Week to completion and steps and handrail appear on our new house

chappers

might not be possible, there are maximum rise heights in order to comply with accessibility
With regards to sloped gradients 1:15 max 10 m long, 1:12 max 5m long
Its all here actually if you haven't already seen

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

Looking at the site isn't much help when the developers are responsible for altering the ground and road levels on a new estate. It might be it was just cheaper to put in steps than build up the road as originally planned.

EachPenny

aneary wrote: »

Because the developer is selling to an individual (or family) and is a private dwelling but trains and buses are used by the public at large.

That is only a matter of different rules/legislation as chappers and Doozergirl have pointed out. Even if not required by legislation to provide for wheelchair access, as a matter of good practice developers should be designing in access from the start, not adding steps as an afterthought (possibly in the OP's case but not yet clear).

If the Government have seen the light and are ensuring that public transport and buildings are accessible (at public expense) then it is an anomaly that this kind of thing can happen on new build housing where opportunities to design out problems from the start can be done for little or no cost.

It is also not just about disability or age - anyone can suffer an accident at any age and, even if temporary, getting up steps with crutches or a wheelchair is a challenge.

Jassa

I agree ScorpiondeRooftrouser, looks like an afterthought to us. We think the roads went in lower than originally thought. Trying to keep our cool and hopefully can come up with a better design that we like. Compared to the horror stories on here, ours is just a cosmetic problem! There must be a better solution - we'll see soon.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

EachPenny wrote: »

That is only a matter of different rules/legislation as chappers and Doozergirl have pointed out. Even if not required by legislation to provide for wheelchair access, as a matter of good practice developers should be designing in access from the start, not adding steps as an afterthought (possibly in the OP's case but not yet clear).

If the Government have seen the light and are ensuring that public transport and buildings are accessible (at public expense) then it is an anomaly that this kind of thing can happen on new build housing where opportunities to design out problems from the start can be done for little or no cost.

It is also not just about disability or age - anyone can suffer an accident at any age and, even if temporary, getting up steps with crutches or a wheelchair is a challenge.

This isn't really relevant in this case though is it? They don't want wheelchair access; it isn't an issue. They want the driveway/pavement to be built up to the same level as the house, as the drawings originally showed, with no ramps OR steps. Not because anyone is disabled but because that's what they thought they were buying.

EachPenny

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

This isn't really relevant in this case though is it? They don't want wheelchair access; it isn't an issue. They want the driveway/pavement to be built up to the same level as the house, as the drawings originally showed, with no ramps OR steps. Not because anyone is disabled but because that's what they thought they were buying.

It may become relevant if the developer points to smallprint on the drawings which says 'indicative only' or 'subject to amendment without prior notification'.

And you've missed the point a bit. It isn't about whether the OP wants wheelchair access. As explained by several people, 'access' isn't just about wheelchair users, and none of us knows when (even temporarily) we might have reduced mobility, or want to get a buggy into the house, or have something heavy (like a washing machine) delivered.

If the developer argues that there was nothing contractually binding about not having steps then the OP may want to be ready to put forward an argument about the developer's responsibility to design access in to new build - even if there is no legal obligation on them to do so.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

EachPenny wrote: »

It may become relevant if the developer points to smallprint on the drawings which says 'indicative only' or 'subject to amendment without prior notification'.

And you've missed the point a bit. It isn't about whether the OP wants wheelchair access. As explained by several people, 'access' isn't just about wheelchair users, and none of us knows when (even temporarily) we might have reduced mobility, or want to get a buggy into the house, or have something heavy (like a washing machine) delivered.

If the developer argues that there was nothing contractually binding about not having steps then the OP may want to be ready to put forward an argument about the developer's responsibility to design access in to new build - even if there is no legal obligation on them to do so.

But the OP doesn't want a ramp instead of steps. He wants the surrounding land at the same level as the house. Though I personally would prefer a ramp to steps, neither are what he thought he was paying for.

EachPenny

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

But the OP doesn't want a ramp instead of steps. He wants the surrounding land at the same level as the house. Though I personally would prefer a ramp to steps, neither are what he thought he was paying for.

And I'm not saying the OP should have a ramp.... my point is, and remains, the developer should have designed in 'access' from the start and the best way to do so is to regrade the ground so that no steps or ramps are required.

What has probably happened, as seems to happen so often, is that the developer either through lack of thought in design or error in construction, has ended up with a level difference and opted for the default 'easy' solution of putting in some steps.

People think 'access' and then think ramps, whereas the correct approach is to think how to avoid the need for anything other than a seamless transition from street (or garden) to house. It isn't always feasible, but where it is (by the sound of it like the OP's case), then it should be the 'go to' solution.