Hi Alan,
(Please note following comments from me personally - not from any
organization I work for.) :
The question of whether or not the works comply with Part M is for the
Building Control Officer (Local Authority or Approved Inspector) to
decide.
It could be disputed that the works as described do meet the relevant
Requirements of Part M (namely M2 M3 and by implication M1(a)). If the
extension does not have its own entrance or sanitary facilities then it
is up to the developer to demonstrate in an Access Statement that there
is adequate access through the existing building to the extension and
adequate existing sanitary facilities. All sorts of factors under the
umbrella term of "practicability" can be considered when deciding what
is adequate or reasonable. The BCO should be aware of the
responsibilities of the developer and should reject proposals which he
or she believes do not meet BRegs.
Alan -Ring if you like to discuss.
Terry Warren
BA(Hons)NRAC
Inclusive Design Manager
Mob: 07779 261906
-----Original Message-----
From: Accessibuilt list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Alan Hunt
Sent: 07 April 2008 10:01
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Tenants and landlords
I have just received an enquiry from the tenant of a newsagents
business.
The shop is on two levels with the main retail area on the upper level
(up
3 steps) and the cash till on the lower area.
The front door is wide and has a flush threshold.
The LANDLORD is building an extension on the back of the building which
will only give access to the upper level.
The tenant wants the landlord to make the upper level fully accessible
but
the landlord says that it is impractical.
The tenant says that it is practical to provide a ramp but would require
some structural aterations to a rear wall to creat a new opening.
Usually it is the duty of the tenant to make reasonable adjustments.
In this case the tenant wants to improve access to increase footfall
through the shop for wheelchair users and parents with pushchairs but
the
landord does not.
In this particular case is there any duty on the landlord under the DDA
to
improve access to the whole of the premises.
The new extension complies with Part M because it does not have its own
entrance and so does not make an existing situation any worse.
Clear as mud?
Any advice or thoughts would be gratefully appreciated.
Regards
Alan Hunt
----------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.surface.salford.ac.uk
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.surface.salford.ac.uk
Archives for the Accessibuilt discussion list are located at http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/accessibuilt.html
|