A. AD M currently states: "Approved Documents are intended to provide guidance for some of the more common building situations. However, there may well be alternative ways of achieving compliance with the requirements. Thus there is no obligation to adopt any particular solution contained in an Approved Document if you prefer to meet the relevant requirement in some other way.

BS 8300:2001 'Design of buildings and their approaches to meet the needs of disabled people - Code of Practice' supersedes BS 5619:1978 and BS 5810:1979. BS 8300 provides guidance on good practice in the design of domestic and non-domestic buildings and their approaches so that they are convenient to use by disabled people. The design recommendations are based on user trials and validated desk studies which formed part of a research project commissioned in 1997 and 2001 by DETR.

The guidance in Approved Document M is based on and is complementary to the BS, although the BS contains much additional material that is not apt for, or not considered appropriate for, inclusion in guidance accompanying regulation. Also, in a few cases, the guidance in AD M differs from the recommendation in BS 8300. Compliance with the recommendations in the BS, therefore, while ensuring good practice, is not necessarily equivalent to compliance with the guidance in AD M."

Where the recommendation in BS 8300 implies a higher standard than that recommended in AD M, clearly that would be acceptable. Also, where the BS recommendations post-date the publication of AD M and are based on new or re-evaluated research, such as described below, those recommendations too may be considered acceptable alternatives to the guidance in AD M.

The BSI committee responsible for BS 8300:2001 intends to publish a consolidated amendment to the BS in the near future, prior to commencing work on the major quinquennial review early in the second quarter. This amendment will address a number of issues, some of which relate only to BS 8300, and some common to BS 8300 and AD M.

Two or three issues, in particular, are known to be causing some difficulty to industry and the design and building control professions. In order to assist in resolving these concerns, the BS committee has undertaken a review of the research on which the recommendations in both BS 8300 and AD M were based. Where appropriate, guidance based on consideration of the BS amendment is included in the FAQs below, as indicated by a link to this note.

A. The guidance that follows is based on consideration of a forthcoming amendment to BS 8300:2001 (see BS 8300:2001)

Light reflectance value (LRV) is the total quantity of visible light reflected by a surface at all wavelengths and directions when illuminated by a light source.

Visual contrast is the perception of a difference visually between one element of a building and another by reference to their light reflectance values

Differences in LRV should be used to assess the degree of visual contrast between surfaces such as floors, walls, doors and ceilings and between key fittings/fixtures and surrounding surfaces.

For people with adequate vision, differences in hue (the nature of the colour) or chroma (the intensity of the colour) will provide adequate visual contrast. Unfortunately, this is not so for all people who are visually impaired. The main feature of a surface, which appears to be strongly correlated with the ability of visually impaired people to identify differences in colour, is the amount of light the surface reflects, or its light reflectance value (LRV).

The LRV scale runs from 0, which is a perfectly absorbing surface that could be assumed to be totally black, up to 100, which is a perfectly reflective surface that could be considered to be the perfect white. Because of practical influences in any application, black is always greater than 0 and white never equals 100.

The evidence-based research available to date allows a degree of variability concerning the minimum LRV difference that is required to provide adequate visual contrast for people who are visually impaired. Whilst there is considerable confidence in recommending a difference in LRV of 30 points or more, there is also much anecdotal evidence to suggest that a difference of around 20 points may still be acceptable. Differences less than about 20 points may not give adequate contrast.

It is thought that LRV differences are less important between two large areas, e.g. between wall and floor, than between a small object on a larger background surface, e.g. a lever handle on a door.

In addition, there is very little research-based evidence concerning the influence of surface textures, e.g. differences in gloss levels of surfaces, on the visual contrast required by visually impaired people. Further research is needed to address these issues and, where appropriate, provide more definitive recommendations. High gloss finishes should, however, is avoided for large areas, e.g. floor, wall, door and ceiling surfaces.

A. The guidance that follows is based on consideration of a forthcoming amendment to BS 8300:2001 (see BS 8300:2001)

The guidance relates to doors to accessible entrances, manually operated non-powered entrance doors and internal doors (see AD M 2.13, 2.17, 2.26, 3.7 and 3.10), and means that with careful selection of components, door closers may be specified that will meet the requirements of both Part B and Part M.

For disabled people to have independent access through single or double swing doors, the opening force, when measured at the leading edge of the door, should be not more than 30 N from 0� (the door in the closed position) to 30� open, and not more than 22.5 N from 30� to 60� of the opening cycle.

