Building regs cloakroom door width

clairehi

It seems to be my day for coming up against jobsworths and regulations.

we are having a new cloakroom built and building regs now require the doorto be a certain width for accessibility. however the cloakroom itself is too small to fit a wheelchair in anyway so building control might just refuse to let us do it?

of course, the existing downstairs loo (which is being demolished) also has a narrow doorway but this was built pre regs!

its completely crazy. I guess if we were taking the downstairs lav out and NOT replacing it, there wouldnt be a problem even though noone able bodied or otherwise could then access a lav downstairs.

the builder suggests doing job without seeking building regs approval to avoid the problem. is there any potential comeback?

thanks

andyhop

This is another of the DDA`s crazy rules

Last time i experience this was a 4th floor flat(stairs only) that was having internal works.The kitchen had to have space for a wheelchair to turn (2m sq)

There where forced to alter other internal walls to comply,Building control failed to see sense with the 4 flights of stairs, Other existing doors where not wide enough and even the main door to the tenemement and stairwell was not wide enough

TomsMom

What's the width? We've just renovated a house and our downstairs WC has a standard 2'6" door. We've had no problems and the building control officer has been many times while the work was being done. There was no mention of accessibility, although the cloakroom was already there, we weren't building one.

clairehi

TomsMom wrote: »

the cloakroom was already there, we weren't building one.

As far as I know, these rules dont apply for things that are already there such as your doorway. The problem I have is we are creating a new cloakroom where there wasnt one before and so the new rules apply, although we are replacing an existing cloakroom elsewhere in the building.

olias

clairehi wrote: »

It seems to be my day for coming up against jobsworths and regulations.

we are having a new cloakroom built and building regs now require the doorto be a certain width for accessibility. however the cloakroom itself is too small to fit a wheelchair in anyway so building control might just refuse to let us do it?

of course, the existing downstairs loo (which is being demolished) also has a narrow doorway but this was built pre regs!

its completely crazy. I guess if we were taking the downstairs lav out and NOT replacing it, there wouldnt be a problem even though noone able bodied or otherwise could then access a lav downstairs.

the builder suggests doing job without seeking building regs approval to avoid the problem. is there any potential comeback?

thanks

As long as you are not planning on moving in the near future (prospective buyers will want confirmation of regs) then just do it without regs. As far as I know, after a certain length of time (think it's either 4 or 7 years, then they cannot be enforced retrospectively). It's not as if it's a safety issue! Just pedantic regs that were brought in for political correctness re the disability angle.

And before anyone jumps down my neck for the last comment, my wife is disabled. I am fully in favour of things like new builds/public areas etc being bult or altered for disabled access, but with an existing private house, where there is no room to build a 2nd loo that complies, and the option is to have nothing if you can't comply, then I think it's pedantic rubbish

Olias

TomsMom

clairehi wrote: »

the builder suggests doing job without seeking building regs approval to avoid the problem. is there any potential comeback?

thanks

If building control are involved with any other aspect of the work being carried out, then at the end the job will have to be signed off. If you go ahead without building regs approval for the cloakroom they possibly wont sign off the whole thing.

However, as Olias says,

As far as I know, after a certain length of time (think it's either 4 or 7 years, then they cannot be enforced retrospectively).

But, when we bought the house we've just renovated we discovered the previous owner had built quite a few extensions, all without planning permission or building regs approval. Because of what we were planning to do we needed planning permission and we had provisional informal meetings with the building control officer and the planning officer on site. The loft conversion was over 10 years old so they told us there would be no problem. However, they informed us that when the previous owners were doing a kitchen extension, without any consents, a neighbour had "dobbed them in" and the council insisted that approval was applied for. Although they sought the required approval and obtained it, they never bothered to get it signed off. The BCO required us to take up a couple of slabs on the patio so that the foundation could be inspected and get that work signed off.

So it may be OK but it could, at some point, come back and bite you on the bum!

As far as access for the disabled is concerned, surely if someone wished to buy the property in the future then they would be looking at the suitability of the property as a whole, not just the downstairs WC.

Canucklehead

Good afternoon: People complain about lack of buildings regulations enforcement when it suits: people complain when buildings regulations are enforced... a no win situation.

Here is a new forum where you can argue the toss:D

Canucklehead

clairehi

TomsMom wrote: »

If building control are involved with any other aspect of the work being carried out, then at the end the job will have to be signed off. If you go ahead without building regs approval for the cloakroom they possibly wont sign off the whole thing.

QUOTE]

Good point, we are having 2 separate jobs done and the plan is to get BC to sign off one, but not the cloakroom. If we shut the door, they hopefully will be none the wiser.

I am all for doing things by the book, especially where safety is involved, but I dont see this as having any safety implications.

03022242

as far as i know there are NO requirements of a door size for an ambulant persons WC, i think the door just has to open outwards!


see page 72

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/BR_PDF_ADM_2004.pdf

designermatt_2

As long as there is a W/C in place now on the ground floor you can not remove it. As far as the door width is concerned, it is to do with ambulent disabled not wheel chair bound disabled. I would think the BCO would take the view that as long as the new toilet were no worse than the existing one, you should be OK. It would possibly come up on solicitors searches or surveyors reports when you sold the property, so best to get it sorted. The time limit for enforcement for building control is only a year at present but it there is talk of increasing this soon. However, without a completion certificate increasingly it is becoming very difficult to sell properties which have clearly had work done. This will then necessitate a retrospective application being put in. This may involve uncovering of work.. With drainage this is definitely regarded as building work so an application is required. Part of this will be a drains test will need to be carried out. It is better to do that earlier rather than later when the W/C has been used for 5 years!