Disabled Access

cookie1234

Hi there,
We have just had our windows and doors fitted to our new build house. The back door has been manufactured 30mm too short. It is 2220mm rather than the 2250mm the rep measured and quoted in the survey he supplied. There will now be a larger drop than planned on the inside of the back door, which was to be our disabled access point, to the finished floor. Does anyone know what the tolerances for diasbled access are? and will this extra 30mm drop cause us a problem?
Thanks

Carlow52

Part M here
http://www.environ.ie/en/TGD/#Individual%20Technical%20Guidance%20Documents

at 1.23.a on page 16 sets threshold at max of 15 mm, this is 2005 version, there are 3 docs in all on the link some which are 2010 so have a peep

mickdw

Id get them to supply a new door. Given that there would have been a 15mm ledge anyway if all was right, there is now going to be a 45mm high threshold. This is simply not acceptable for a wheelchair access.

I wouldnt be in favour of dropping the door either although this will be the next suggestion from the door manufacturer.

sydthebeat

i think its important that its brought to the OPs attention that the 'disabled access' should be the front door, unless its not practical to do so?

cookie1234

Thanks to you all. We have a porch at the front door so as I understand from our engineer there isn't sufficient space between the two doors for wheelchair access, hence the back door is being used. What is the problem with lowering the door? If the company suggests this how do I ensure I get a new door the correct size?

gman2k

cookie1234 wrote: »

Thanks to you all. We have a porch at the front door so as I understand from our engineer there isn't sufficient space between the two doors for wheelchair access, hence the back door is being used. What is the problem with lowering the door? If the company suggests this how do I ensure I get a new door the correct size?

I think you should ask your 'engineer' why he designed your house to not be in compliance with the Building Regulations. As Sydthebeat said above....
Bad design does not get around the not practical to do so part of the regs.

Mellor

You can have disabed access with a porch. So that's no the reason why.

If you install the door at the correct height, level access. There will be a 30mm gap at the top. Dealing with that is a nightmare.

Window company messed up. Their problem.

martinn123

Mellor wrote: »

If you install the door at the correct height, level access. There will be a 30mm gap at the top. Dealing with that is a nightmare.

Window company messed up. Their problem.

Assuming its PVC, there is a frame extention at 30mm which can be attached to the top of the door, you will have more PVC than expected, with the door frame and the extention, but as the door is 2250, and a standard door is 2100, there should be no banging of heads except for very, tall visitors.
If its a timber door, I am sure there is a similar solution.

That said its not what you ordered, so its their problem.

cookie1234

Window company rep was out today, and it turns out the door was supplied without the 30mm header. The fitters are due back tomorrow to correct the mistake, so all is ok. I'm sure there are other reasons re: disabled access at the back door, but our engineer likes to keep it simple for me as my knowledge of all things building related is very poor.

Carlow52

cookie1234 wrote: »

Window company rep was out today, and it turns out the door was supplied without the 30mm header. The fitters are due back tomorrow to correct the mistake, so all is ok. I'm sure there are other reasons re: disabled access at the back door, but our engineer likes to keep it simple for me as my knowledge of all things building related is very poor.

Re the 30 mm; sounds like a lucky break

Re the keep it simple, perhaps he is using your self proclaimed lack of knowledge as a get out of jail card for a potential error.

In passing does the build meet the disabled WC requirements, and access thereto, as set out on page 22 and following of the link I posted?

mickdw

There is no reason not to design a proper accessible entrance to front door however, I would estimate that about 70% of wheelchair access are being fitted to back or side doors in the areas I've seen.

cookie1234

Carlow 52 - Yes, measurements of downstairs WC more than meet access requirements of part M. What could potentially happen if there is a problem with using back door as disabled access and not the front?

Mellor

cookie1234 wrote: »

Carlow 52 - Yes, measurements of downstairs WC more than meet access requirements of part M. What could potentially happen if there is a problem with using back door as disabled access and not the front?

