Green Building Forum - Sliding doors with level/low threshold

Sliding doors with level/low threshold

Shevek — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 16:30:08 +0000

Posted By: JSHarrisUsing that argument, are things that are "too costly" for a developer building a block of flats, OK to impose on a self-builder regardless of cost impact?

My point about the upside down house and the possible mandating of the "lifetime homes" standard wasn't a straw man at all. It was illustrating that, if this becomes mandatory and if it then effectively prohibits upside down homes built on level sites, yet allows the building of essentially the same thing in a block of flats, then it's a nonsense and shouldn't be forced on people without choice.

Again, the self-builder is having no more imposed on them than the block-of-flats-developer. In both cases a suitable loo at the entrance level of the dwelling needs to be provided. The block-of-flats-developer cannot build a duplex flat with no loo at the entrance level any more than the single house builder can.

Posted By: JSHarrisIt's about giving people the choice as to whether to adopt provisions they may not ever need, specifically the case for allowing self-builders to choose.

What you're arguing for isn't giving people a choice. It's giving the builder of that building the choice to basically take away choice of users after that.

And that's the whole point of Lifetime Homes, for instance. To future proof homes for the long term, to make them accessible and adaptable. To make sure that self-builders and large developers alike don't impose their own will on our built environment for their short-term gain.

Sliding doors with level/low threshold

JSHarris — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 16:43:48 +0000

It is about choice, though. The rules are applied (at least to homes) with no room for judgement. This means that, using my own case as an example, someone building a home to spend the rest of their life in has to fit features that they don't like and don't need, simply to comply with a regulation. By the time I shuffle off (I hope) some of the stuff (like wiring and electrical fittings) will be at their end-of-life, I expect, so will need replacement anyway.

I fully support the view that developers should have to provide a proportion of new homes with provisions for the less able, but we need to get this into perspective a bit. There is a need to make some houses more suitable for less able bodied people and the elderly, but not every house in the land.

It's a fact that, as we age, we tend to migrate towards supportive communities - a quick look at the demographics shows that the elderly tend to want to live closer to population centres, with better access either on foot or by easy public transport, to amenities like shops, entertainment etc. The flip side is that less and less elderly people want to live miles from anywhere, out in the countryside where a car is essential for even the basics.

We need to allow for this type of choice and not force everyone, regardless of where they are building or what they are building, to adopt the same expensive modifications. The case of my friend in East Yorkshire is a good one. His build is in a tiny hamlet miles from public transport, shops etc. It's of a type and size as to be unlikely to be of interest to someone with limited mobility, yet, like all of us, he had to build in such features (even if he did rip them all out before he moved in).

Sliding doors with level/low threshold

Shevek — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 17:16:01 +0000

Posted By: JSHarrisI can see the merit in allowing wheel chair access for visitors, including to the downstairs loo, but do we really need to have light switches and power points located so they are convenient for wheel chair users but a blasted nuisance for everyone else? Having to fit all sockets at least 450 mm up the walls is my particular bugbear, although light switches at near-waist height comes a close second.

Again, it's not just for wheelchair users. It's to assist those who have limited reach. What's the blasted nuisance for everyone else that sockets and light switches are placed between 450-1200 mm AFL?

Especially light switches. I don't know about you but my waist is 900 mm. I'm really struggling to think of a reason you'd find light switches at 1200 mm AFL to be a bugbear. Surely 1200 mm is actually perfect for an abled person with perfect reach?

Posted By: JSHarrisWe need to allow for this type of choice and not force everyone, regardless of where they are building or what they are building, to adopt the same expensive modifications. The case of my friend in East Yorkshire is a good one. His build is in a tiny hamlet miles from public transport, shops etc. It's of a type and size as to be unlikely to be of interest to someone with limited mobility, yet, like all of us, he had to build in such features (even if he did rip them all out before he moved in).

I agree that regs should be reasonable and non-prescriptive (sockets and light switches between 450-1200 is just one way of complying with the actual regs for instance, not the only way). I just disagree that the reasons you've cited should be valid reasons for exemption.

Sliding doors with level/low threshold

Jonti — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 18:13:53 +0000

Shevek,

it is about the wheelchair user because your access to the building, door width and turning areas are all determined by the requirements of a WHEELCHAIR so it is clearly about Wheelchairs and not doddery old grandad who is still walking.

