'should' versus 'must' in TGD's

sydthebeat

I was reading another thread about background ventilation when i noticed that posters were getting very pedantic about the word 'should' in the TGds.

How do posters here view this word, possibly the most common word in the TGDs?

I personally view it as being equivalent to 'must' ie TGD B 1.5.2 "any habitable room which is an inner room should be provided with a window for escape or rescue in accordance with 1.5.6."
or
TGD K 1.1.9 "Headroom over the whole width of any stairs, measured as shown in Diagram 2, should generally be not less than 2 m."

I have often met builders on site who say 'but the regs only say 'should have' and not say 'must have'... to me they are the same thing.

A big bugbear of mine is the disabled access to dwellings in Part M. The regs 1.21 clearly state "The main dwelling entrance, should be
accessible to wheelchair users." however time and again ive see new dwellings built with sloped access to patio doors and rear doors. I have lost certification jobs by insisting on the front entrance being accessible, because the client can easily go off to other certifiers who sign off other access.

So what say you... does 'should' actually mean 'must' in the regs?

Mellor

I approach it as a "must".

And I think I can justify it also. A point I come back to alot is the fact that these are not the Regs, but Technical Guidence Documents. They provide the requirements to meet the regs if going a certain route or method (compliance can be outside these via a different route or method, or due to circustances of build).

On a basic level, any clause of the TGDs can be described as;
"Generally, to meet the regs, you should provide X and Y"

Above, its really no different that must. The reason must is not used is because of the other routes or methods, or circustances that allow for a different approach. "Must" is definate, it doesn't allow for change. Should, provides a clear direction to follow, yet permits an alteration in a small few cases.

muffler

"Should" is probably a poor choice of word but if read in context of the overall guidance then its fairly obvious that it has, more or less, the meaning "must". In fairness the TGD's always state that the use of an alternative method is not excluded so the word "should" is probably merited.

topcatcbr

sydthebeat wrote: »

I was reading another thread about background ventilation when i noticed that posters were getting very pedantic about the word 'should' in the TGds.

How do posters here view this word, possibly the most common word in the TGDs?

I personally view it as being equivalent to 'must' ie TGD B 1.5.2 "any habitable room which is an inner room should be provided with a window for escape or rescue in accordance with 1.5.6."
or
TGD K 1.1.9 "Headroom over the whole width of any stairs, measured as shown in Diagram 2, should generally be not less than 2 m."

I have often met builders on site who say 'but the regs only say 'should have' and not say 'must have'... to me they are the same thing.

A big bugbear of mine is the disabled access to dwellings in Part M. The regs 1.21 clearly state "The main dwelling entrance, should be
accessible to wheelchair users." however time and again ive see new dwellings built with sloped access to patio doors and rear doors. I have lost certification jobs by insisting on the front entrance being accessible, because the client can easily go off to other certifiers who sign off other access.

So what say you... does 'should' actually mean 'must' in the regs?

When it comes to tgd Should = must im my opinion except when it is preceeded or followed by a word like generally which is vague and open to abuse

Poor Uncle Tom

sydthebeat wrote: »

"any habitable room which is an inner room should be provided with a window for escape or rescue in accordance with 1.5.6."
or
"Headroom over the whole width of any stairs, measured as shown in Diagram 2, should generally be not less than 2 m."

So what say you... does 'should' actually mean 'must' in the regs?

If you are going those routes for compliance then should, in those cases, means must. If not it does not apply, imo.

HeatLoad

sydthebeat wrote: »

A big bugbear of mine is the disabled access to dwellings in Part M. The regs 1.21 clearly state "The main dwelling entrance, should be
accessible to wheelchair users."