Its poor design, if he was arsed doing that right, what else did he do half arsed

sydthebeat

cookie1234 wrote: »

Carlow 52 - Yes, measurements of downstairs WC more than meet access requirements of part M. What could potentially happen if there is a problem with using back door as disabled access and not the front?

the point is very simple.

if a wheelchair bound person visits your house.. and you have say two step sat your front door... will they be able to get close enough to the door to ring the door bell or knock on the door?
if they cannot, what do they do?
if they can then what do you do when you answer? say, oh sorry your in a wheelchair, you may go around the back and use the back door?
or do you hang a sign on the front door stating "wheelchair users to use back door please"?

its simply a case of equality and accessibility.

people have the wrong idea about accessible entrances, due to lazy builders casting concrete ramps at doors... and lazy certifiers accepting side or rear entry doors. In fairness to a certifier, if a houseowner demands that dont make the front door accessible, theres not much they can do other than notify that they are not in compliance.

Slig

The purpose of ensuring that houses are wheelchair (and disabled) accessible is not just so that a visiting person in a wheelchair can be accomodated but also if for some reason a resident of the house becomes disabled. On a more morbid note the sizes reccomended for wheelchair compliance also ensure that its possible to remove a coffin from the house.

We all have elderly relatives and friends and nobody I know actually gets younger over time so its very short sighted to ignore this part of the regs.

gman2k

What people need to realise is that it's the environment that disables a person and removes their dignity and human rights.
In this instance the steps at the front door disable a person. When level access is available (a legal prerogative) then the person is not disabled from entering the property.

cookie1234

There is level access to the house, so I don't see how we have removed anyone's dignity or human rights.

BryanF

cookie1234 wrote: »

There is level access to the house, so I don't see how we have removed anyone's dignity or human rights.

it xmas, its pissing out, the granny is wheeled from the car, that's gotten as close as possible to the front door... go round the back granny:D

cookie1234

I appreciate the point you are trying to make. More worryingly though, as we have a limited budget we won't be able to afford to tarmac the drive for a number of years, so it will be loose stone and mud for the forseeable future. This will make access very difficult for a wheelchair user regardless of where the disabled access door is. What do building regs say about this?

muffler

cookie1234 wrote: »

I appreciate the point you are trying to make. More worryingly though, as we have a limited budget we won't be able to afford to tarmac the drive for a number of years, so it will be loose stone and mud for the forseeable future. This will make access very difficult for a wheelchair user regardless of where the disabled access door is. What do building regs say about this?

Disabled access starts at the front gate and is not simply confined to the door access.

Dwellings should be designed and
constructed so that:
(i) people can safely and conveniently
approach and gain access. Where
due to site specific constraints or
where all entrances are on other
than ground level and a suitable
passenger lift is not provided, it is
considered adequate to provide
access by means of steps, or a
stairway suitable for use by
ambulant disabled people;

Technical Guidance Document M would explain it all.

cookie1234

It's xmas, its pissing out, the granny is wheeled from the car, down the drive and up the ramp at the front door. She asks "can I use your toilet?" and gets the answer "sorry granny you'll have to use the bucket in the corner because we spent all our money on tarmac". Now who has had their dignity removed?

sydthebeat

cookie1234 wrote: »

It's xmas, its pissing out, the granny is wheeled from the car, down the drive and up the ramp at the front door. She asks "can I use your toilet?" and gets the answer "sorry granny you'll have to use the bucket in the corner because we spent all our money on tarmac". Now who has had their dignity removed?

you are LEGALLY required to build in accordance with building regulations.
therefore you are required to organise your budget, and specification, to cover all aspects.

sydthebeat

martinn123 wrote: »

While I have no doubt, Syd is quoting the letter of the law, and the Reg's, the OP however is in the real world.
I have yet to pass a new one off where everything is finished to this level of detail, before being occupied.
Its natural for the budget to be applied to making the home habitable, sound , and warm first. Details like tarmac will often come later.
In my case it took 3 years before I could afford to do the drive. Our house- warming was attended by a dear friend in a wheelchair, we got her up to the steps by car, and used a large sheet of ply to form a temporary ramp, I can tell you she had a great night.
These Reg's are fine for an estate, and aimed at developers, before the houses are sold.