You also state

'Again, the self-builder is having no more imposed on them than the block-of-flats-developer. In both cases a suitable loo at the entrance level of the dwelling needs to be provided. The block-of-flats-developer cannot build a duplex flat with no loo at the entrance level any more than the single house builder can.'

This must mean that all tower blocks/office blocks and flat complexes now have to have what is effectively a public toilet on the GROUND FLOOR. If not it is not the same. You forgot to explain why it is necessary to have a Wheelchair accessible shower on the ground floor. Must we now provide for the possibility that a visitor might want to shower?

Can you explain the difference between a private and communal stair and how one is easier than the other for infirm users.

Another quote from yourself

'Again, it's not just for wheelchair users. It's to assist those who have limited reach. What's the blasted nuisance for everyone else that sockets and light switches are placed between 450-1200 mm AFL?'

I agree that the height regs are fine and once you are used to the new look you do not notice it. However, when I used the example of a person who had limited reach you slated it but yet bring the same argument as myself when it suits you.

You have made some good points and I am sure have much to bring to the discussion. Unfortunately, you flip flop, dismissiveness of others points and foul language doe not endear one to read your posts.

Jonti

Sliding doors with level/low threshold

Cav8andrew — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 18:36:34 +0000

Jonti, I'm not sure I know how prescriptive/restrictive (in your terms) the regulations should be. I do know however that it seems not unreasonable, where possible, to provide the basic amenities for a disabled person that most of us take as a given, often spending vast amounts to achieve. Disabled friends/relatives do occasionally stay for more than a few hours, possibly even overnight. I suppose each to their own and perhaps it was slightly repetitive but the word I think you refer to is one I probably use on a far too regular basis, among others, so it would be churlish for me to be offended, perhaps a few * would help in the context of the forum.

Sliding doors with level/low threshold

Shevek — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 19:30:52 +0000

Posted By: Jontiit is about the wheelchair user because your access to the building, door width and turning areas are all determined by the requirements of a WHEELCHAIR so it is clearly about Wheelchairs and not doddery old grandad who is still walking.

It's about "reasonable provision" for "people" to access buildings and its facilities. Wheelchair users drive some aspects, such a door widths. Ambulant disabled drive other aspects, such as accessible stairs.

Don't take my word for it. The building regs requirement is on page 8:
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/BR_PDF_ADM_2004.pdf

This must mean that all tower blocks/office blocks and flat complexes now have to have what is effectively a public toilet on the GROUND FLOOR. If not it is not the same.

Putting aside workplaces (they're a whole different ballgame) the requirement is to provide a loo to the entrance storey of the *dwelling*, not the building. This is considered "reasonable provision", so that ambulant users (and anyone who gets to an upper level via a stairlift installed in the future) can use a loo in dignity.

You forgot to explain why it is necessary to have a Wheelchair accessible shower on the ground floor. Must we now provide for the possibility that a visitor might want to shower?

You didn't ask, so how could I forget? There is no building regs requirement to provide wheelchair accessible showers to the entrance storeys of dwellings. Perhaps you're thinking of the Lifetime Homes standards?

Can you explain the difference between a private and communal stair and how one is easier than the other for infirm users.

Communal accessible stairs to flats is covered on page 70 of Part M:
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/BR_PDF_ADM_2004.pdf

In comparison to stairs in private dwellings, they must have nosings with contrasting brightness, risers no higher than 170 mm and a going no more than 250 mm, closed risers, and a continuous handrail both sides.

I agree that the height regs are fine and once you are used to the new look you do not notice it. However, when I used the example of a person who had limited reach you slated it but yet bring the same argument as myself when it suits you.

Not sure I follow you there.

Sliding doors with level/low threshold

borpin — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 19:31:54 +0000

Posted By: ShevekYou didn't ask, so how could I forget? There is no building regs requirement to provide wheelchair accessible showers to the entrance storeys of dwellings.

There is in Scotland.

Sliding doors with level/low threshold

Shevek — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 19:38:54 +0000

I'm not familiar with the Scottish regs. Can you point me to this specific one?

Sliding doors with level/low threshold

borpin — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 19:43:19 +0000

Posted By: ShevekIt's about "reasonable provision" for "people" to access buildings and its facilities. Wheelchair users drive some aspects, such a door widths. Ambulant disabled drive other aspects, such as accessible stairs.

