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
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
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
Just don't tell the BCO.
Get a narrower wheelchair?
JGH
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
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?
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
Just don't get fat.
It might be a breach of building regs, that doesn't make it illegal
tim
I think the only bollocks is courtesy of TNP.
Please quote the regs that say that.
MBQ
Building regulations have teeth...
that still doesn't pass the test for "illegal"
tim
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.
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
"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."
but the local authority probably has a relevant by-law.
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 b= efore, this is pretty general across building regulations when push comes t= o shove.
#2 - If the bedrooms are not on the Principal Storey then the matter become= s even less important.
#3 - If the bedrooms are on the 3rd Storey or multiple occupancy you hit ot= her 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 a= re built or b) as conversion. Building Regs are increasingly creating a rid= iculous overhead - and I have two relatives wheelchair disabled so understa= nd 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 leg= al terms, simply so you can reverse it at a future date.
It is very common for upstairs landing & bathroom & toilet access to be 650= mm wide - which utterly eliminates any chance of wheelchair access. To incr= ease that access to that required (900mm wide corridor for Direct Approach)= you need to move the walls inwards. Even if that is physically possible (b= uilt 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) p= ut 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 conv= ersions as the person moved into care (forced into care by an O/T on ground= s of Council Policy and her ownership in the relevant Care Agency she manda= ted, too costly to challenge).
To add, Building Regulations in general state what one way of complying.
For example ONE way is light switches below 1200mm from finished floor leve= l, you can instead use PIR or wireless solutions. You can even use a differ= ent 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 be= cause the entire downstairs is cushioned as they rejected wheelchair & hois= ting & banana boarding. Instead they "3 legged" around the downstairs and a= re VASTLY more active as a result, they are physically fit rather than mere= ly 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.
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
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
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 the= y use.If there was space to have ramp & steps together, separated by a handrail a= t least or ideally wall with handrails then they should. It is however maki= ng a right mess of the frontage, when a portable ramp for most situations i= s more suitable. It does require staff to put the ramp out, and the ramp sh= ould ideally latch onto suitable fastenings (not difficult) but it works fi= ne.
Plenty of black cabs have almost horrible ramps (height, width, internal sp= ace), rather ineffective karibiner harness lashing which has no diagonal co= mponent. 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 mou= ntain 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 d= imension and their proposed landings obstructed pedestrians at the switchba= cks.
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 bloc= k paved one area and the blocks were rubber with a very aggressive "boot cl= eaning" profile like the old railway station engineering blue's. Freezing r= ail will still ice up anything and a ramp is a softer impact zone than a bu= ll-nose edged tile or step, although not much as an X-ray will confirm.
Typical result is =A34700 cost for a shop for (to-date) 85p spend by a whee= lchair person. The original ramp was confiscated by the council as it "requ= ired 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 k= ept their architecture without destroying everything in sight (Brussels may= of course change that yet).
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.