Goverment Orders Review of Document M

In our article 'New Code of Practice Will Give Rise to Debate' we highlighted certain anomalies between the recently published British Standard 8300 and Part M of the Building Regulations. We were obviously not alone in recognizing that the two documents are, in some cases, at odds with each other. Therefore, we welcome the Government‘s decision to order a review of Part M. Due to become law later this year, it is generally accepted that the revisions will make Part M and BS 8300 agree.

Approved Document M, to give it its proper title, is the section of the UK building regulations which sets down minimum standards for disabled access in the built environment. Since 1992, the regulations have remained unchanged, other than to extend their application to dwellings as well as those buildings to which public access is allowed. Revision of the regulations is, therefore, long overdue.

It is right that the review process should aim to dovetail Approved Document M more closely with BS 8300. Published in October 2001, this new British Standard deals specifically with the design of buildings and their approaches to meet the needs of disabled people. Why is BS 8300 so important? There are two reasons: Firstly, many of its recommendations are research based and included user trials wherever possible. The practicality of the measure was tried and tested before being incorporated into the standard document. Secondly, BS 8300 supersedes BS 5810, which was produced over twenty years ago. As such, the new standard takes account of the very latest technological advances and how they can be used to improve disabled access. An example of this is the recommendation that hearing enhancement should be fitted in the parts of any building where the layout or design will make communication difficult for disabled people, for example in pubs, clubs and other venues. BS 8300 also includes criteria for choosing between induction loop, infrared and radio systems.

As part of the Approved Document M review process, the views of disabled people and their carers were sought. A survey, conducted by the Camden Consultancy, asked for opinions on the existing regulations and how they may be improved. Many respondents felt that the whole issue of lifts required improved legislation. 27% of those questioned felt that the guidelines for the use and dimensions of platform lifts should be clearer. For example clarifying a minimum platform width: BS 8300 states 1050mm, Document M 1100mm.

For some years now our Companion Prestige platform lift has had a platform 1100mm wide to enable the wheelchair user to manoeuvre more easily. This means that our products comply with both standards. Meanwhile, other manufacturers are still installing products that do not comply with either, having 1000mm wide platforms.

Following extensive trials BS 8300 is also precise concerning the dimensions and gradients of ramps. The maximum gradient and ramp lengths have been determined to avoid the wheelchair user, not having enough strength to get up the slope. Interestingly, BS 8300 also recommends that ramp flights should not rise more than two metres. In these cases, a platform lift should be installed, it states.

Of the disabled people questioned, 51% felt that changes to wheelchair accessible toilets are needed. Once again BS 8300 is ahead of the game recommending that the smallest room should be slightly longer than in the past (2.2m by 1.5m compared to 2.0m by 1.5m). This dimension is based upon the standard turning circle of a wheelchair and keeping it and its occupant clear of the toilets fitments.

We look forward to the completion of the review process. It is time for the standards to be clarified and bought into line. For too long confusion has reigned enabling commercial pressures and vested interests to compromise the accessibility of public places to the wheelchair user. Conformity and cross referencing between Approved Document M and other legislation will remove the hiding places to the benefit of the disabled.