At the risk of sounding pedantic what is to say the main entrance should be to the front of the house? Depending on design, access etc. it is often more practical to have the main entrance to the rear.

sydthebeat

by 'most' definitions the front of the house is where the main access is located.
For example, when trying to establish where the rear of a house is in relation to exempted extensions, its considered to be the opposite face to where the main access is located. So headlong, in your example, if the main access is located 'to the rear' (because of site topography etc) then that is actually to be considered the front of the dwelling. A dwelling does not always have to face a road.

The design of the dwelling should be such that there is no ambiguity as to where the main access is, even if, as happens in many rural situations, other accesses are more predominently used. This does not change the fact that the main access should be accessible. If a disabled person visits a dwelling, they should not be forced to use a different access than any other stranger visiting a dwelling. This is from a purely 'equality' based viewpoint.

muffler

HeatLoad wrote: »

At the risk of sounding pedantic what is to say the main entrance should be to the front of the house? Depending on design, access etc. it is often more practical to have the main entrance to the rear.

About 2 years ago we got notified by the Building Control dept. that the ramps and platforms had to be located at the front door of the house in order to comply.

Front door is the door on the front elevation regardless of the house orientation.

HeatLoad

[quote=sydthebeat;56885106
For example, when trying to establish where the rear of a house is in relation to exempted extensions, its considered to be the opposite face to where the main access is located.[/quote

Unless I have misunderstood your post, there are numerous scenarios where the above wont apply. For example, if the 'rear' of the house is deemed to be the opposite elevation to the main entrance then, if what you say is correct, when the main entrance is to the side of a semi-detached house (not uncommon), and the owners wants to add an extension, will they need to apply for full planning permission regardless of its size? I have successfully obtained exemption certs. for developments of this nature.

sydthebeat

HeatLoad wrote: »

Unless I have misunderstood your post, there are numerous scenarios where the above wont apply. For example, if the 'rear' of the house is deemed to be the opposite elevation to the main entrance then, if what you say is correct, when the main entrance is to the side of a semi-detached house (not uncommon), and the owners wants to add an extension, will they need to apply for full planning permission regardless of its size? I have successfully obtained exemption certs. for developments of this nature.

common sense should always be applied, my description was in cases of detached dwellings that may be perpendicular to the road boundary and theres a query as to where the rear of the dwelling is. In your case its obvious.
But this doesnt alter the requirement for the main entrance to be accessible where possible. Other accesses should not be considered.

Slig

I'm not usually the one to request written proof but I would be very interrested to see the defination of "Main entrance" and how it defines the rear elevation.

I dont want to sound pedantic, I just believe it would be very useful for arguments with builders (and other architects) in the future;)

HeatLoad

muffler wrote: »

About 2 years ago we got notified by the Building Control dept. that the ramps and platforms had to be located at the front door of the house in order to comply.

Front door is the door on the front elevation regardless of the house orientation.

I am talking about the main entrance, not the front door. I was involved in the design of a day care facility which was both U.K. and Irish government funded where the main entrance is to side of the building, the front door is used mainly by staff and for deliveries. We had no problem with compliance and securing funding

muffler

HeatLoad wrote: »

I am talking about the main entrance, not the front door. I was involved in the design of a day care facility which was both U.K. and Irish government funded where the main entrance is to side of the building, the front door is used mainly by staff and for deliveries. We had no problem with compliance and securing funding

I think the rest of us are talking about houses (as you were when referring to exemptions above) not day care centres.

In any event can we all get back on topic regarding the use of the word "should".

pseudo-tech

'Should' the building regulations be restricted to changes every five years like a development plan, so that all participants are up to date? That would ensure that everyone would be aware that every five years you need to renew your copy of the Technical Guidance Documents. Is the Technical Guidance Documents you purchased a year ago valid if produced in Court or is it every practitioners responsibility to trawl through the DOEs web site looking for minor changes?

RKQ

IMO Should means "Should", where possible. The English is clear as not all applications can be written in stone.
In other words "one size does not fit all".

We must be careful, as Professionals, when we try to reinterpet Regulations word by word. We are required to use our professional opinion to issue Certificates. We are qualified and experienced enought to view the project and compare its compliance with the law.