Well that goes back to my car analogy. Neither of my parents can get into the back seat of my C1. If cars were built like houses then there would be a regulation that says that all cars must be accessible for transporting Ambulant persons in any fitted seat. Or that the minimum height of the seat should be x so they can get in and out or the door is a specific width. The only reason the regulations are there is because they can regulate and the whinny brigade win out, meaning the masses lose as usual. Oh and of course a huge proportion of the housing stock is not currently built this way and the majority of the recent buildings that are built this way will probably be knocked (or fall) down (poor workmanship) before the occupants are old enough to even think it was a good idea.

Sliding doors with level/low threshold

borpin — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 19:44:00 +0000

Posted By: ShevekI'm not familiar with the Scottish regs. Can you point me to this specific one?

Nope just know it has to be done as it is on my plans.

Sliding doors with level/low threshold

Shevek — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 20:10:20 +0000

Posted By: borpinWell that goes back to my car analogy. Neither of my parents can get into the back seat of my C1. If cars were built like houses then there would be a regulation that says that all cars must be accessible for transporting Ambulant persons in any fitted seat. Or that the minimum height of the seat should be x so they can get in and out or the door is a specific width.

Cars are a super bad analogy. Shelter and sanitation are fundamental human needs, up there with food and clothing. Cars are a personal choice of transport.

The only reason the regulations are there is because they can regulate and the whinny brigade win out, meaning the masses lose as usual. Oh and of course a huge proportion of the housing stock is not currently built this way and the majority of the recent buildings that are built this way will probably be knocked (or fall) down (poor workmanship) before the occupants are old enough to even think it was a good idea.

Thanks to the whinny brigade we don't have cowboy builders winning out instead.

Regarding the Scottish regs, putting an accessible shower in at the entrance level makes sense if you're trying to future proof buildings. I'll comment further once I've read the actual regulations, because these things tend to be blown out of proportion by the fuddy-duddy brigade. Based on my experience with these things, rather than there being a black and white requirement to put an accessible shower in at entrance level it's far more likely that the regulation rather requires that any shower you put in at entrance level be accessible and where you have your main bathroom or shower room on another level you only need to provide space in the entrance level toilet for *future provision* of a shower. This would be inline with the Lifetime Homes standards and while the Scots are a progressive bunch I doubt they're outdoing Lifetime Homes.

Sliding doors with level/low threshold

JSHarris — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 20:10:54 +0000

This debate reminds me of a new lab I had built at a research establishment I ran in the late nineties. The establishment in question was exempted from the normal requirements for "equal opportunities" etc, as all that worked there were required to be fit and able to climb antenna masts on site in order to do the work. This entailed climbing long flights of exposed steel stairs and ladders. When we built the new lab building we had to include disabled access doors, disabled parking and disabled toilet facilities, all of which were doomed to never ever be used.

Oh, and you, the tax payers, paid for all this totally wasted regulatory stuff............

As I've said before in this thread, we need to get a sense of proportion . We have to stop pretending that forcing the majority to spend vast sums of money to provide blanket provision for a minority, most of whom will never, ever, get to use the facilities provided at great expense, is a sensible thing to do. It's a sledgehammer that's trying to crack a tiny nut at great cost to everyone, and it needs a more flexible and appropriate solution.

Sliding doors with level/low threshold

Ed Davies — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 20:18:27 +0000

I'm a bit confused about what applies to the entry level and what to the principal living level. However, there is an exemption which might be relevant to this discussion:

Where a dwelling has a bathroom or shower room on another level, which is not en suite to a bedroom, some occupants may not require the immediate provision for bathing on the principal living level. Where this is the case, the principal living level may instead have a separate, enclosed space of a size that, alone or by incorporation with the accessible toilet, will permit formation of an accessible shower room (as described above) at a future date. This space can, instead, offer useful storage space.

This space should have a drainage connection, positioned to allow installation of either a floor shower or raised shower tray, sealed and terminated either immediately beneath floor level under a removable access
panel or at floor level in a visible position. The structure and insulation of the floor in the area identified for a future floor shower should allow for the depth of an inset tray installation (all floors) and a ‘laid to fall’ installation (solid floors only). If not adjacent to an accessible toilet and separated by an easily demountable partition, a duct to the external air should be provided to allow for later installation of mechanical ventilation.

