Public Consulation - Part K of the Building Regs

Mellor

The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Mr. Phil Hogan, T.D., announces the launch of a public consultation process on proposals for the review of Part K of the Building Regulations and Technical Guidance Document K, (TGD K).

The Minister has published the following Consultation Documents:-

•Draft Building Regulations (Part K Amendment) Regulations 2011 (doc, 48kb)
•Draft Technical Guidance Document K (Stairways, Ladders, Ramps and Guards) (pdf, 234kb)
•Regulatory Impact Assessment (pdf, 144kb)
The Minister would welcome submissions on the proposals. Submissions should be made in writing or by e-mail, to the address given below not later than 4pm, 20th September 2011.

So Part K is up for consulation, giving I've criticised parts of it else where on the forum, i'd be a hypocrite if I didn't make a submission.
Before I do, I think its a good idea to discuss it here.

Part K is one of the simpler regs. The reasons for the requirements are mostly common sense (no horizontal rails = no climbing) so there's no reason why we can't pick it apart.

So far, I plan to comment on;

• The fact that the minimum gait, as per the table, isn't achievable with the minimum rise and going for public and semi-public stairs. No major issue realy, just looks half hearted that nobody bothered to adjust it.
• A suggested dual handrail provision in areas where small children make up a significant proportion of users.
• Changing the way that window guarding is detailed. It has improved from the previous regs, and a helpful diagram has been included, but it still refers to the 1400/800mm external/internal opening section measurement. This could be replaced with a single 600mm level difference measurement.

Thoughts?

Mellor

Anybody?

ideally, I was hoping for feed back on my three ideas above

sinnerboy

The big issue to note is the reduction in max risers in Table 1 .

Down from 220 to to 200 for private and from 190 to 180 for semi private. Pretty important to note this if one has or inherits a project in hibernation during this slump - stairways may need to be resigned especially if layouts are designed "to the max" already. This may impact in turn on the very room plan layout


At 1.1.15 Loft Conversions it would be useful to have included a graphic for an alternating stairs as per diagram 9 here . Diagrams 7 and 8 transposed from the UK regs would be useful too.

At Diagram 5 it would be usefull to have relevant extracts annexed into the TGD from I.S. EN 1991-1-1 B to indicate required loadings

At Diagram 7 - the relevant extracts from BS 6262 - 4: 2005 could be included.

The less a TGD forces one to "fill the blanks" by needing to aquire other documents the better.

At 2.6

Guarding should be designed in such a way as to discourage
young children from climbing it. Features in the guarding that might provide a foothold should be avoided e.g. horizontal rails etc

Problem with that is such footholds are designed in to prevent accidental shattering of glazed guarding by the footpads of wheelchairs users.
(Most often seen in mezzanine areas of shopping centres )

Mellor

sinnerboy wrote: »

The big issue to note is the reduction in max risers in Table 1 .

Down from 220 to to 200 for private and from 190 to 180 for semi private. Pretty important to note this if one has or inherits a project in hibernation during this slump - stairways may need to be resigned especially if layouts are designed "to the max" already. This may impact in turn on the very room plan layout

One to watch alright, prob more of an issue in semi public buildings, as 220 max should rarely have been used in domestic buildings.

At 1.1.15 Loft Conversions it would be useful to have included a graphic for an alternating stairs as per diagram 9 here . Diagrams 7 and 8 transposed from the UK regs would be useful too.

Good suggestion

Problem with that is such footholds are designed in to prevent accidental shattering of glazed guarding by the footpads of wheelchairs users.
(Most often seen in mezzanine areas of shopping centres )

Do you have an example, I can't picture it at all.

I think a single foothold at a low level, such as a plinth is ok. The reg is to avoid a "ladder" type series of footholds

Poor Uncle Tom

Just getting around to this now, I'll be back later....:)

No6

Sure the planners are trying to make us live in bungalows here half of the time so we wouldnt need stairs!!:D

therightangle

Mellor wrote: »

[*]A suggested dual handrail provision in areas where small children make up a significant proportion of users.

Brilliant idea! Could incorporate some kind of grip system, to help them haul themselves up, possibly should be a narrower rail as well, etc.

Supertech

Saw this recently in Clark's shoe shop in Cork city. The children's department is up stairs, and they had done exactly this - lower rail, out of a smaller timber section size. I thought is was a great idea too.

Mellor

Supertech wrote: »

Saw this recently in Clark's shoe shop in Cork city. The children's department is up stairs, and they had done exactly this - lower rail, out of a smaller timber section size. I thought is was a great idea too.

The reason I thought of it was that I spent a considerable amount of time working on some new modular primary school buildings. They were all dropped onto various sites north of Sydney and I can to sort of access and levels on some very steep sites.
We designed in dual handrails for all stairs, children as young as 5 were expected to use these in groups, a 900 handrail simply doesn't work.