door widths - too narrow?

[news1...@moo.uklinux.net]

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

[Cash]

Paul, stick a false jamb into the frame to narrow the opening down to 27"
and make-good the gap with some extra wide architrave (or casing) on that
side - this will enable you to 'try out' your adaptation and revert back to
the original if it doesn't work out for you.

Cash

[The Natural Philosopher]

news1...@moo.uklinux.net 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 bollocks. 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

> 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.

> #Paul


--
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.

[j...@arcade.demon.co.uk]

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> Its illegal to do that actually. Disabled access bollocks. 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

[Owain]

On Sep 26, 9:54 pm, news12p...@moo.uklinux.net 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.

Owain

[Cash]

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> news1...@moo.uklinux.net 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 bollocks. 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

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 21:28:59 +0100, news1...@moo.uklinux.net 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).
>
>Any comments? I want the space advantages, but am wary of finding
>out after the fact that they seem annoyingly "too narrow".

Just don't get fat.

[tim.....]

"The Natural Philosopher" <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:k3vr22$ns8$3...@news.albasani.net...

> news1...@moo.uklinux.net 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

[Man at B&Q]

On Sep 26, 10:11 pm, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

> news12p...@moo.uklinux.net 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 bollocks.

I think the only bollocks is courtesy of TNP.

Please quote the regs that say that.

MBQ

[The Natural Philosopher]

Building regulations have teeth...

[tim.....]

"The Natural Philosopher" <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message

news:k419qv$r11$1...@news.albasani.net...

> tim..... wrote:
>>
>> "The Natural Philosopher" <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:k3vr22$ns8$3...@news.albasani.net...
>>> news1...@moo.uklinux.net 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

[charles]

In article <acipu2...@mid.individual.net>,

tim..... <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> "The Natural Philosopher" <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:k419qv$r11$1...@news.albasani.net...
> > tim..... wrote:
> >>
> >> "The Natural Philosopher" <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> >> news:k3vr22$ns8$3...@news.albasani.net...
> >>> news1...@moo.uklinux.net 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

[Nightjar]

On 27/09/2012 12:20, charles wrote:
> In article <acipu2...@mid.individual.net>,
> tim..... <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> "The Natural Philosopher" <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:k419qv$r11$1...@news.albasani.net...
>>> tim..... wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "The Natural Philosopher" <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:k3vr22$ns8$3...@news.albasani.net...
>>>>> news1...@moo.uklinux.net 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

[The Natural Philosopher]

"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/property/building_regulations/9026.html)

I'll leave people to decide for themselves whether that makes it
'illegal' or not.

[charles]

In article <2OidnUUMZ7CwxPnN...@giganews.com>,

but the local authority probably has a relevant by-law.

[js...@ntlworld.com]

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).

[js...@ntlworld.com]

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.

[Phil L]

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> news1...@moo.uklinux.net 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 bollocks. 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

[SteveW]

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

[js...@ntlworld.com]

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).

[js...@ntlworld.com]

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).

[news1...@moo.uklinux.net]

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

[Hugo Nebula]

[Default] On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 22:11:30 +0100, a certain chimpanzee,
The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid>, randomly hit the

keyboard and wrote:

>news1...@moo.uklinux.net 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 bollocks. 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 bollocks. 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"?

[Hugo Nebula]

[Default] On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 14:48:23 +0100, a certain chimpanzee,
Nightjar <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk>, 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".

[polygonum]

On 01/10/2012 21:07, Hugo Nebula wrote:
<>
>
> In order: a) No it's not. b) Disabled access isn't bollocks.
>
<>

Absolutely agreed it is not bollocks. 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

[Tim+]

polygonum <rmoud...@vrod.co.uk> wrote:
> On 01/10/2012 21:07, Hugo Nebula wrote:
> <>
>>
>> In order: a) No it's not. b) Disabled access isn't bollocks.
>>
> <>
> Absolutely agreed it is not bollocks. 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

[SteveW]

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

[charles]

In article <acugao...@mid.individual.net>,

as I learned on a course about 20 years ago, only 10% of disabled people
use a wheelchair.

[polygonum]

I realised that my post ignored mental health issues - not intended to
dismiss them but outside my experience at these levels.

--
Rod

[The Natural Philosopher]

Huge wrote:

> On 2012-10-01, Hugo Nebula <ab...@local.host> wrote:
>
>> b) Disabled access isn't bollocks.
>

> 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 bollocks.

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 shitting required a totally reconstructed toilet/bathroom.

At which point I decided that the whole BCO disability cmpliance was
BOLLOCKS. 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 Natural Philosopher]

And the ones that DO, and cant stagger on crutches, need a fuck site
more in a house than the ability to drive a wheel chair round it.
It's bollocks not because disability isn't something that needs to be
considered, its bollocks because the measures simply are a pathetic sop
to the disability lobby and don't address the fundamental problems of
disability, at all.

[Fredxx]

On 01/10/2012 21:15, Hugo Nebula wrote:
> [Default] On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 14:48:23 +0100, a certain chimpanzee,
> Nightjar <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk>, 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.

[Tim Watts]

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."

[Tim Watts]

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?

[Chris J Dixon]

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
ch...@cdixon.me.uk

Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh.

[tony sayer]

In article <t2hqj9-...@squidward.local.dionic.net>, Tim Watts
<tw+u...@dionic.net> scribeth thus

>Tim+ wrote:
>
>> polygonum <rmoud...@vrod.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 01/10/2012 21:07, Hugo Nebula wrote:
>>> <>
>>>>
>>>> In order: a) No it's not. b) Disabled access isn't bollocks.
>>>>
>>> <>
>>> Absolutely agreed it is not bollocks. 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

[Hugo Nebula]

[Default] On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 00:30:43 +0100, a certain chimpanzee,

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]

[Default] On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 00:08:26 +0100, a certain chimpanzee,

The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid>, randomly hit the
keyboard and wrote:

>OK Hugo, I was being 'jocular' when I called it bollocks.
>
>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 shitting required a totally reconstructed toilet/bathroom.
>
>At which point I decided that the whole BCO disability cmpliance was
>BOLLOCKS. 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?

[Weatherlawyer]

On Sep 26, 11:51 pm, "Cash" <.............\\@...............//.com>

wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> > news12p...@moo.uklinux.net 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 bollocks. 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.