Jon Christophersen, Building Research Institute, Norway
Introduction of accessibility legislation in Norway has followed political
policy decisions. Presently, central legislation to ensure easy access in
new developments is in force. Implementation is the responsibility of local
authorities. It is within their power to provide local regulations to further
accessibility beyond the central and general legislation. In addition, various
incentives for better accessibility on a voluntary basis are in operation.
Policy instruments
Policy documents are drawn up by government departments or, on the municipal
level, by the local administration. The former will seldom carry legal weight.
Instead, their status is advisory - but recommendations may be and often
are of major importance. One such document is a government paper of 1971/72
which has played the part of political basis for Norwegian access legislation.
It outlines the principal aim: "To ensure that physical environment
in buildings and surroundings should not hinder disabled peoples' activities
of daily life." On the local level, policy documents may be worked
into a more binding framework, provided sufficient political backing can
be achieved. In addition, most political parties have policy statements
on accessibility in dwellings and/or the built environment. Recent policy
decisions for better accessibility are to a large extent motivated by plans
for social reform under the general heading of "integration".
Enforcement provisions
Central
A building code, building regulations, and a building regulations guide
book act as the legal framework. All new construction and all major conversions
throughout the country must satisfy both the code and regulations including
accessibility, as covered by the regulations (not by the code), should be
provided for:
buildings that are open to the general public,
buildings where people with disabilities people may have a place of
work (places for work for ten or more persons),
buildings containing more than 4 dwelling units.
By accessibility, both internal and external arrangements are demanded,
including access roads and paths, corridors and circulation spaces, toilet
facilities, minimum door widths, etc. The regulations have frequent references
to specifications which are outside the legal framework, but have status
as recommendations. Most widely used are Norwegian Standards, information
sheets from the Norwegian Building Research Institute and criteria developed
by the Norwegian State Housing Bank. It may, however, be noted that accessibility
specifications in the building regulations apply only in minor ways to the
dominant type of dwelling construction, that is low to medium density timber
frame housing.
Local
Compliance with the regulations is checked locally, as a routine matter.
This poses a slight dilemma: Regulations are given and maintained by a central
office to cover all parts of the country. Enforcement is decentralized to
some 450 different local authorities. It follows that results may vary according
to the level of practice, local expertise, competence and understanding.
Smaller municipalities will rarely have sufficient technical skill; it is
generally assumed that their practice is somewhat lacking. Of particular
interest on a local level are the rather wide powers given in the building
code: Regulations that go further than the building regulations may be -
and often are - laid down for specific areas within a community. This has
had relevance for housing in the sense that a considerable number of areas
have been set aside for "life-span dwellings" (see below).
TABLE
Norwegian access legislation
(Left column)
Central level:
Legislation
building and planning code
building regulations
standards
Incentives
guide lines
subsidized loans
certifications for products
(Right column)
County or municipal level:
local control & enforcement
local regulations specific for a given site or area
Incentives for better accessibility
Incentives for voluntary provision of accessibility of higher standard than
demanded have proved a successful supplement to legislation. Norwegian Standards
and various certifications for building products are typical examples. More
important are the life-span dwelling criteria employed by the Norwegian
State Housing Bank. The bank allows state subsidized loans - i.e., below
market interest - to small and medium sized new dwellings. Accessible dwellings
get the higher loans, and life-span dwellings receive the best financing.
In life-span dwellings all major dwelling functions are fully accessible
for persons operating manual wheelchairs:
the main entrance door is accessible with a wheelchair from the parking
place,
living room, kitchen, one bedroom, bath/toilet are on the same level
as the main entrance,
when fully furnished and equipped, these rooms have sufficient dimensions
to allow turning and passage for wheelchairs,
doors have sufficient widths and low or no thresholds.
Experiences
Intentions for accessibility in Norway may be characterized as good, providing
both a central, legislative framework (which local authorities are empowered
to strengthen) applicable to all buildings and incentives which have proved
successful, meaning higher standards of accessibility and usability. Our
questions were: how are legislation and incentives put into practice and
what are their results? Two projects gave opportunity for research. One
concerned life-span dwellings, the other looked into the workings of the
building regulations on construction in residential areas. The building
regulation project was carried out first. Findings from it were confirmed
and detailed in the life-span dwelling project.
The studies
Our studies concern access legislation in the building regulations and the
life-span dwelling criteria. The aim of the studies was to find out how
access rules and regulations affect the planning professions, the control
functions and the end result: the building of residential areas. The life-span
dwelling project includes recommendations for improved criteria.
For the building regulation project, we interviewed a total of 50 building
controllers in public authorities. Five went into detail, the other 45 interviews
were conducted over telephone and concentrated on three main problems: provision
of elevators in residential buildings; provision of accessible toilets in
dwellings; and practice on exceptions from the access rules. We also interviewed
four architects in private practice and the three biggest suppliers of timber
frame housing. The five detailed interviews were followed up with site visits,
to sites suggested by the interviewees. The 19 building projects we visited
included kindergartens, dwellings, office buildings, local meeting rooms
and a couple of mixed developments with shops, offices and dwellings.
