better use of space in the back bedroom; thus to keep them matching I should probably change both (the doors are near each other). Could you replace the door with a door + a bolted flap that can be unbolted if/when you need the full door width, but furniture etc can go across the flap in normal use? Or even half doors or bifolds. Thanks for all the comments, even if there was rather more about part M and less strident opinion about narrow doorways than I expected :-) Latest idea - sliding doors, which don't encroach on the room at all. Not sure about their use for bedrooms, though. -- Paul |
#22
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
door widths - too narrow?
[Default] On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 22:11:30 +0100, a certain chimpanzee,
The Natural Philosopher , randomly hit the keyboard and wrote: wrote: I'm considering putting narrower doors on my 2 bedrooms. They are currently 762mm (30in), but making one of them narrower (686mm, 27in) enables a much better use of space in the back bedroom; thus to keep them matching I should probably change both (the doors are near each other). Its illegal to do that actually. Disabled access ********. Basically if you 'materially alter' a door width, it then comes under building control and is required to be altered to comply with disability legislation. In order: a) No it's not. b) Disabled access isn't ********. c) Whilst Part M is a relevant requirement to determine whether an alteration is material, its application to dwellings is specifically excluded by that part; irrespective of the above, the guidance only relates to habitable rooms within the principal entrance storey of the dwelling, and a WC. Which is probably 850/900mm Which is between 750-800mm clear opening width depending on the approach, if applicable. Any comments? I want the space advantages, but am wary of finding out after the fact that they seem annoyingly "too narrow". I'm not too concerned about furniture sizes, since ours is mostly all flatpack. It may be flat pack going in, will it be flat going out? You still sometimes need the extra width to manouvre tall or wide items. Just don't tell the BCO. Too late. -- Hugo Nebula "If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this, just how far from the pack have I strayed"? |
#23
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
door widths - too narrow?
[Default] On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 14:48:23 +0100, a certain chimpanzee,
Nightjar , randomly hit the keyboard and wrote: As I read The Building Act 1984 it is not actually a legal requirement to comply with the Building Regulations. The Act merely gives the Local Authority the right, within a limited period of time, to take enforcement action against someone who has breached them, which is not the same thing. I would therefore conclude that failing to comply with the Building Regulations is unlawful, but not illegal. In the same way, I would conclude that my breaking into your house is unlawful but not illegal, if the police/CPS don't charge me- "it's not a crime if you don't get caught". -- Hugo Nebula "If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this, just how far from the pack have I strayed"? |
#24
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
door widths - too narrow?
On 01/10/2012 21:07, Hugo Nebula wrote:
In order: a) No it's not. b) Disabled access isn't ********. Absolutely agreed it is not ********. But what I have come to realise forcefully is that it is very one-dimensional. The needs of the person near me are nothing to do with ramps and steps, door widths and grab rails. They happen to be things like temperature and heating, humidity and air movement, noise and light. Even the use of the wheelchair symbol as a generic identification of disability - whilst entirely understandable in terms both of it being chosen and by people seeing it - pushes the focus onto that specific physical issue and seems to ensure that other physical issues are focred into the shadows. -- Rod |
#25
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
door widths - too narrow?
In article ,
polygonum wrote: On 01/10/2012 21:07, Hugo Nebula wrote: In order: a) No it's not. b) Disabled access isn't ********. Absolutely agreed it is not ********. But what I have come to realise forcefully is that it is very one-dimensional. The needs of the person near me are nothing to do with ramps and steps, door widths and grab rails. They happen to be things like temperature and heating, humidity and air movement, noise and light. Even the use of the wheelchair symbol as a generic identification of disability - whilst entirely understandable in terms both of it being chosen and by people seeing it - pushes the focus onto that specific physical issue and seems to ensure that other physical issues are focred into the shadows. as I learned on a course about 20 years ago, only 10% of disabled people use a wheelchair. -- From KT24 Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18 |
#26
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
door widths - too narrow?
polygonum wrote:
On 01/10/2012 21:07, Hugo Nebula wrote: In order: a) No it's not. b) Disabled access isn't ********. Absolutely agreed it is not ********. But what I have come to realise forcefully is that it is very one-dimensional. Indeed. Our downstairs loo is tiny and narrow. Utterly useless for anyone in a wheelchair but actually much easier for my late father who had severe balance and mobility problems as he could use the walls and sink for support. In a bigger room he would have needed more assistance. Tim |
#27
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
door widths - too narrow?
