Part M - Level Access

[jack]

Hi all

 

Slowly working my way through our remaining to-do list for sign-off and have hit the access requirements of Part M.  To be honest, I've been putting off dealing with this, as I know we're going to at least incur some annoying costs.  

 

My preference would be to have a collapsible ramp that we can put in front of our step if anyone in a wheelchair ever comes to our house, but I suspect our (private) building inspector won't go for that!  So before I talk to him about this, does anyone have any experience in this area?

 

Quick explanation of what we have at the moment: there's a large, flat paved area that a car can drive up onto, with plenty of space for a wheelchair user to exit the car.  I believe that satisfies the approach requirements.  

 

The paved area is about 150mm below the highest point of the threshold, which in turn is about 10mm above the finished floor level.  There's an 80mm gap filled with gravel between the threshold and the paving that allows any water making it near the door (there's quite a large overhang) to drain away.

 

Here are some very rough not-even-close-to-scale drawings (plan followed by section):

 

 

 

I clearly need some sort of ramp to allow a wheelchair user access.  Looking at, eg, the NHBC's guidance document, I should be building a 3m long ramp at 1:20, but that would be ridiculous in the circumstances.  There are alternatives given for steeper ramps with landings, which would shorten the necessary ramp, although then I'd need to include a landing just outside the threshold which will leave me not much short of a 3m approach anyway!

 

So what options are realistically available?  The simplest one would be a temporary ramp made out of, eg, wood.  That would strictly satisfy the requirements, although I suppose the inspector could argue that it's clearly a temporary structure and refuse to sign it off.  I know someone (Jeremy?) knew of someone who cast a temporary ramp out of weak concrete and demolished it after completion, but that seems a lot of work and waste.

 

Before I talk to the inspector, does anyone have any thoughts or ideas?

 

Many thanks

 

 

[Barney12]

6 cheap patio slabs and a weak mix of sand and cement? 

Material cost circa £30? 

Place the mix on a piece of DPM so it doesn't stain your existing slabs. 

[Declan52]

Remember what you build doesn't have to be permanent, it only has to be right when the BC guy does his inspection. Once that box is ticked it can be removed.

Most people here go down the few slabs route then take it away when it's been approved.

Edited November 20, 2016 by Declan52

[Stones]

34 minutes ago, Sensus said:

My first and usual solution would be to grade the level of the drive/hardstanding up to meet the internal floor level, and address bridging of the DPC by other means (eg. a channel drain with a cover grille, or even just keep the level of the gravel 150mm below that of the paving and threshold).

 

That's what we have done.  I didn't like the idea of the access requirements when they came in (primarily I think because of the truly horrific looking efforts being constructed in the early days), however, having lived with level access in a number of houses now, I have grown used to the practicality of them  Great when the kids were young, and casting my mind back seeing my parents struggling to get a wheelchair bound relative out of the house down just one step,convinced me that it really is a small price to pay.  If you really want the visual appearance of a grand stepped entrance, put the level access at an alternative door.

[Guest Alphonsox]

52 minutes ago, Sensus said:

My first and usual solution would be to grade the level of the drive/hardstanding up to meet the internal floor level, and address bridging of the DPC by other means (eg. a channel drain with a cover grille, or even just keep the level of the gravel 150mm below that of the paving and threshold).

 

Pretty much what we're intending. Some ramps look ugly but if the rise is spread over a large enough area the it isn't noticeable

[ProDave]

It amazes me just how many new houses I see around here where the whole ground level at the front has been raised to floor level to give level access. It clearly must be bridging the DPC as there is seldom any effort to separate the ground from the wall.  In my case I have left a large French Drain.

 

I did talk to my BCO about putting the ramp at the back but he referred me to the "access to principle entrance not reasonable" bit.  Just because you don't like the look of a ramp is not justified reason to put it around the back, there has to be more of a technical issue at the front before you can do that.
 

[MikeSharp01]

2 hours ago, jack said:

I should be building a 3m long ramp at 1:20, but that would be ridiculous in the circumstances.

Should not this problem be kicked back, along with costs, to your architect as they should design to part M. In a job I worked on, albeit for a public building, they made us zig-zag the ramp across the steps up to the building to keep to the 1:20 so I guess you might need to work out a a 1:20 plan, as I mentioned elsewhere here today this is not about you today but about those who come after you and might need access.

[MrP]

You can get away with a ramp not exceeding 1:15 as long as it is less than 5m long and you have a 1200mm x 900mm flat platform in front of the door. However if a ramp is not practical due to the level differences or geography of the site then a max 150mm step in to the property at the door is also an reasonable and acceptable solution. The building regs is a guidance document only and the part m list a heirarchy of preferred options with a level approach at the top, then ramp then step, then flight of steps. However as long as the approach meets one of the solutions in the before mentioned NHBC document then it still complies - your BCO can advise and give their preference but can not insist on one solution over another.

[jack]

Thanks all.

 

First point, the architect did show a suitable detail, but in the heat of the moment (erm, several months long moment), we overlooked it.  

 

Second, there are no physical impediments that would allow me to argue for an alternative solution.  There's an almost completely flat 5m wide driveway extending several metres directly away from the door.

 

A bit of additional background for the sake of any other naive fools like myself reading this in the future: I wanted a built-up porch that mirrored the overhang (about 5m wide and 1.2m deep, from memory).  I was concerned, however, about how to handle bridging between that and the house, given the porch would be at the finished floor level.  I put off thinking about it far too long and the next thing I knew, the people doing the external hard landscaping were onsite and looking for direction.

 

Annoyingly, if I'd given just a bit more thought to this at the time we'd have been able to sort something out fairly easily I'd have thought, but I didn't, so here we are.  All part of the risk of not having a main contractor to blame! 

 

4 hours ago, Sensus said:

My first and usual solution would be to grade the level of the drive/hardstanding up to meet the internal floor level, and address bridging of the DPC by other means (eg. a channel drain with a cover grille, or even just keep the level of the gravel 150mm below that of the paving and threshold).

 

That would have been the plan if I'd thought about this before having the driveway completely laid and many square metres of large-format basalt concreted in place!  

 

4 hours ago, Sensus said:

Alternatively, you might consider making your 'part M' entrance via another door, that doesn't access off the hardstanding? Note para 1.5 of Approved Document M:

"Normally these provisions will apply to the principal private entrance but where this is not possible,access to a suitable alternative entrance would be reasonable."

 

 

If we go with a temporary solution, I have my eye on the side door (still accessible from the drive), which is a less obstructive place to put it.  The additional issue with the side access door is that we'd need to widen a 600mm (one slab width) path to 900mm.  No an insurmountable issue, but I need to compare the two solutions against each other.

 

How do you think a BCO (private) would react to a clearly temporary structure?  I guess they all know the games that are played, and perhaps this isn't an area they'd be interested in long arguments about given how little they have to gain. 

 

 

[Ferdinand]

9 hours ago, MikeSharp01 said:

Should not this problem be kicked back, along with costs, to your architect as they should design to part M. In a job I worked on, albeit for a public building, they made us zig-zag the ramp across the steps up to the building to keep to the 1:20 so I guess you might need to work out a a 1:20 plan, as I mentioned elsewhere here today this is not about you today but about those who come after you and might need access.

IIRC there is rather a pleasant angled ramp into the back entrance of the Broadgate development in London.

 

Completely invisible from the front, but runs across a flight of shallow steps. 

[joe90]

JSH had his ramp access to his back (side) door. And his build is now signed off.

[Temp]

Would something like this work.. Hide the ramp in the garden path. It's only 150mm...