Building Standards Technical Handbook Domestic 2010 3.12.3.

Sliding doors with level/low threshold

Shevek — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 20:21:44 +0000

Posted By: JSHarrisThis debate reminds me of a new lab I had built at a research establishment I ran in the late nineties. The establishment in question was exempted from the normal requirements for "equal opportunities" etc, as all that worked there were required to be fit and able to climb antenna masts on site in order to do the work. This entailed climbing long flights of exposed steel stairs and ladders. When we built the new lab building we had to include disabled access doors, disabled parking and disabled toilet facilities, all of which were doomed to never ever be used.

Great, so when a person turns up there on business in a wheelchair there are facilities for them to use. When the next tenant moves in they don't have to knock it all down and start again because their secretary is in a wheelchair.

As I've said before in this thread, we need to get a sense of proportion.

I'm proud to live in a country that does have a sense of proportion about what's important.

Sliding doors with level/low threshold

Shevek — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 20:24:13 +0000

Thanks Ed, that's exactly the kind of thing I had in mind. Sounds pretty different to you "must have a separate accessible shower" at entry level.

Sliding doors with level/low threshold

Cav8andrew — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 20:34:23 +0000

I would agree that there appear to be contradictions and god knows I hate regulation and being told what to do (the rest of you of course are in need of it and it should be applied vigorously!) but I suspect there is also a need for an amount of coercion/regulation to get any widespread improved, of what appear to me to be fairly basic, provision for the disabled. To what extent and in what form it is achieved I really have no idea.

Sliding doors with level/low threshold

JSHarris — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 20:37:16 +0000

Posted By: Shevek
Great, so when a person turns up there on business in a wheelchair there are facilities for them to use. When the next tenant moves in they don't have to knock it all down and start again because their secretary is in a wheelchair.

I think you missed the bit where I wrote that everyone on site had to be fit and able to work at height, up antenna masts (that were 60 ft high). It was a research establishment, so no visitors, just security cleared staff, and no admin or whatever on site (the only non-technical staff were security (MOD Police) and cleaners, both of whom would need to be reasonably fit and able bodied to do their jobs.

Posted By: Shevek
I'm proud to live in a country that does have a sense of proportion about what's important.

It plainly doesn't though. In that case I had to spend around £40k (at 1998 prices) of your (taxpayers) money to provide facilities that will never, ever be used, just to satisfy mindless regulations that have no sensible level of flexibility.

You persist in ignoring my repeatedly made point that I'm not against provision of sensible facilities for the less able, I believe this is a good thing. However, forcing 100% of houses in the UK (potentially, as our housing stock gets replaced) to be equipped at significant expense (and inconvenience)to support less than 10% of the population who actually need disabled provision in buildings doesn't make sense.

What we need is a more pragmatic approach, one that allows BC to be more flexible and interpret the regulations in a way that uses common sense and that minimises waste and excessive cost. Forcing taxpayers to fund facilities that will never be used, at significant cost, is not, in my view, a sensible or appropriate way to apply regulation.

Sliding doors with level/low threshold

Monty Gerhardy — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 21:01:28 +0000

Quote link not working...
Shevek wrote
"It's not just about wheelchair users. It's about ambulant users too, which is not a "minority". All blocks of flats either need stairs accessible to ambulant users or a lift:
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/BR_PDF_ADM_2004.pdf (Section 9)

At work we mostly design to Lifetime Homes standards, which are better than the standard regs:
http://www.lifetimehomes.org.uk/pages/revised-design-criteria.html "

Agree with you 100% on LH
One of my clients just supplied windows to a 60 unit sheltered housing scheme for elderly people (in Ireland). Some in wheelchairs but given the demographic no doubt a lot of them with limited mobility. The vast majority of the windows had the handles at around 1400mm above FFL because the architect thought that side hung windows were better then top hung. It was pointed out to him that having a top hung window would put the handles at just above 800mm above FFL which would be suitable for any occupant. He 'preferred' side-hung windows so side hung is what was installed. These windows need not be replaced for decades and it saddens me to think how many of the residents will barely be able to use them in that time.