I believe that the Regulations are based on experience, best practise, workmanship, materials and health and safety. The first fire regulation can be traced to the Great fire of London.

For example, IMO It could be agrued that Document B is one of the most important documents, as it is based on saving human life, - means of escape, half-hour fire rating etc. Whereas Document D, F, G and L are about long term goals / savings etc

I feel it is dangerous to generalise.
I feel that if the word "should" was supposed to mean "must", then the word "should" wouldn't appear in the Regulations.

I suppose the old saying "Doctors differ and patients die", is quite true. Each case must be done individually.

sydthebeat

RKQ wrote: »

IMO Should means "Should", where possible. The English is clear as not all applications can be written in stone.
In other words "one size does not fit all".

We must be careful, as Professionals, when we try to reinterpet Regulations word by word. We are required to use our professional opinion to issue Certificates. We are qualified and experienced enought to view the project and compare its compliance with the law.

I believe that the Regulations are based on experience, best practise, workmanship, materials and health and safety. The first fire regulation can be traced to the Great fire of London.

For example, IMO It could be agrued that Document B is one of the most important documents, as it is based on saving human life, - means of escape, half-hour fire rating etc. Whereas Document D, F, G and L are about long term goals / savings etc

I feel it is dangerous to generalise.
I feel that if the word "should" was supposed to mean "must", then the word "should" wouldn't appear in the Regulations.

I suppose the old saying "Doctors differ and patients die", is quite true. Each case must be done individually.

but this would then leave many regulations open to personal opinion... a very dangerous situation IMHO.

If a balcony handrail is at 1000 instead of 1100 would you sign it off?? In this case, and in similar cases, i would think 'should' means 'must'. I appreciate that certifiers are only every asked to give an 'opinion' so the main crux of my initial question was to see if certifiers here take the regs as being a 'rule' or a 'guideline'. The TGD's are 'guidance' documents but they are based on 'regulations'.

'Should' meaning 'should' doesnt clear it up.

The two most common definitions of 'should' state:
1. Used to express obligation or duty
2. Used to express probability or expectation

These definitions are almost mutually exclusive.

topcatcbr

Should can mean "When possible" and as they are guidance documents and not the actual regulations the word should can be more benificial than must. If the word must is used it could rule out possible solutions to a problem that the TGD writers did not imagine. should alows for the designer to prove he met with the regulations by using a method not described in the TGD

sydthebeat

heres an excerpt from the building regs 1997

"

7. (1) The Minister may publish, or arrange to have published
on his behalf, documents to be known as ‘‘technical
guidance documents’’ for the purpose of providing guidance
with respect to compliance with the requirements of any of
the provisions of the Second Schedule.
(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-article (3), where
works or a building to which these Regulations apply is or
are designed and constructed in accordance with any guidance
contained in a technical guidance document, this shall,
prima facie, indicate compliance with the relevant requirements
of these Regulations.
(3) The provisions of any guidance contained in a technical
guidance document published under sub-article (1) concerning
the use of a particular material, method of construction
or specification, shall not be construed as prohibiting
compliance with a requirement of these Regulations by the
use of any other suitable material, method of construction

or specification."

My reading of this means that when the TDGs recommend a quantitive figure, be it a distance, height, u value, boiler output, etc etc it is not open to be based on opinion. Only the material, method or spec can be changed but not the quantitive factor.

HeatLoad

muffler wrote: »

I think the rest of us are talking about houses (as you were when referring to exemptions above) not day care centres.

In any event can we all get back on topic regarding the use of the word "should".

Just making the point that if this particular daycare centre that caters for people, who are in the majority wheelchair bound, is compliant with a side entrance I find it hard to understand how a private dwelling should need a front entrance to comply. I have spoken to to three building control officers from different parts of the country and they are in agreement that the position of the main entrance, as long as it and the interior of the building complies with TGDs, is at the descretion of the designer. If you could give me the name of the officer that signed that letter I would appreciate it. I would like to speak to him/her to get their reasoning. PM me if you wish. I feel that regulations such as this should be countrywide and not subject to local planning idiosyncrasies.

