Hi Peter
You would also need to check with Building Control or Approved Inspector as
they should have approved it under the old Part M (although it sounds as
though their discretionary approval was poor!) I'm no legal expert but
maybe they are also liable?
Best wishes
Flick
At 11:32 17/05/2005 +0100, you wrote:
>Dear All
>
>I have been approached by a Church which had a large extention built about
>2 years ago with the purpose of making the Church accessible.
>
>The scheme included a ramp and a set of steps to the side extention and
>everyone using the new entrance.
>
>They have a ramp (1:26) which I know is not technically a ramp but has no
>handrails and is about 15m long.
>
>The steps have no tactile top and bottom, no handrails, no highlighted
>nosing and the nosings overhangs the risers by about 25mm. The are 13
>treads which measure on average about 300mm and the rise varies from 115 -
>130mm.
>
>The construction does not comply with the old Part M and I wonder whether
>the Church has a case against the Architect?
>
>Any comments would be gratefully received.
>----------End of Message----------
>
>Run by SURFACE for more information on research, consultancy and the
>distance taught MSc. in Accessibility and Inclusive Design programme visit:
>
>http://www.inclusive-design.it
>
>Archives for the Accessibuilt discussion list are located at
>http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/accessibuilt.html
Chair, MDPAG (Manchester Disabled People's Access Group)
Office: [log in to unmask]
Website: http://www.mdpag.org.uk
Personal: [log in to unmask]
----------End of Message----------
Run by SURFACE for more information on research, consultancy and the distance taught MSc. in Accessibility and Inclusive Design programme visit:
http://www.inclusive-design.it
Archives for the Accessibuilt discussion list are located at http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/accessibuilt.html
|