Getting back to thresholds though and Lifetime Homes have got it wrong. They insist on a total height of 15mm. Its practically impossible to get a decent airtight or watertight seal with that. Their guidance should be rephrased to point out that the leading edge of a threshold should be no more then 15mm and that the threshold can incorporate transition elements within the threshold - similar to that shown in the Scottish ACD's I linked to earlier. In my opinion it was slack drafting and needs to be corrected.

Monty

Sliding doors with level/low threshold

JSHarris — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 21:12:24 +0000

As anyone who uses, or has pushed, a wheelchair will know, steps that are much taller than 15mm pose no perceptible obstacle (and I spent my years between the ages of 10 and 18 pushing an adult in a wheel chair, both in our house (that was built in the 1920's) and out and about in places like the local pub).

I wonder if the people that write these regulations have real, practical experience of mobility issues, or whether they just think up a number from thin air. The key issue with any step isn't the absolute height, it's the length of the levels either side, which determines whether or not the wheelchair is level when it encounters the step. In my experience, a 25 to 30mm step on an otherwise level surface presents no problem for wheelchair access. As a 10 year old I could fairly easily pull a wheelchair with an adult (who had no useful hand or leg function) up our front door step, which was around 120mm. We never saw the need to fit a ramp, as access was easy enough without one.

Sliding doors with level/low threshold

Shevek — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 21:35:17 +0000

Posted By: JSHarrisAs anyone who uses, or has pushed, a wheelchair will know, steps that are much taller than 15mm pose no perceptible obstacle (and I spent my years between the ages of 10 and 18 pushing an adult in a wheel chair, both in our house (that was built in the 1920's) and out and about in places like the local pub).

Again, it's not just about wheelchair users. The principle of the Lifetime Homes standards for entrances is to "Enable ease of use of all entrances for the widest range of people."

Posted By: JSHarrisI wonder if the people that write these regulations have real, practical experience of mobility issues, or whether they just think up a number from thin air.

The people who came up with these ideas are usually themselves impaired in some way. In collaboration with housing experts, architects and other professionals. As far as I'm aware they're not written by people who used to push someone around in a wheelchair when they were 10.

Sliding doors with level/low threshold

Jonti — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 21:38:24 +0000

Posted By: JSHarris We never saw the need to fit a ramp, as access was easy enough without one.

But that was only because you did not realise how necessary it is to have a ramp. People with far more expertise than you could ever possess will have spent hours and thousands of pounds proving this. You may feel you do not need it but it is for your own good so you are going to get it.

Oh, and there is no point in asking Shevek something that does not fit his POV 100% even repeatedly

Jonti

Sliding doors with level/low threshold

Shevek — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 21:40:40 +0000

Posted By: JontiOh, and there is no point in asking Shevek something that does not fit his POV 100% even repeatedly

So sorry for having the temerity to disagree.

Sliding doors with level/low threshold

borpin — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 06:01:17 +0000

Posted By: Ed DaviesI'm a bit confused about what applies to the entry level and what to the principal living level. However, there is an exemption which might be relevant to this discussion:

You still need to allocate the space and put in al the plumbing.

Sliding doors with level/low threshold

borpin — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 06:06:01 +0000

Posted By: ShevekThanks Ed, that's exactly the kind of thing I had in mind. Sounds pretty different to you "must have a separate accessible shower" at entry level.

NO you still have to allocate the spce plumbing etc so how exactly is it different?

Sliding doors with level/low threshold

JSHarris — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 06:57:34 +0000

Posted By: Jonti

But that was only because you did not realise how necessary it is to have a ramp. People with far more expertise than you could ever possess will have spent hours and thousands of pounds proving this. You may feel you do not need it but it is for your own good so you are going to get it.

Oh, and there is no point in asking Shevek something that does not fit his POV 100% even repeatedly

Jonti

I am certain you're right, on both points.

I've not seen anyone on this thread argue against making sensible provision for the less able bodied, just pleas for a bit of common sense when it comes to imposing one-size-fits-all regulations, yet we seem to be being attacked for having the temerity to suggest the use of common sense. The idea behind much current (and proposed future) regulation seems to be to remove flexibility in interpretation, or the application of sensible judgement, by BC, and force millions of people across the country to pay thousands of pounds each for things that may never be used and also may make their own homes less suitable for their needs.