On 01/10/2012 22:29, polygonum wrote:
On 01/10/2012 21:07, Hugo Nebula wrote: In order: a) No it's not. b) Disabled access isn't ********. Absolutely agreed it is not ********. But what I have come to realise forcefully is that it is very one-dimensional. The needs of the person near me are nothing to do with ramps and steps, door widths and grab rails. They happen to be things like temperature and heating, humidity and air movement, noise and light. Even the use of the wheelchair symbol as a generic identification of disability - whilst entirely understandable in terms both of it being chosen and by people seeing it - pushes the focus onto that specific physical issue and seems to ensure that other physical issues are focred into the shadows. Even more so non-physical issues, such as mental health (my wife is a Community Psychiatric Nurse, so I hear of the many problems her patients encounter). SteveW |
#28
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
door widths - too narrow?
On 01/10/2012 23:03, SteveW wrote:
On 01/10/2012 22:29, polygonum wrote: On 01/10/2012 21:07, Hugo Nebula wrote: In order: a) No it's not. b) Disabled access isn't ********. Absolutely agreed it is not ********. But what I have come to realise forcefully is that it is very one-dimensional. The needs of the person near me are nothing to do with ramps and steps, door widths and grab rails. They happen to be things like temperature and heating, humidity and air movement, noise and light. Even the use of the wheelchair symbol as a generic identification of disability - whilst entirely understandable in terms both of it being chosen and by people seeing it - pushes the focus onto that specific physical issue and seems to ensure that other physical issues are focred into the shadows. Even more so non-physical issues, such as mental health (my wife is a Community Psychiatric Nurse, so I hear of the many problems her patients encounter). SteveW I realised that my post ignored mental health issues - not intended to dismiss them but outside my experience at these levels. -- Rod |
#29
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
door widths - too narrow?
Huge wrote:
On 2012-10-01, Hugo Nebula wrote: b) Disabled access isn't ********. It is when you force everyone to do it at their own expense on the off-chance that a disabled person may need access. OK Hugo, I was being 'jocular' when I called it ********. I am of te age when not only do I have semi disabled elderly people visiting me, but two friends who are paraplegic - one due to an accident, the other due to polio. I also built a house and was required to do many things to comply with disability regulations. Almost NONE of which were of any value to these two gentlemen both of whom had to spend THOUSANDS on equipping there flats and houses with stuff arranged to make their disability bearable. Both house and flat were brand new and complied with 'disability' regulations. So although person A can get in his front door in a wheelchair and to and from his manually equipped car, he couldn't get out of his French windows - there was a 6" drop to the grass! Nor was there a path from the front to the rear of that house. Terraced. Neither could he use his kitchen AT ALL until the worktop was lowered, and all the sockets moved, and all high level storage replaced by low levels storage. Bathing and ****ting required a totally reconstructed toilet/bathroom. At which point I decided that the whole BCO disability cmpliance was ********. It would have been better, and I would happily have complied, to charge me £1,000 quid for NOT having done any disability stuff and put it in a pot for my mates to help defray the cost of what they absolutely HAD to have done to have anything approaching a normal life. -- Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers. |
#30
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
door widths - too narrow?
charles wrote:
In article , polygonum wrote: On 01/10/2012 21:07, Hugo Nebula wrote: In order: a) No it's not. b) Disabled access isn't ********. Absolutely agreed it is not ********. But what I have come to realise forcefully is that it is very one-dimensional. The needs of the person near me are nothing to do with ramps and steps, door widths and grab rails. They happen to be things like temperature and heating, humidity and air movement, noise and light. Even the use of the wheelchair symbol as a generic identification of disability - whilst entirely understandable in terms both of it being chosen and by people seeing it - pushes the focus onto that specific physical issue and seems to ensure that other physical issues are focred into the shadows. as I learned on a course about 20 years ago, only 10% of disabled people use a wheelchair. And the ones that DO, and cant stagger on crutches, need a **** site more in a house than the ability to drive a wheel chair round it. It's ******** not because disability isn't something that needs to be considered, its ******** because the measures simply are a pathetic sop to the disability lobby and don't address the fundamental problems of disability, at all. -- Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers. |
#31
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
door widths - too narrow?
