Building Control Officers- Dangerous?

[novascot]

Hello all,
would appreciate your comments on the following:

A café has applied to Building Control for a change of use and Building Warrant for a refurbishment. The toilet for Disabled persons is on the ground floor. Building Control are insisting that a lift be provided for Disabled/wheelchair users so they can access the basement area. This basement serves the same foods etc as the ground floor.
The alternate Means of Escape from the basement is not suitable for persons in wheelchairs as the flight of stairs is steep (built circa 1880's) and the staff would not be able to lift someone up that stair.

This then brings the Occupier as the Responsible Person in contravention of The Fire Scotland Act 2005 Part 3 and The Fire Safety (Scotland) Regulations 2006. (RRO for most of you)
 In particular Regulation 14.

It also discriminates against Disabled persons if they are allowed access to the basement as their Means of Escape is unsatisfactory whereas the Means of Escape for able bodied persons is satisfactory.

Would you agree that restricting access to the ground floor for Disabled Persons would solve this problem?

Your comments on this would be appreciated.

[nearlythere]

I would think Novascot that disabled persons would not be disadvantaged by restricting access to the ground floor only as they can enjoy a similar service to anyone using the basement. Reasonable adjustment must be made and I would suggest you are being reasonable in the circumstances.
But your problem with BC is that there are none so deaf as those who won't listen.

[kurnal]

I agree with both of you. Its a fairly widespread problem, there is too much focus on perceived political correctness in some quarters and common sense goes out of the window.,

[Allen Higginson]

What if they designated a disabled person only table on the ground floor which would be available on production of a blue badge displayed correctly on the windscreen of their shopmobility scooter (sorry,did I go off on one??).

[davio1960]

I came across a couple of absolutely mad and yet so very similar such access problems on hols in Italia. Brand spanking new cafe/bar with basement wc's. Access to wc's via stairs only, discussed with italian ski instructing colleague who informed me the local building control (no doubt a person reading has the correct local term for these chaps/lasses) had insisted on a wheel chair accessed wc for boys and girls at the base of the stairs...
Oh yeah no lift!

[afterburner]

you've got it Nearlythere.

providing access does not equal providing egress. The DDA requires 'reasonable adjustments' and these must take into account the impact on the business and the premises. The simple question is can a disabled person obtain exactly the same services on the ground floor as anyone else, anywhere else on the premises. As long as they can obtain equal services they do not need access beyond the ground floor.
As you ask this under our Scottish legislation, my take on your problem would be that by restricting access to the ground floor you have met the requirments of Section 55(3)(a) (c) (f) & (g) of the Act. By restricting access disabled persons should not become persons in serious and imminent danger and therefore Regulation 14 would not apply.

as for your BC officer I would query and challenge which functional standard he is expecting and quoting as prescriptive obedience to the Standards has ceased.  

[afterburner]

Nova

check out the text of 4.0.1 in  the Technical Handbook (non domestic) for compliance with the Scottish Building Standards, especially the references to 'reasonable adjustments'

[Mushy]

The only way i can think of where disabled persons are discriminated against is if the ground floor is full and they can't use the basement like able bodied people can

In my experience BC are in the main, very open to negotiation..maybe I've just been lucky

[CivvyFSO]

Bear in mind there is a difference between the 'making reasonable adjustments' that people have to do under the DDA, and the 'reasonable provision' required for compliance with part 'M' of the building regs.

[novascot]

Hello all and thanks for your comments.
Aftreburner: The Standard they are quoting is 4.2.1. There is a part which says:
  it is recognised that it is not reasonably practicable for all areas to be accessible to disabled people and
the following list provided further guidance:
The list does not include when egress can be assured.
If the RP allows Disabled Persons on the Ground floor they will then be in contravention of Reg. 14.

A device is available which takes wheelchairs upstairs but is limited in operation and costs £5.000. Not reasonable to expect the RP to provide this.
I will let you know how the Court case goes when the RP takes the Council to Court for her £20,000 paid for a lift she won't use.

[David Rooney]

The only way i can think of where disabled persons are discriminated against is if the ground floor is full and they can't use the basement like able bodied people can

In my experience BC are in the main, very open to negotiation..maybe I've just been lucky

But on a slight tangent, aren't hotels only required to provide "X" amount of rooms kitted out with beacons/vibra pillows and the like?

If those rooms are booked and another impaired person rings up then surely they have to turn them away and that could be conceived as discrimination?

So in the restaurant, if the "impaired" tables are booked.... they're booked !

Or are we now saying that every table on every floor of every restaurant has to be accessible to everybody??

[afterburner]

Nova the statutory duties by the Act and the Regulations are absolute. the safety of all persons must be assured and the person in control or the employer must take reasonable fire safety measures.

Here is the crux of the matter, the take on 'reasonable'. It is the same 'reasonable' measures as are within both the Building Regs and indeed the DDA.

However, providing kit to get people up or down the building also depends on other people using that kit, providing the assistance and this is not as straightforward as it seems. Simple question what do you do if all the staff refuse to operate the stair access devices?

[CivvyFSO]

the take on 'reasonable'. It is the same 'reasonable' measures as are within both the Building Regs and indeed the DDA.

I disagree. The reasonable measures under building regs are to comply with the functional requirement of making sure that access and facilities are in place, and the guidance in ADM would usually be followed.

The DDA takes cost into account, which is not much of an issue under the building regs. Would anyone accept "I can't afford to supply a suitable means of giving warning" as a reason for a relaxation on B1? Also under the DDA there is no offence until a disabled person turns up and can prove that they have been treated differently and reasonable adjustments had not been taken. i.e. It is not an offence for me to have a 3 storey building with no facilities for disabled people in the place. It IS potentially an offence once the person turns up and I cannot accomodate them.

[Wiz]

It seems to me that the disabled person is not being discriminated against if that person is provided with at least as good facilities on the ground floor as there are on the basement floor.

The arguments about 'using up' the DDA places and then not being able to offer a wheelchair user an empty table in the basement is not valid. Good mamagement can always ensure that the last free tables are always on the ground floor. Even the most rabid 'I know my DDA rights' ranter surely has no argument to demand a table where the premises are fully booked.

It is an unreasonable cost to be asked to provide a lift when it is not really required.

Has there not been enough case law yet to establish what is acceptable? Or has everyone always caved in to unreasonable requirements from people who make them just because they think they can?

[afterburner]

you've got it exactly right Wiz.

The Building Standards require 'reasonable adjustments' (this is not a new build) and this takes us back to 'reasonable'. I agree with Wiz, the access to services is the important access. Being able to access the whole of the premises may not be essential to providing the services.