I wonder if anyone here, who might issue a Cert of Compliance, refused because the Tarmac was not down.

jaysus thats some rubbish!!
just because "real world" = "the auld oirish way of doing everything arseways" doesnt excuse the requirement to do things properly.
I never said that tarmac had to be laid... the regs are quite clear, read them to find out what is required. Its actually easier to do it properly with a bit of attention and care, without any need at all to have a fancy tarmaced, or paved or what ever finish. Read again what i said.. .the budget and specification should be organised to comply. Ignorance is never a defense.

These Reg's are fine for an estate, and aimed at developers, before the houses are sold.

.... youre inferring that somehow one off houses are above regulation....!!! ridiculous



why are irish people quite happy to treat the single biggest money spend of their lives with such distain and disrespect ??
its mindboggling.

sydthebeat

you miss the point completely...

you are saying that this is the status quo, so that means its ok.... when clearly it isnt.

theres no point bringing certification into it because we've seen with high profile cases lately that certification is a myth. Theres many ways to wrangle out of demanding compliance.

my point is simple.
standard house with standard front door, say FL 200mm above path level.
when casting pathway.... the hardcore, blinded with 804 or whatever, can so easily be laid to a gentle slope so that the 150mm path is level with the FL.
This means no ramps, no steps etc at front door. the driveway and paths all slope gently to front door which has its min 1200 sq level area outside.

its actually as easy to do this on site as it is to cast a 150mm pathway level all around, and then come and cast another concrete landing with a ramp and step.
even if theres no tarmac, paving etc the situation would comply....

simples... but of course, more often than not, its not done

muffler

Quite simply the budget should be inclusive of all these works. There's no point in complaining that "I couldnt afford to do this, that or the other"

If you embark on the journey of building a house then you should ensure that you have the funds to carry out all works and not just the works that you consider are important.

sydthebeat

martinn123 wrote: »

No I am not, I am saying available funds will be applied first, to making the house habitable, unfortunately not everyone has sufficient funds to complete to Total Compliance

ive just explained above how this can be done for nothing extra... actually savings would be made if it was done properly.
but still, youre point about 'available funds' not being set aside for building regulation complaince is non sensical.
the MINIMUM STANDARD of building in ireland is the BUILDING REGULATIONS.
anything below this is substandard.

martinn123 wrote: »

Fair enough, but you are missing the point completely, I am commenting on access, from the gate, or entry to the site, in my case that is about 50 meters, providing, again in my case, tarmac, had to wait, until then it was hardcore, with some smaller stones. No way a wheelchair could make it as far as the front door, from the road,

:rolleyes:

holy crap, do you actually ever read up on what you are arguing??
where does it say you need to travel by wheel chair from a road to a door?

sydthebeat

martin, perhaps you should google "economic cost" and refine your thinking.

muffler

martinn123 wrote: »

And people are happy to reply to my posts, with

Dont go there please. Have you learned anything from posting in this forum?

martinn123 wrote: »

I know you live in the real world, and have real clients, so dont tell me you have never experienced, unexpected additional costs, increased material costs, changes to spec's, etc.etc.etc
Coupled with, refusal of Banks to advance additional funds, available savings depleted, etc.
So what do your clients do, close up the site, or compromise.

And you then rely on and ask who to sign off on everything despite the fact thats its either not right or not complete?

martinn123

I am deleting my posts from this thread,

Sydthebeat wrote:

....!!! ridiculous

sydthebeat wrote:

jaysus thats some rubbish!!

sydthebeat wrote:

holy crap, do you actually ever read up on what you are arguing??

as I am not prepared to be posted to in these terms, debate, whether one agrees with me or not, is not what this thread is about
thanks.

sydthebeat

tell you what matrin, ill delete those remarks....

IF you go any educate yourself as to what your actually trying to debate on.

DEAL?

edit: actually, i see you deleted your posts, but ill leave my quotes from you as an example of the kind of stuff you were coming out with.

martinn123

sydthebeat wrote: »

tell you what matrin, ill delete those remarks....

IF you go any educate yourself as to what your actually trying to debate on.

DEAL?

edit: actually, i see you deleted your posts, but ill leave my quotes from you as an example of the kind of stuff you were coming out with.

