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
|