Where, in order to meet the above opening force limits, the door-closing device is insufficient to keep an entrance door closed against external conditions, consideration should be given to installing one of the following door closing systems:

a) a power operated (automatic) door - sliding, balanced or swing;

b) a low energy swing door;

c) a power operated revolving door assembly; [but note the caveats about use of revolving door assemblies in BS 8300 paragraph 6.3.5]

d) An entrance lobby or air lock system of inner and outer doors; or

e) For the purposes of Building Regulations in England and Wales, a low power rated door closer on a door fitted with a suitable latch.

Where hinged or pivoted fire resisting doors need to be accessible by disabled people, the door closing devices fitted should have 'controlled' action, conforming to the requirements of BS EN 1154:1997, Annex A, be of a variable power type and conform to the recommendations above.

Annex A to BS EN 1154 states that controlled door closing devices with a power size less than 3 are not considered suitable for use on fire/smoke door assemblies. This means that, in general, only high efficiency door closers mounted on doors with a width greater than 900 mm are likely to meet fire door requirements as well as the opening force limits described above. Controlled door closing devices of a lower power size and with relatively low efficiencies, with a lower power size and/or of a width less than 900mm may only be suitable for non-fire resisting doors.

Where the force required to open a fire resisting door on a circulation route exceeds the limits described above, an electrically powered hold open device, either stand-alone or integral in the body of the closer, which conforms to the requirements of BS EN 1155, should be installed.

The use of "swing free" controlled door closing devices should be limited to applications where doors are located for access to rooms or similar locations and not part of a circulation route.

The use of "delayed action" controlled door closing devices should similarly be avoided in circulation areas.

For non-fire resisting doors which have a requirement to self close for reasons of privacy, acoustics or energy control, controlled door closing devices should be selected, fitted and adjusted so that the opening forces are well below the limits set out above, consistent with the doors functioning as intended. It is emphasized that, for non-fire doors, door closing devices of a power size less than 3 will normally be acceptable.

The opening force should be checked using a plunger-type force measuring instrument. Where measurements cannot be taken at the leading edge, they may be taken at a point on the face of the door up to 60 mm from the leading edge, a position approximately in-line vertically with the spindle of a lever handle or the centre line of a pull handle or push plate, in which case the opening force limits can be increased by approximately 2 N.

The accuracy of force measuring instruments available on the market varies and there are inherent difficulties in measuring forces on site. It is recognized, therefore, that any measurements will be subject to a degree of imprecision which could give rise to variations of between 2 and 3 N.

The ability of a controlled door closing device to close effectively while keeping within the opening force limits depends on its efficiency and the resistances from edge seals, hinge friction, latch resistance and differential air pressure. The effect of using a low efficiency controlled door closing device is to reduce the closing force to a point where, coupled with the other resistances to closing, the door may not latch, or stay closed if unlatched. The use of high efficiency closers can reduce the force required to open the door and increase the proportion of the disabled population who can pass through independently.

In some locations in a building, a controlled door closing device incorporating a back check is sometimes used to prevent damage to adjacent walls or furniture and to the closer mechanism if a door is flung open with some force. However, when the door is opened slowly, the resistance effect is minimal. With some controlled door closing devices, the back check starts to become effective when the door is open at 70�. Care should be taken to ensure that controlled door closing devices, with or without the back check, allow the door to open to provide the required effective clear width.

The maximum closing force exerted by a controlled self-closing device should be within 0� and 15� of final closure. Controlled door closing devices that do not have this characteristic should be avoided.

Without regular maintenance of all door fittings, the resistances to opening and closing can increase to an extent that the ability of disabled people to pass through the door may be affected. The opening force at the door opening angles described above should therefore be checked at regular intervals.

A. The guidance that follows is based on consideration of a forthcoming amendment to BS 8300:2001 (see BS 8300:2001)

A handrail should be:

a) Of an oval or circular profile;

b) Finished so as to provide visual contrast with the surroundings against which it is seen;

c) Easy and comfortable to grip with no sharp edges, smooth and not cold to the touch.

A circular handrail should have a diameter of at least 40 mm but not greater than 50 mm.

A handrail with an oval profile should have dimensions of 50 mm wide and 38 mm deep. The profile should have rounded edges with a radius of at least 15 mm.

There should be a clearance of between 50 mm and 60 mm between a handrail and any adjacent wall surface and any handrail support should meet the handrail, centrally, on its underside. The clearance between the bottom of the rail and any cranked support, or continuous balustrade, should be at least 50 mm to minimize the risk of the handrail supports interrupting the smooth running of a person's hand along the rail.