One final post in reply,

Is there no end to the personal abuse one has to take when commenting on here, I read somewhere '' Attack the post, not the Poster'' perhaps that does not really apply.
I am thankful that you did not indicate you were ''Moderating'' as I would have to take this to PM, and so I reply to your posts

In reply to

sydthebeat wrote:

holy crap, do you actually ever read up on what you are arguing??
where does it say you need to travel by wheel chair from a road to a door?

I have no idea, where it say's that, I was relying on another poster who commented

More worryingly though, as we have a limited budget we won't be able to afford to tarmac the drive for a number of years, so it will be loose stone and mud for the forseeable future. This will make access very difficult for a wheelchair user regardless of where the disabled access door is. What do building regs say about this?

Muffler replied

muffler wrote:

Disabled access starts at the front gate and is not simply confined to the door access.

If I wanted to study the Regulations in detail, I would have gone to Architectural school, thank be I didn't.

sydthebeat wrote:

martin, perhaps you should google "economic cost" and refine your thinking

I have NO IDEA what this means, but thanks anyway.

cookie1234

muffler wrote: »

Quite simply the budget should be inclusive of all these works. There's no point in complaining that "I couldnt afford to do this, that or the other"

If you embark on the journey of building a house then you should ensure that you have the funds to carry out all works and not just the works that you consider are important.

Just in response to this point - A colleague from work has been building a house steadily over the last 18 months or so and has recently applied to the bank for the final stage payment of his mortgage. The bank have told him that he cannot have this money as due to the downturn in property value over the period of building if they give him his final payment he will then have a mortgage of 118% of the value of the property. How could you budget for this?

BryanF

I empathise with your friend, the banks are killing your chances of building a home and ours for making a living, but are you sure this is the only reason/ issue?

cookie1234 wrote: »

18 months or so

!

cookie1234

BryanF wrote: »

I empathise with your friend, the banks are killing your chances of building a home and ours for making a living, but are you sure this is the only reason/ issue?

cookie1234 wrote: »

18 months or so

!

It was march 2010 when his build started, and the fall in property value is the only reason he has given me. He is currently seeking legal advice so may get his final payment yet. Our budget could effectively be reduced by 10% (the final stage payment), so my priority is to complete the the house to a livable condition as quickly as we can and hope we get our final payment to complete the outside. But, like i said, if Im left with a choice over a bathroom or tarmac or putting a concrete pathway and ramps up to doors its a bathroom everytime Im afraid, even if i will be breaching building regs or in danger of removing someone's dignity.

muffler

Just to clarify a point here. The regs make no reference to tarmac so Im puzzled as to why it is being continually mentioned.

cookie1234

muffler wrote: »

Just to clarify a point here. The regs make no reference to tarmac so Im puzzled as to why it is being continually mentioned.

Sorry, i mean any finished surface, other than the stones and mud which are currently there, for the driveway.

sydthebeat

cookie, the point you are making is well understood... however i have to reiterate... compliance with building regulations is the MINIMUM STANDARD of building legally allowed.

ive also stated, twice, that compliance can actually be done at ZERO cost.

this thread should be not be used as a comment directly on your situation, because you are another of many who are in the same boat, but it actually should be aimed at persons who are about to embark on the same route.

Slig

Surely if the job was tendered then there was at least a PC sum for landscaping and external works in the price. Where did this money go?

I can completely understand people leaving out things like floor coverings, furniture and fittings for "next year" but leaving out something that will potentially cost a couple of thousand from the main house cost package just doesnt add up to me, especially if you have to pay to get machinery and workers BACK onto the site a couple of years later

BryanF

Slig wrote: »

Surely if the job was tendered then there was at least a PC sum for landscaping and external works in the price. Where did this money go?

I can completely understand people leaving out things like floor coverings, furniture and fittings for "next year" but leaving out something that will potentially cost a couple of thousand from the main house cost package just doesnt add up to me, especially if you have to pay to get machinery and workers BACK onto the site a couple of years later

banks aren't lending/ playing fair and are F'ing over many self-builders, so these are the first things cut..

