Dda

[Sherpa]

I recently attended an installation where internal fire doors were swinging in the breeze (no door closers). When I asked why this was, I was told the door closures had been removed because of the requirements of the DDA. The customer was waiting for magnetically held open doors to be fitted instead and then the door closures would be re-instated.

Surely that is not a reasonable adjustment to the building? If it is, does it have to be done retrospectively?

Can I have you thoughts on this please?

[saddlers]

Sherpa,
The DDA as you say is about "reasonable adjustments" and in my opinion is best considered as a risk assessment much like the FRA (except without the guidance document!!).

There is no way of achieving "compliance" with the DDA, but you can minimise the risk of a claim, and I would assume that compliance with anational standard would be a good example of minimising the risk.

The problem is that there has been a "knee jerk" reaction to the DDA with many unnecessary features being introduced and in many cases the level of access has actually been reduced following the alterations.

I think the problem is that each scenario has to be assessed on its own merits. If the scenario you are discussing is in a local authority leisure centre or a GP's practise, then alterations as described above may well be a suitable solution (because it may also address the need for vision panels), although self closers with a suitable opening force may also be a more "reasonable" solution.

If it was a small starter unit, and none of the staff had an identified need, then the above solution would definitely be onerous, and could alternatively be addressed if and when a need is identified.

[Mr. P]

Risk assess the person(s) dis-abilities.  Put in place methodology (always good to have an 'ology') to deal with identified risks to enable exit of the person(s) at risk.  Take into account type of disability (blind, deaf, impaired/restricted movement etc.), so, if a person needs to be helped out in emergency, specify who etc.  The fire doors complete with closers (working), can then be accounted for in your plan along with other risk identified.  The crux and law is, having a method(ology) to risk assess and put plans in place.  This is for staff and visitors.

[fred]

Be aware of the latest Fire Risk Assessment guide to hit the streets - its available on the communities.gov.uk website as a free download

Supplementary Guide - Means of escape for disabled people
Publication title: Fire Safety Risk Assessment - Means of Escape for Disabled People (Supplementary Guide)
Date published: 29 March 2007
ISBN: 978 1 85112 873 7
Price: £5 (free to download below)

Who will it be for?
This guide is a supplement to be read alongside other guides in this series. It provides additional information on accessibility and means of escape for disabled people.

[terry martin]

No 'reasonable adjustment' as prescribed within the DDA, can come at the expense of breaching other legislation, in this case removing the self closers. you can't comply with one law by breaking another. in other words no legislation takes priority over another. he should leave the self closers on, any challenge he receives on the matter he should state that he IS making reasonable adjustments because the Magnetic door holders are ordered and are soon to be fitted.

[saddlers]

Terry,
I have to admit I may not have thoroughly read the original post. My comments were based on the reasonability of magnetic release as opposed to self closing devices. Using the DDA as justification for immediate removal of devices that would be a fundamental part of the fire safety would be madness.

[jokar]

Couldn't they have released the tension of the closer to meet the 20 N proposed in Part M?  Surely a much beeter alternative then removing them altogether.

[jokar]

I have been informed today that an amendment exists in the FAQ's on the Planning Portal for Part M that increases the pressure to 30 N.

[nearlythere]

No 'reasonable adjustment' as prescribed within the DDA, can come at the expense of breaching other legislation, in this case removing the self closers. you can't comply with one law by breaking another. in other words no legislation takes priority over another. he should leave the self closers on, any challenge he receives on the matter he should state that he IS making reasonable adjustments because the Magnetic door holders are ordered and are soon to be fitted.

Terry
I don't think it is a breach of legislation to not have self closing doors protecting an escape route. Legislation generally specifies that a means of escape is to be provided. This will be done by advise contained in codes and guides. The means of escape can still be adequately protected, if required, using fire doors which self close in the event of a fire.  
I would suggest that this could be a reasonable adjustment under DDA.
The days of "self closing devices and nothing else will do" are long gone.

[Big T]

Lancashire Fire and rescue service gained a successfull prosecution of a hotel manager for amongst other things "failing to protect a means of escape by not providing self closing doors" and "failing to provide a self closing device on the door of a laundry"

The self closers should have remained in situ whilst  waitning for the magnetic holders to be fitted.

I totally with terry martin in that ordering the mags and getting them fitted is a reasonable and practical alteration.

[nearlythere]

Is there a law which states that it is an offence to fail to protect a means of escape by not providing self closing doors?
May I suggest that the possibility is that the Hotel Manager was prosecuted for not maintaining or providing a means of escape. The way to provide this is usually with the provision of fire doors as is usually advised in guides to fire safety.  
In relation to Sherpa's fire door if the door was such that it was free to swing but failsafe to self close in the event of a fire then that is a FRSC door.

Can I compare it to someone eating an apple whilst driving a car. There is no offence of "eating an apple whilst driving" but there is an offence of driving without due care and attention and the reason could be that the driver was eating an apple. The driver would not be convicted of "eating an apple whilst driving" but of "driving without due care and attention"
Can you see my point?
You are right that the self closers should not be disconnected until the adjustment could be made. ie mag holders.