Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Part M and first floor restaurant

  • 02-06-2016 4:55pm
    #1
    PMBC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,112 ✭✭✭


    I am just starting to read the TGD M, 2010. Visitabillity for domestic 'purpose group'. What about access to first floor restaurant for wheelchair bound people? How is that satisfied; is a lift a requirement? Sorry for taking the easy route to this!


Comments

  • #2
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 40,339 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    PMBC wrote: »
    I am just starting to read the TGD M, 2010. Visitabillity for domestic 'purpose group'. What about access to first floor restaurant for wheelchair bound people? How is that satisfied; is a lift a requirement? Sorry for taking the easy route to this!

    It depends on the context of the development.
    Is it a new build?
    Is it a conversion of an existing building and change of use?
    Is it a protected structure?


  • #3
    PMBC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,112 ✭✭✭PMBC


    kceire wrote: »
    It depends on the context of the development.
    Is it a new build?
    Is it a conversion of an existing building and change of use?
    Is it a protected structure?

    Sorry for the delay in replying.
    Yes its a conversion and change of use of an existing building together with some demolition to rear and side of 'old extensions' and an extension.
    Thanks kceire.


  • #4
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 40,339 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    PMBC wrote: »
    Sorry for the delay in replying.
    Yes its a conversion and change of use of an existing building together with some demolition to rear and side of 'old extensions' and an extension.
    Thanks kceire.


    My gut feeling is that you can go without a lift as its an existing structure and it would be impossible to add a lift due to the other floors in other ownership (I assume)

    If it landed on my desk for inspection I'd dig deeper in TGDM.
    You will deffo need a DAC so maybe arrange a pre app before lodging and suss out what the Housing Agency will insist on.

    Where is the site located?


  • #5
    PMBC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,112 ✭✭✭PMBC


    Midlands


  • #6
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 40,339 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    PMBC wrote: »
    Midlands

    Ok. Talk to Midlands Building Control to confirm.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    PMBC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,112 ✭✭✭PMBC


    Yea, next step


  • #8
    Metric Tensor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,725 ✭✭✭Metric Tensor


    I think this can vary depending on the interpretation of the person reviewing your DAC certificate. I know with protected structures there can be a head to head regarding lifts and DAC vs Conservation. It is resolved differently in different local authority areas.


  • #9
    PMBC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,112 ✭✭✭PMBC


    MT thanks.
    Planning drawings don't show a lift but, referring to previous reply from Kceire, the whole development i.e. both floors are under control of one owner; so it is feasible and imho should be installed. But owner probably (given from so far) doesn't want to 'spend'. So I suppose if I defer to Housing Agency, it will be 'their call'.
    I am taking Part M, 0.2, that reads '.. so that people can independently ...use a building, its facilities ...etc.' as meaning (for the classes of building covered) they must be designed for wheelchair users to use and that 0.3 a) further reinforces that.
    Is that a general interpretation or am I being unrealistic?
    Thanks again.


  • #10
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 40,339 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    PMBC wrote: »
    MT thanks.
    Planning drawings don't show a lift but, referring to previous reply from Kceire, the whole development i.e. both floors are under control of one owner; so it is feasible and imho should be installed. But owner probably (given from so far) doesn't want to 'spend'. So I suppose if I defer to Housing Agency, it will be 'their call'.
    I am taking Part M, 0.2, that reads '.. so that people can independently ...use a building, its facilities ...etc.' as meaning (for the classes of building covered) they must be designed for wheelchair users to use and that 0.3 a) further reinforces that.
    Is that a general interpretation or am I being unrealistic?
    Thanks again.

    If same owner owns both floors and the ground floor is going through a refurbishment at the same time also, I'd look for a lift.


Advertisement