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
|