On 01/10/2012 21:15, Hugo Nebula wrote:
[Default] On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 14:48:23 +0100, a certain chimpanzee, Nightjar , randomly hit the keyboard and wrote: As I read The Building Act 1984 it is not actually a legal requirement to comply with the Building Regulations. The Act merely gives the Local Authority the right, within a limited period of time, to take enforcement action against someone who has breached them, which is not the same thing. I would therefore conclude that failing to comply with the Building Regulations is unlawful, but not illegal. In the same way, I would conclude that my breaking into your house is unlawful but not illegal, if the police/CPS don't charge me- "it's not a crime if you don't get caught". Is your argument that you can get a criminal record for fitting the wrong size doors as well as breaking and entering? In which I case I think you're rather mistaken. |
#32
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
door widths - too narrow?
Tim+ wrote:
polygonum wrote: On 01/10/2012 21:07, Hugo Nebula wrote: In order: a) No it's not. b) Disabled access isn't ********. Absolutely agreed it is not ********. But what I have come to realise forcefully is that it is very one-dimensional. Indeed. Our downstairs loo is tiny and narrow. Utterly useless for anyone in a wheelchair but actually much easier for my late father who had severe balance and mobility problems as he could use the walls and sink for support. In a bigger room he would have needed more assistance. Tim My loo is in an alcove in our small bathroom, meaning to the right is an external wall corner and to the left is the door opening, both just forward of the loo and about a foot away. When I had my hernias fixed and all forms of abdominal muscle contraction (eg standing up, getting out of bed) hurt like a mother f*** bitch from hell, I was indeed extremely grateful for those two grab points. Now I know what it feels like to be decrepid - but not anymore thankfully Does make you appreciate good health. -- Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://www.dionic.net/tim/ "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." |
#33
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
door widths - too narrow?
Fredxx wrote:
On 01/10/2012 21:15, Hugo Nebula wrote: [Default] On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 14:48:23 +0100, a certain chimpanzee, Nightjar , randomly hit the keyboard and wrote: As I read The Building Act 1984 it is not actually a legal requirement to comply with the Building Regulations. The Act merely gives the Local Authority the right, within a limited period of time, to take enforcement action against someone who has breached them, which is not the same thing. I would therefore conclude that failing to comply with the Building Regulations is unlawful, but not illegal. In the same way, I would conclude that my breaking into your house is unlawful but not illegal, if the police/CPS don't charge me- "it's not a crime if you don't get caught". Is your argument that you can get a criminal record for fitting the wrong size doors as well as breaking and entering? In which I case I think you're rather mistaken. The only bit of that side I know of is that "failure to notify" (for building regs purposes) is a non indictable offense which means magistrates court, limited gaol/fine and limited time to bring a presecution. I am not sure if that means it is a "criminal offence" - anyone comment? -- Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://www.dionic.net/tim/ "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." |
#34
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
door widths - too narrow?
Tim Watts wrote:
When I had my hernias fixed and all forms of abdominal muscle contraction (eg standing up, getting out of bed) hurt like a mother f*** bitch from hell, I was indeed extremely grateful for those two grab points. Now I know what it feels like to be decrepid - but not anymore thankfully Does make you appreciate good health. Indeed it does. My recovery was, thankfully, surprisingly fast, but I can still remember what a sneeze felt like :-( Chris -- Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh. |
#35
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
door widths - too narrow?
In article , Tim Watts
scribeth thus Tim+ wrote: polygonum wrote: On 01/10/2012 21:07, Hugo Nebula wrote: In order: a) No it's not. b) Disabled access isn't ********. Absolutely agreed it is not ********. But what I have come to realise forcefully is that it is very one-dimensional. Indeed. Our downstairs loo is tiny and narrow. Utterly useless for anyone in a wheelchair but actually much easier for my late father who had severe balance and mobility problems as he could use the walls and sink for support. In a bigger room he would have needed more assistance. Tim My loo is in an alcove in our small bathroom, meaning to the right is an external wall corner and to the left is the door opening, both just forward of the loo and about a foot away. When I had my hernias fixed and all forms of abdominal muscle contraction (eg standing up, getting out of bed) hurt like a mother f*** bitch from hell, I was indeed extremely grateful for those two grab points. Now I know what it feels like to be decrepid - but not anymore thankfully Does make you appreciate good health. Indeed it does. I think those who dream up the wrong regs should spend a few weeks in a chair. I did after a serious accident certainly makes you think of practical things differently!... -- Tony Sayer |
#36
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
door widths - too narrow?