For the life-span dwelling project, we interviewed three architects employed
by the Norwegian State Housing Bank. We conducted a half-day seminar/discussion
between the representatives of the housing bank and a variety of organizations
for people with disabilities, and we organized site visits to 21 completed
dwellings in 19 different projects. These were accompanied by a person using
a manual wheelchair, representatives of the Housing Bank and a developer.
The site visits were in both studies prepared through critical analysis
of drawings. We devised simple systems for annotating plans and used plans
annotated in advance as guides through each project and every building,
supplementing the advance annotations as visits progressed.
Specifications for access
Instrumental in the implementation of policy decisions, building regulations
and life-span dwelling criteria need to be well defined, well edited and
easy to apply. Good intentions not withstanding, we found problems of application
and practicability both in the life-span dwelling criteria and in the building
regulations - to the extent that serious obstacles to accessibility may
be difficult to avoid.
The building regulations define the lowest legal level of accessibility.
They have wide application - to all buildings - but low definition and insufficient
detail specification limit their practical workability. The life-span dwelling
criteria are better defined than the building regulations. They are linked
to a considerable economic incentive which also carries a certain marketing
value. The criteria have proved instrumental in changing dwelling layout
and design. Our studies show:
Building regulations
Problems of editing
Access demands are split up and spaced far apart, thus complicating cross
referencing, and causing disregard of important details.
Wording
Parts of regulations are vague or give insufficient detail, thus their practicability
is reduced or in some cases negated. Lax practice in granting exemptions
from regulations is common.
Building types
The most common types of housing are not covered by the access regulations.
Public spaces (e.g. restaurants) are insufficiently covered.
Life-span dwelling criteria
Attention to detail and to continuity of access from car parking through
entrance to bedroom and toilet is needed.
Due to the problem mentioned in the previous paragraph, life-span dwelling
criteria have had greater importance on dwellings than the building regulations.
As life-span dwellings make up 33 per cent of dwellings financed through
the Housing Bank, it can be estimated that some 15 per cent of all new dwellings
have life-span standard.
Problems of wording, editing and practicability will in many cases have
the effect of neutralizing even costly measures for accessibility. The results
on site show that insurmountable barriers occur where details have been
overlooked or disregarded.
Results of planning
Demands for accessibility have led to better planning. Planners are more
knowledgeable than before, their buildings show that attention to access
problems are taken seriously. There can be no doubt that planners' awareness
of barrier-free design has increased considerably in few years. Interviews,
plans and buildings show clear evidence of this. Measures which would have
been highly unusual earlier are planned and executed, partly because the
building regulations demand them and partly because of the economic incentives
afforded through the larger state subsidized loans to life-span dwellings.
As a result, knowledge which formerly belonged to the realm of specialists
has become a general planning tool.
The planners' main objectives, providing circulation areas, doors, elevators,
toilet facilities, etc. in correct positions and with sufficient dimensions,
are in all major respects taken care of. Almost all necessary functions
can be reached. This 'almost' causes concern, as nearly every project had
unnecessary barriers, many of which represented insurmountable obstacles.
The nature of these barriers illustrates a need for better control, and
- of primary importance - a need for change in building practices. Both
are largely questions of workmanship and may be achieved through a higher
level of competence, i.e., information and education, particularly as regards
craftsmen and site workers.
The interviews disclosed that accessibility in housing is generally not
achieved through the present wording of the building regulations. They apply
to larger structures, i.e., blocks of apartments. Construction of high-
and medium-rise housing has decreased in recent years and is hardly found
outside the capital. It is, however, interesting that parts of the timber
frame housing industry develop all new house types according to the criteria
for life-span dwelling standard.
Control functions
Control functions are routine matters for local authorities and the Housing
Bank. The former have rights (but no duty) of control on all building, while
the latter only controls dwellings financed by the bank (a little less than
50 per cent of all new dwellings). As control covers both the design stage
and the building process, one might assume that accessibility is ensured.
In practice, most buildings have serious faults.
Local authorities check drawings and follow up on site at various stages
during construction. The Housing Bank checks drawings for life-span criteria
and visits dwellings immediately after completion. Both control systems
should, consequently, give ample opportunity for pinpointing and correcting
any and all obstacles to accessibility.
The practical functioning of control systems hinges on specifications (given
in rules and regulations) and individual competence and attention to detail
on the part of the controllers. Our interviews give evidence that practice
varies. The building regulations are far from specific, but open to interpretation.
Thus, a building approved by one local authority may well be refused by
its neighbor. An additional problem is that due to vague wording. Some regulations
have never taken effect. The life-span dwelling criteria, although better
defined and enforced by a more centralized authority, are similarly criticized.
Our principal aim was to map the consequences of rules and regulations on
finished products - built environment in residential areas. With surprising
regularity, we found a series of typical faults.
Serious obstacles due to building faults are overlooked. In general, these
are faults of detailing rather than planning or layout. The striking feature
is that typical faults of detailing are repeated on a majority of the buildings,
regardless of building type or function. Although our sample is small compared
to the total amount of new construction, the studies show a regularity of
typical faults which indicates that the problem is general and may be found
in most, if not all new building.