Getting back to the topic should versus must? I think 'should' means 'insofar as'

muffler

What are you doing there smashey

sydthebeat

HeatLoad wrote: »

Just making the point that if this particular daycare centre that caters for people, who are in the majority wheelchair bound, is compliant with a side entrance I find it hard to understand how a private dwelling should need a front entrance to comply. I have spoken to to three building control officers from different parts of the country and they are in agreement that the position of the main entrance, as long as it and the interior of the building complies with TGDs, is at the descretion of the designer. If you could give me the name of the officer that signed that letter I would appreciate it. I would like to speak to him/her to get their reasoning. PM me if you wish. I feel that regulations such as this should be countrywide and not subject to local planning idiosyncrasies.

Getting back to the topic should versus must? I think 'should' means 'insofar as'

of course the position of the main entrance is at the discretion of the designer.....

you stated in your first post that the "main entrance is to side of the building". theres nothing to state that this cannot be. In a dwelling situation the main entrance is required to be accessible because it would be considered discriminatory if able bodied persons can use the main entrance, but ambulant disabled persons are told to "go around the side", or "go to the back"...... thats a situation that nobody should be happy with.!!!!!

and an extra !!!! for emphasis.....

muffler

HeatLoad wrote: »

Just making the point that if this particular daycare centre that caters for people, who are in the majority wheelchair bound, is compliant with a side entrance I find it hard to understand how a private dwelling should need a front entrance to comply. I have spoken to to three building control officers from different parts of the country and they are in agreement that the position of the main entrance, as long as it and the interior of the building complies with TGDs, is at the descretion of the designer. If you could give me the name of the officer that signed that letter I would appreciate it. I would like to speak to him/her to get their reasoning. PM me if you wish. I feel that regulations such as this should be countrywide and not subject to local planning idiosyncrasies.

Getting back to the topic should versus must? I think 'should' means 'insofar as'

All well and good but 90% of that post has nothing to do with the topic at hand - AGAIN. Any more of this and I wont be as lenient.

muffler

sydthebeat wrote: »

of course the position of the main entrance is at the discretion of the designer.....

you stated in your first post that the "main entrance is to side of the building". theres nothing to state that this cannot be. In a dwelling situation the main entrance is required to be accessible because it would be considered discriminatory if able bodied persons can use the main entrance, but ambulant disabled persons are told to "go around the side", or "go to the back"...... thats a situation that nobody should be happy with.!!!!!

and an extra !!!! for emphasis.....

Syd you started this thread and should no better than pull it more off topic by engaging in a debate that has nothing to do with the topic.

feel free to start a new thread on the issue of "main/front doors" if you wish but this thread is being derailed and its not on.

sydthebeat

muffler wrote: »

Syd you started this thread and should no better than pull it more off topic by engaging in a debate that has nothing to do with the topic.

feel free to start a new thread on the issue of "main/front doors" if you wish but this thread is being derailed and its not on.

understood

HeatLoad

muffler wrote: »

About 2 years ago we got notified by the Building Control dept. that the ramps and platforms had to be located at the front door of the house in order to comply.

Front door is the door on the front elevation regardless of the house orientation.

Sorry, I should have referred back to this post.. not used to this posting lark. I would be very interested to debate this further if it's moved or not ""

HeatLoad

A but shur as they say in Kilkenny, front door or back door? who gives a ****e when you own the house

sinnerboy

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ4xsxQSarc


sorry muffler ...... for the continued derailment


.

muffler

Listen lads you have all overshot the runway at this stage so I am locking this thread.

Feel free to start new threads on any of the issues raised here.


Edit: Some or perhaps all of the off topic posts have been moved to here