Rate this!
paul gendle
Member - 1 post
The commentry in the architectural press on the final stage of the DDA coming into effect next year seems to indicate that any building where full access is not provided but where it was reasonable to do so is a "test case waiting to happen" - is this your view also? We are worried about how the act may be interpereted on the following points:
1) If a new private residential block is fitted with a lift, but the lift is not taken as far as the top floor (where there is only one flat), would this be considered prejudicial? We can make the final flight of stairs ambulent disabled so there are no building regulations issues.
2) If we are designing a live-work unit which has the residential element at ground level and the workspace in the basement, we would presumably have to provide a lift for access to the basement?
3) If we are designing a small office unit of 70m², could we put a mezzanine in of 35m² accessed by ambulent disabled stairs and rely on either retro-fitting a platform lift or limiting a wheelchair-bound employee to the lower level?
Rate this!
Anonymous
Paul Gendle highlights the chief difficulty with DDA. The Government has been "slippery" with this legislation, rather than be prescriptive and offending interest groups and bring the legislation into place through the building regulations there is the concept of reasonably practicable. That concept will be tested by the courts by those gifted with 20/20 hindsight.
In the meantime, designers are trying to balance conflicting demands without much guidance. We get by by making a project based assessment, determining what we believe is reasonable provision and then discussing the scheme with the local authority access officer.
Rate this!
Anonymous
As a safety consultant undertaking access audits I've been asked similar questions before.
It all depends on who you client is and whether they are providing the good/facilities/services as part of their undertaking as a landlord/developer in which case the duty under section 3 falls upon them.
However, as an architectual advisor to your client you will be expected to deliver minimum compliance ie. what Part M of the Building Regs requires, but that doesn't extend far enough to comply with the DDA, so refer to BS 8300.
With regard to the residential and live/work units the DDA would only apply if they were let by a landlord. It would be unreasonable for a developer to install lifts etc in all the units, but options should be available.
With regard to item 3(mezzanine floor), DDA Parts 1 & 2 would apply but an employer would comply provided all employee facilities etc were on ground floor. Part 3 would only apply if goods, facilities and/or services were being delivered to the public from the mezzanine level, in which case the upper floor would need to be accessible and fully comply. I hope this helps.
Rate this!
Anonymous
Just two points to add to the advice given by Chris and Robert.
You should also consider how wheelchair users would evacuate the areas in question in the event of fire. The power supply to stair lifts etc may well be interrupted, leaving people trapped.
Leaving disabled people in refuges is not acceptable.
New buildings that comply with Part M of the Building Regulations have a ten-year exemption from the requirements of the Act. However, as previously mentioned Part M does not address the needs of many disabled building users
Rate this!
Mark Heighton - CMS Cameron McKenna
Online advisor - 3 posts
There are no clear cut answers with the DDA. The legislation is deliberately drafted so as to allow different approaches to be taken in respect of different buildings. However the key focus is on "service providers". The DDA does not distinguish between landlords and tenants.
The question you therefore need to ask in each case is which owner/occupier is a "service provider". In the case of a private residential block it is difficult to envisage that this is the case unless the developer is providing some form of marketing suite or show suite on the top floor.
In the case of live/work unit it is possible that members of the public are being invited into the workspace area. The DDA does not however prescribe that a lift must be installed. The occupier must look at what action he or she should take in order to ensure that his or her services are available to disabled people. This may or may not involve installation of a lift. As an example are there other ways the services can be made available to disabled people at ground floor level? The same applies to the office unit.
As John Carmichael points out there is also a partial defence in respect of service providers where a particular part of a building complied with Part M and still complies.
There are separate rules relating to employers' obligations to employees which may also be relevant
0 (0)