The acuteness of this problem is further underlined by the fact that the
typical faults pose obstacles which in a majority of cases negate other
investments for accessibility. This may be taken as proof of a severe shortcoming:
knowledge of correct building details is severely lacking - detailing for
accessibility is a comparatively new skill and it contrasts strongly with
established building practice on several important points. Typical faults
and obstacles are the subject of the following chapter.
Result - buildings in residential areas
The purpose of the site visits was to investigate how planning for accessibility
is carried out in building practice. The abundance of building faults constitutes
a serious problem: wrong details seem almost a norm, typical faults were
repeated on nearly every of the forty buildings visited.
The studies illustrate that defects of planning are no longer an acute problem
- Norwegian planners do a fairly good job - but workmanship and on-site
control has fallen behind. Obstacles which do not show up on elevations
and floor plans can easily be found on site. Although the majority of these
obstacles clearly contradicts rules and regulations, controllers will rarely
take notice and make demands for improvements. Consequently, a number of
severe barriers were found in buildings meant to be accessible. The life-span
dwelling project gave the best illustration, as all buildings were "tested"
by disabled persons in manual wheelchairs. Another positive effect of the
visits was the experience imparted to representatives of the local authority
or Housing Bank.
Obstacles and faults could be observed externally, on main approach routes
to the buildings, and in the spaces inside.
Common problems
External obstacles
Access roads and paths
Where demanded by rules or regulations, drawings show gradients of maximum
1:12. In some cases, the actual gradients were steeper, but more often would
a stretch of 1:12 footpath have sudden, short portions with a steeper gradient.
Thus, well-planned paths were made inaccessible.
Access ramps
Although clearly specified in access legislation, access ramps are often
too steep and/or lack landings at the top. Landings that interrupt long
stretches of ramps are particularly rare. The life-span dwelling project
also illustrated a need for alternative solutions to ramps. Where provided
as access to private houses, ramps are removed by the users.
Changes of level
Inadequate solutions, particularly of changes of level between landing at
entrance door and finished floor inside, were among the most common faults.
This is a particularly good example of the need for change of established
building practices. Level solutions have not been commonly sought earlier.
They are, however, provided when clearly demanded. Examples are entrances
to supermarkets.
Internal obstacles
Doors
Being the most important means of access, doors also pose frequent obstacles.
Typical examples are:
Heavy (fire) doors, which in effect block corridors, passages, entrances
to underground car parks and in many cases also entry to apartments. This
contravenes legislation, and is a legislative problem, as products - lighter
doors - may not be found on the market.
Positioning of doors causes problems; wrong positioning reduces door width,
space necessary to reach door handles is often forgotten.
Thresholds are traditional in Norway, and are sometimes still demanded by
local authorities, although legislation specifies otherwise.
Changes of level
The most important problem is access to bathrooms. Provision of floor drains
and floor heating cause increased thickness of construction, and, consequently,
change of level between bathroom floor and adjoining rooms. Various solutions
are tried for life-span dwellings. For other dwellings, a paragraph in the
building regulations might apply, but is disregarded because of unclear
wording. Other changes of level occur, often as consequences of inaccuracies
in building. Normal tolerances are often insufficient, if full accessibility
is to be achieved.
Lack of logic
Some faults can be explained by lack of logic in the wording of rules and
regulations. An understanding of accessibility as a continuous circulation
system running from car park through all important functions of buildings
seems rare and is not brought out in the specifications.
Conclusion - future development for better accessibility
The studies show that better accessibility - or indeed compliance with legal
requirements - in Norway now depends chiefly on better workmanship and better
control on site. Both issues are questions of competence: better attention
to detail on the part of controllers and increased knowledge of correct
working details on the part of building site workers. Improved legislation
may then easily follow. Coupled to this is the need to keep planners' awareness
alive.
Competence improvements
A policy for inclusion of accessibility in education for the building professions
has been agreed on recently. This provides a necessary framework, so that
accessibility may be introduced more systematically in all fields of education
related to building planning and practice. Thus, better execution of building
details may be achieved.
Changes of legislation
Weaknesses of legislation account for some of the access problems found
through our studies. The life-span dwelling criteria will be adjusted within
the next few months; the adjustments will likely follow our recommendations
closely. Altering and improving building regulations is a slower and more
difficult process. A chief aim is to move their content as close to the
life-span dwelling criteria as possible. It is doubtful whether this is
at all feasible today. A more pragmatic approach would be to aim for full
implementation of the regulations which are in force - and to improve the
wording of paragraphs that are disregarded. Implementation depends, however,
on control and the decentralized control systems are not easily reached.
Pressure for improvement of building regulations has proven effective, although
slow, in the past and is continuing.
Changing building practice
The building trades are by nature conservative and changes are difficult
to effect. A lot more work is needed, though stumbling blocks are numerous
and hard to overcome. Both our institute and the Housing Bank are trying
to catalogue and evolve new and better building details from which simple,
economic and easy to follow recommendations may be published. It would seem
that this aspect is lagging behind the other two main issues for better
accessibility in the built environment.
