“Show me,” said the irate architect, “Where code states I need 13 passenger lifts when the consultant says 10 passenger lifts meet the required performance! That’s an extra £25k per lift and means we lose interior space and have to pay the extra costs of building bigger shafts! The building becomes economically unviable!”.

Not an uncommon conversation I suspect, I’ve had plenty over time, but what drove the point from the architect’s perspective is that you only have to provide the minimum with no consideration of the wider needs of building users. My point in calling for 13 passenger deep aspect cars was the practicality of tenants moving large items of furniture, cycles, etc. up to their apartments. I also raised the point of the lifts being able to accommodate a stretcher, or a coffin, should the need arise. In response, the by now very irritated architect retorted that furniture could be carried up the stairs; it’s a 12 floor residential building. I enquired whether they would be prepared to do that…

The remainder of this heated conversation cannot be repeated here; however, I was informed that the cost consultants said 10 passenger lifts were common in residential blocks. This, I was told, didn’t present a problem. Obviously cost consultants don’t move furniture or have to carry stretchers down stairs.

This discussion centred on a proposed new residential building, but it could equally apply to a hotel or retail development, for example.