Building Regs Rant

[ash_scotland88]

I can totally understand why they exist, in a way, but find them so limiting!
Looking at extending and could fit in a downstairs WC off a vestibule/porch (we're going sideways).
Taking into account some building regs rules we would be able to create the 700x850mm space for the WC, 800x850mm Infront of this for usable space (bigger than what they ask for) and the sink would sit in a narrower part of the room beyond this. Access would be from side into the 800x850space, this means the sink would be behind the door when open.
Now building regs says the door needs be outwards opening for a wc, which as far as I can tell isn't possible as it then interacts with the front door, second vestibule door and opens into the 900/1000mm wide corridor /vestibule space not allowing enough access.
But apart the WC itself fills all other space quotes as far as I can tell!

Just frustrating! We could always lie have it signed off as a cupboard then fit the sanitary ware after sign off, but it's just frustrating they won't allow it.

This is where someone comes in and tells me otherwise.

#rantoverfestiveboredom

 

[ash_scotland88]

Installing a new (only) WC on the ground floor.

Maybe different in Scotland but I know even recasting stairs we had to take into provision for stair lift/demonstrate how it would work.

It may be something I have to clear with architect, and run by other half of he likes the layout I'm drawing up in my head.

 

[ash_scotland88]

Found the Scottish regs, they state that it has to be 1100mm Infront of the toilet!

But also this;

Additional sanitary facilities need not be provided as part of an extension to, or
alteration of, a dwelling. However an additional accessible toilet may be needed under
the circumstances set out in clause 4.2.10, if one does not exist on the entrance level of a
dwelling.
If it is intended to install a new sanitary facility on the principal living level or entrance
storey of a dwelling and there is not already an accessible sanitary facility of that type
within the dwelling, the first new facility should be in accordance with the guidance given in
clauses 3.12.3 and 3.12.4.

Does that mean if our first floor bathroom is accessible then the new WC on ground does not need to conform to accessible standards? This would allow us to use the England/Wales smaller part M dimensions?

 

[ash_scotland88]

Any chance of uploading some plans? If you're building the wall for the WC would you be allowed to use a pocket door?

I'll trust in the morning with more details.

 

[ash_scotland88]

Where in Scotland are you. I deal with Angus, Aberdeenshire and occasionally Highlands / Perthshire council.

An alternative approach may be your friend in this situation. As there are no facilities on the ground floor currently you are improving the situation. The way councils are treating alternative approaches have changed in the past couple of months though as instead of just dealing with them in-house they now go to a central database to maintain consistency throughout the country.

Putting together a well thought out arguement quoting regs and why they shoulduldnt be fully applied can get you round the regs. The mandatory standards are essentially the only parts you have to adhere to the rest can be discussed.

Not related example

E.g accessible ramps. Requires a 1200 X 1200 level platt. But at the top and bottom of a ramp there needs to be a 1500 waiting space so there's a contradiction in the regs !

Edinburgh based. Had planning rejected at appljapplic and appeal, I believe it mostly came down to design and their not understanding our area. Our re-submission will already be getting heavy annotated explaining everything we can, more specifically build lines.

What would you say are mandatory parts?

Sorry......ignore my post (#2)......didn't realise you were in Scotland (should have been obv. from username!).

Doesn't help I started off quoting England and Wales regulations! As usual Scotland messing it up by insisting on doing it on their owns!

 

[ash_scotland88]

Dealt with Edinburgh once or twice and they're hopeless!

If you've got planning already sorted, can you send me a set of the plans through trust and I can take a look at them. The mandatory standards are the bits in the box at the top of each subsection. The following clauses are only guidance which can be argued to a certain degree.

Knew I should have copied what I sent to steed. We have the rejected plans, new ones have not been done yet but I can hopefully describe it.

 

[ash_scotland88]

Forgot about the living room...
We're pushing forward with building warrant and works for living room.
Lounge door is now moving to the big bottom tread and stairs are being recast to make this work. No structural shifts for the wall to be moved anymore. Over all cheaper to do, but now limits what we do with the extension.
Even the space that's currently under the stairs wouldn't be enough.

Losing space is the chat to have, but I wanted to make sure my facts are right before bringing it forward. With losing space we'd have a very similar width of kitchen we currently have just a lot longer.
We'd both love an island/breakfast bar but what I've drafted up as possible layouts don't think it would be achievable without being very tight.

 

[ash_scotland88]

Pringle, did you receive a trust? Don't know if I somehow sent a message to myself or its a duplicate.

 

[ash_scotland88]

No worries Pringle, just confused why I only received one copy of trust and it was yours.

Sketched/rulered it up this afternoon from a print out of plans so scaling is very iffy, can only really take a "circa" measurement of what would be left. Width at narrow point is what we have currently for kitchen width but would only last c1900, long wall would be c4690 and between WC and kitchen door would be c1460 and just deeper than 600, giving different options for units.
We knew we would never achieve the dream kitchen space, even when angled out and measuring suggests we would only gain 400mm at the very widest ontop of the difficulties of building an angled kitchen and loss of cupboard spaces to pack out walls etc

It now raises questions if the building regs argument could be made for the WC and even just push the ground floor front out further to 2m which looks like it doesn't come in front of neighbours lines or even further properties that went to the front double storey.

 

[ash_scotland88]

If it can be argued regarding dimensions then I think it would have to be a pocket door. I would be against one for noise privacy sake but it's only accessible through the vestibule which will have a "real" door and only used in passing.