I'm not suggesting that building regaultion short-cuts should be taken. I'd actually like to get a few solicotors on here to figure out is there a case to be made against the banks for retention of moneys agreed and then refused/delayed that are subsequently causing a breach building regs, time-deals/extras to contractors or even better a breach of health and safety (H&S possibly being a more immediate argument, than the 5 year Breg time-frame in PP)

cookie1234

It's not a question of where did the money go, it's a question of how much of the money the bank has agreed to lend me will I get before the bank says no more! A couple of thousand is a bathroom, and as i've said that's what i'm buying. I'm not suggesting taking building regs short cuts either i'm just pointing out that I feel i'm being forced to decide between complying with building regs or making my house habitable. As BryanF suggests opinions from solicitors please........

archtech

cookie1234 wrote: »

It I'm not suggesting taking building regs short cuts either i'm just pointing out that I feel i'm being forced to decide between complying with building regs or making my house habitable.

Bear in mind if the house doesn't comply with the building regs, the bank won't release the money.

cookie1234

You seem to miss the point. Banks are withholding money whether houses comply with regs or not.

sydthebeat

cookie1234 wrote: »

It's not a question of where did the money go, it's a question of how much of the money the bank has agreed to lend me will I get before the bank says no more! A couple of thousand is a bathroom, and as i've said that's what i'm buying. I'm not suggesting taking building regs short cuts either i'm just pointing out that I feel i'm being forced to decide between complying with building regs or making my house habitable. As BryanF suggests opinions from solicitors please........

are you saying that the bank are reneging on the original amount they agreed to lend, based on 'signed off' calculations for the build.... or have you already drawn down all that amount and you are now looking for more?

cookie1234

A few posts back I explained about a colleague from work who has been told by his bank that they will not give him his final stage payment, as if they do his mortgage will then be 118% of the current value of his property. This has left him with bills to pay for work done but no money to pay them. However, this issue is ongoing and he may yet get it. I am currently at the internal plastering stage of my build so still have a couple of payments to draw down. I don't want to find myself in this situation, so what do I do? I don't want to compromise on the standard of finish but understand the need to comply with building regs. Are there any others out there who have had similar experiences with banks and how were they resolved?

archtech

A few suggestions;

Get your solicitor to review the terms of your loan/mortgage approval to see if the bank can withhold the money.

Talk to your building professional and agree in writing what s/he needs to be completed so that they are in a position sign off on compliance and prioritise this.

Floors, painting, skirtings, tiling etc don't all have to be finished for one to move in to a house. That's how people did it in the pre-celtic tiger days, along with building smaller houses.

To address the item of disabled access one solution would be to provide only the path to the front of the house with the appropriate disabled access, leaving the rest of the paths. A path at the front door also helps reduce people bring grit etc through the house from outside.

Remember an undecorated house that complies with the regs, is worth more that a house than is decorated and doesn't comply, as I'm sure 200 odd residents of a property in Dublin will vouch for.

Mellor

cookie1234 wrote: »

It's xmas, its pissing out, the granny is wheeled from the car, down the drive and up the ramp at the front door. She asks "can I use your toilet?" and gets the answer "sorry granny you'll have to use the bucket in the corner because we spent all our money on tarmac". Now who has had their dignity removed?

If the house is not yet finished then its not an issue.
Also, there is no ramp. The regs don't require a ramp.
Why do people still ahve this idea?.

Level access costs almost the same as stepped access. The price of a drain verses pouring a step.

martinn123 wrote:

No I am not, I am saying available funds will be applied first, to making the house habitable, unfortunately not everyone has sufficient funds to complete to Total Compliance

Martin, we all appriciate that everything can't be done at once, and priorities have to be made as you work towards total compliance.
But how is that any way related to the discussion at hand.

There is a huge difference between something not beign finished yet (a tarmac'd drive) and something that was designed and buikt in such a way that it was not in compliance (the stepped porch mentioned previously).

martinn123 wrote: »

If I wanted to study the Regulations in detail, I would have gone to Architectural school, thank be I didn't.

Mod:
I'll let this pass this time, but less of the condesending remarks in future. Intentional or otherwise.
Also, if you haven't study, or aren't familar with regs (or any topic for that matter) amybe its best not to debate those issue and stick to your own area of knowledge.