[Default] On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 00:30:43 +0100, a certain chimpanzee,
Fredxx , randomly hit the keyboard and wrote: On 01/10/2012 21:15, Hugo Nebula wrote: [Default] On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 14:48:23 +0100, a certain chimpanzee, Nightjar , randomly hit the keyboard and wrote: As I read The Building Act 1984 it is not actually a legal requirement to comply with the Building Regulations. The Act merely gives the Local Authority the right, within a limited period of time, to take enforcement action against someone who has breached them, which is not the same thing. I would therefore conclude that failing to comply with the Building Regulations is unlawful, but not illegal. In the same way, I would conclude that my breaking into your house is unlawful but not illegal, if the police/CPS don't charge me- "it's not a crime if you don't get caught". Is your argument that you can get a criminal record for fitting the wrong size doors as well as breaking and entering? Theoretically, yes. The differences are about the chances of detection, the likelihood of an action being brought, the level of fines, etc. In which I case I think you're rather mistaken. IANAL; are you? -- Hugo Nebula "If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this, just how far from the pack have I strayed"? |
#37
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
door widths - too narrow?
[Default] On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 00:08:26 +0100, a certain chimpanzee,
The Natural Philosopher , randomly hit the keyboard and wrote: OK Hugo, I was being 'jocular' when I called it ********. I am of te age when not only do I have semi disabled elderly people visiting me, but two friends who are paraplegic - one due to an accident, the other due to polio. I also built a house and was required to do many things to comply with disability regulations. Almost NONE of which were of any value to these two gentlemen both of whom had to spend THOUSANDS on equipping there flats and houses with stuff arranged to make their disability bearable. Both house and flat were brand new and complied with 'disability' regulations. So although person A can get in his front door in a wheelchair and to and from his manually equipped car, he couldn't get out of his French windows - there was a 6" drop to the grass! Nor was there a path from the front to the rear of that house. Terraced. Neither could he use his kitchen AT ALL until the worktop was lowered, and all the sockets moved, and all high level storage replaced by low levels storage. Bathing and ****ting required a totally reconstructed toilet/bathroom. At which point I decided that the whole BCO disability cmpliance was ********. It would have been better, and I would happily have complied, to charge me £1,000 quid for NOT having done any disability stuff and put it in a pot for my mates to help defray the cost of what they absolutely HAD to have done to have anything approaching a normal life. The requirements for access to and use of dwellings are minimal. They are designed to remove some of the barriers to those with some of the worst disabilities (e.g., mobility) from visiting other people in their own homes. They are not designed to provide lifetime homes that can more easily be adapted if and when required to accommodate more tailored needs. I had an insight into this recently, with my elderly mother who was unable to go for Xmas dinner to mine or my sister's house, due to having no GF toilet. Likewise she struggled to make it over steps into our houses. Things like a level threshold, installing lightswitches and sockets in new houses between 450mm-1200mm above the floor, 775mm doors, etc. cost virtually nothing, but are a hassle to change if needed. They are the most that the housebuilding lobby would allow. It was a massive battle for the 'disabled lobby' (e.g., charities) to get that much against the housebuilding lobby who write the Regulations. Oh, I'm sorry; are you under the impression that the Building Regulations Advisory Committee isn't staffed by paid lobbyists from the NHBC and other vested interests, and that Ministers don't take account of the same lobbyists views when approving that legislation? -- Hugo Nebula "If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this, just how far from the pack have I strayed"? |
#38
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
door widths - too narrow?
On Sep 26, 11:51*pm, "Cash"
wrote: The Natural Philosopher wrote: wrote: I'm considering putting narrower doors on my 2 bedrooms. They are currently 762mm (30in), but making one of them narrower (686mm, 27in) enables a much better use of space in the back bedroom; thus to keep them matching I should probably change both (the doors are near each other). Its illegal to do that actually. Disabled access ********. Basically if you 'materially alter' a door width, it then comes under building control and is required to be altered to comply with disability legislation. Which is probably 850/900mm Admittedly it's many years since I've read the Building regs, but that statement is news to me regarding the access regs for the disabled in *PRIVATE* dwellings - especially as it's almost unheard of in modern, private dwellings to have internal doors wider than 2' 6" (762mm) in normal circumstances. *Could you provide a link to the relevant regulation for *private* dwellings please? Upstairs rooms don't or didn't come into disability concerns. But unless a member of the household is disabled, who is going to know or care? You could just fit a pair of doors. I.e. the door size you want and make the space up with a lump of wood on hinges. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Door widths | UK diy | |||
Narrow external door supplier | UK diy | |||
Standard internal door widths (panel) | UK diy | |||
Door Widths | UK diy | |||
Minimum door widths | UK diy |