It's the economic argument that really gets me. By all means regulate for core structural issues, like doorway width and layout, that are expensive to change later, but why not allow more flexibility on things that can easily be changed to suit personal circumstances later? It's inevitable, given market pressure on price, that regulation that adds cost will result in cost cuts being made elsewhere, perhaps in areas more attuned to the theme of this forum.

Also, I know, from first hand experience, that every less able bodied person will have very different needs, which means that most will have personal adaptations to their house anyway, perhaps removing or adapting some of the costly one-size-fits-all regulation stipulated provisions we all have to put in.

Sliding doors with level/low threshold

Shevek — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 10:30:19 +0000

Posted By: borpin
Posted By: ShevekThanks Ed, that's exactly the kind of thing I had in mind. Sounds pretty different to you "must have a separate accessible shower" at entry level.
NO you still have to allocate the spce plumbing etc so how exactly is it different?

The difference is it doesn't have to be a "separate accessible shower as well". It can be included in the required toilet space or in any principal level bathroom. Or you could build a storage cupboard with a capped off connection to the drain. To say you need a "separate accessible shower as well" is an exaggeration.

Sliding doors with level/low threshold

Shevek — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 10:35:15 +0000

Jeremy, give me a break. You're not being attacked for common sense. You describe putting light switches at 1200 AFL as your second-in-line bugbear. I can only take your anecdotes with a grain of salt after that.

I also find it somewhat ironic that you go on about pandering to a minority but then you turn around and argue that self-builders, another minority, should be in line for exemptions over developers of flats (people who are helping to house a lot more people than you are).

And then you criticise the writers of these standards, many of them wheelchair users and highly experienced professionals, on the basis that you pushed someone around in a wheelchair when you were ten.

I'm sure you have some worthwhile and constructive criticisms to make but it's difficult to decipher them from the silly bugbears. I mostly hear exaggerated complaints from people who don't like working as part of democratic community and don't understand the standards properly (e.g. continually banging on about wheelchair users). I hear the same complaints from large contractors all the time. Well it's not all about you guys. It's about building an accessible and adaptable housing stock for future generations. If you don't like some of it by all means campaign to have things changed, but I'd suggest you keep the light-switch thing to yourself.

Sliding doors with level/low threshold

joe90 — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 10:46:59 +0000

My wife and sister-in-law are both in wheelchairs so I know a little about mobility.

I believe that all public places should have regulations giving equal access to able and disabled people. I dont know of one person that ownes a new house that has been built to new regulations so all our visiting is to existing homes and if we are unable to visit because of this we do something that we can do!.

I do not believe that all homes should be built for the benefit of a minority of disabled but a percentage of housing should be fit for these people.

I still want to build my retirement cottage but my wife or sister-in-law will no longer be with us so I dont plan to make it fit for their purpose. If they were, I would.

Because of bonkers regulations I am slowly coming round to the idea of a renovation rather than a new build so the "state police" (building inspectors) cannot impose their will.

We need some common sense on this issue.

Sliding doors with level/low threshold

JSHarris — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 10:53:12 +0000

Shevek, I spent 8 years looking after my father who was a severely disabled wheelchair user, up until his death when I was 19, so please don't be patronising.

If I'm building a house solely for ME, why shouldn't I be allowed to build it as I want it? It's my money, time and effort that's going into it, and I resent busybodies interfering and making me do things that I don't like and don't need, things that will annoy the heck out of me all the time that I live in the house, because that aren't things I want or need.

Now, if I was a developer, building houses on spec for unknown purchasers, I can see the logic in forcing at least a proportion of the houses he/she builds to be equipped for the less able bodied.

All I'm arguing for is a bit of common sense and flexibility, rather than the blanket application of provisions that will only ever be of use to a small minority to all.

Sliding doors with level/low threshold

Shevek — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 10:57:05 +0000

Posted By: joe90I do not believe that all homes should be built for the benefit of a minority of disabled but a percentage of housing should be fit for these people.

Neither do I and neither does anybody pushing these standards. Lifetime Homes and Part M aren't about building all homes for the benefit of disabled people. They're about building all homes so that one, they're easily adaptable, and two, everyone can visit each other.

We do build wheelchair/disabled homes, as a small percentage, which are an entirely different ballgame to LH and Part M.