Hi Helen
I'd support that! Maybe we should get the ODPM to be a bit more radical and
to organise something!
best wishes
Flick
At 14:15 25/10/2005 +0100, you wrote:
>Hi Flick
>It sounds like it needs a conference! Even our fire engineers don't seem to
>have an idea how to handle it. They just talk about restricting the number
>of disabled people above the ground floor which is not usually feasible or
>acceptable..
>Best wishes
>Helen
>
>On 24/10/05 7:08 pm, "Flick Harris" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > Hi Helen
> >
> > There may be a number of reasons from our experience.
> >
> > 1. All access consultants are not working to the same standards, including
> > CAE accredited consultants! Our group are very keen to see more training
> > and "accessible" accreditation to "best practice" standards available to
> > all access groups
> >
> > 2. A focus group is unlikely to be able to discuss all the issues or have
> > enough access to the designers, in my opinion. Focus groups often have
> > little time and even less information
> >
> > 3. Also, although we can advise designers, we sometimes find that they
> > don't take our advice and for mainly financial reasons, go for the minimum.
> >
> > 4. Many planners, who approve the size and layout of buildings, still
> > don't understand access issues. Similarly, neither do all Building Control
> > officers or Approved Inspectors who often see the plans too late or don't
> > identify best practice issues. There seems to be no accreditation process
> > for them!
> >
> > 5. There may be political decisions made about budgets or designs which
> > can override design decisions.
> >
> > I think we ought to be more public about our concerns to the ODPM to
> > improve the minimum access standards before there are tragedies.
> >
> > Agree though about the case study! Would be interested to know about this
> > particular instance.
> >
> > Best wishes
> >
> > Flick
> >
> >
> > At 09:43 24/10/2005 +0100, you wrote:
> >> I think this sounds like the subject of a case study- if a disabled focus
> >> group were advising the designer, why has it ended up not working??? Who
> >> approved the design?
> >> Helen T.
> >>
> >> On 21/10/05 1:19 pm, "Croft Consultants" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Helen
> >>> yes it was reasonable to expect large numbers of people with limited
> >>> mobility as it is a new build expected to be used by older and disabled
> >>> people. There was a disability focus group to advise the designer from
> >>> planing stage onwards. The main galleries and educational areas are
> >>> located on the first floor. This is a new build project by the way.
> >>> my question revolved around why the designer took no notice of Parts M99
> >>> & B00/01 and got away with it.
> >>> Regards
> >>> Dave
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> helen taylor wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Can I just say in defence of designers that we are usually working to a
> >>>> brief given to us by a client! the best buildings result from a close
> >>>> working relationship between the designer and the end user and this
> is not
> >>>> always possible or allowed.
> >>>>
> >>>> In relation to the museum- it is rarely possible to afford or have
> >> space for
> >>>> single storey buildings so this is a problem with the majority of the
> >>>> building stock in the country. Was it reasonable for the designer or the
> >>>> client in this case to assume that there would be a significant
> number of
> >>>> people requiring assisted access or escape upstairs at any one time? Any
> >>>> suggestions as to how this management difficulty could have been
> >> avoided in
> >>>> the design?
> >>>>
> >>>> With best wishes
> >>>> Helen Taylor
> >>>> architectureplb
> >>>>
> >>>> On 19/10/05 9:29 am, "Flick Harris" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi Dave,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sounds like a great example to include in the consultation response!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Re. how was it ever passed - sounds like the planning and building
> >> control
> >>>>> sections need urgent training and maybe the development of some
> >>>>> departmental policies with the local authority.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We have just started some joint work with the Greater Manchester
> >> Police to
> >>>>> develop joint guidance on security and access issues and have found
> >> that we
> >>>>> share many of the same concerns. We hope that this can be
> replicated with
> >>>>> the Fire Services and that any guidance we produce can be used,
> >> eventually,
> >>>>> across Greater Manchester.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We all agreed that the designers and others tend not to understand how
> >>>>> space will be used, they usually ignore the inevitable management
> issues
> >>>>> that result from their designs, and that usually developers go for the
> >>>>> cheap option!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Best wishes
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Flick
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> At 09:34 18/10/2005 +0100, you wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi All
> >>>>>> to develop on John and Terry's comments re Ambulance & Part M
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yesterday I attended the opening of a new 2 story museum.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> there were
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 22 wheelchair riders (assorted chair types)
> >>>>>> 7 scooters riders
> >>>>>> 5 pushchair passengers
> >>>>>> I'd guess another 10 to 20 people who could not walk down stairs
> >> unaided
> >>>>>> plus three people with low vision who needed help on stairs
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> the museum has refuge space for about 6 wheelchairs at the top of
> >> outdoor,
> >>>>>> open plan, polished steel, stepped evacuation stairs which do not have
> >>>>>> nosing contrast, and have nice stainless steel handrails
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> can anybody explain
> >>>>>> 1. what would be the likely survival rate?
> >>>>>> 2. how this building was ever passed through planning and building
> regs,
> >>>>>> licensing and fire inspection?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> the museum had organised plenty of staff and made plans for this
> >> occasion,
> >>>>>> but what if this number of people attended another function on a
> normal
> >>>>>> working day with standard staffing levels. ?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The new guidance for Part B 2005 only allows for one refuge on a floor
> >>>>>> (all be it larger than the 900 x 1500 of the old ADB 2000/EuAm 01) and
> >>>>>> does not address the problem the above number of people needing
> >> assistance
> >>>>>> would generate for people with disabilities which make use of stairs
> >>>>>> difficult/impossible.
> >>>>>> I have tried writing to the ODPM's office about this problem but have
> >>>>>> received no answer.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Anybody found similar problems? or
> >>>>>> have suggestions in how this type of problem can be addressed.?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Regards
> >>>>>> Dave Croft
> >>>>>> PS any comments Cass
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ----------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]
> >>>>> Tel: 0161 273 5033
> >>>>> Fax: 0161 273 2637
> >>>>> 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
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ______________________________________________________________
> >>>>
> >>>> architecture plb accepts no liability for non or partial arrival of
> >>>> electronic information. Information on hard copies is to take
> >>>> precedent over that issued by email.
> >>>>
> >>>> While we do check for viruses, it is the responsibility of the
> >> recipient to
> >>>> check
> >>>> that this email and any attachment is virus-free.
> >>>>
> >>>> All information issued is subject to copyright and may not be used,
> >>>> copied or given to other parties without written permission of
> >> architecture
> >>>> plb
> >>>>
> >>>> ----------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
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> ----------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
> >>>
> >>
> >> ______________________________________________________________
> >>
> >> architecture plb accepts no liability for non or partial arrival of
> >> electronic information. Information on hard copies is to take
> >> precedent over that issued by email.
> >>
> >> While we do check for viruses, it is the responsibility of the
> recipient to
> >> check
> >> that this email and any attachment is virus-free.
> >>
> >> All information issued is subject to copyright and may not be used,
> >> copied or given to other parties without written permission of
> architecture
> >> plb
> >>
> >> ----------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]
> > Tel: 0161 273 5033
> > Fax: 0161 273 2637
> > 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
> >
>
>______________________________________________________________
>
>architecture plb accepts no liability for non or partial arrival of
>electronic information. Information on hard copies is to take
>precedent over that issued by email.
>
>While we do check for viruses, it is the responsibility of the recipient to
>check
>that this email and any attachment is virus-free.
>
>All information issued is subject to copyright and may not be used,
>copied or given to other parties without written permission of architecture
>plb
>
>----------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]
Tel: 0161 273 5033
Fax: 0161 273 2637
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
|