How safe are houses with attic conversions?

Gumbo

jasper100 wrote: »

Didn't realise smoke connectors need to be interconnected. Maybe in modern houses where regulations have changed, but in older houses presumably just battery operated independent alarms?

Any house built since 1s January 1998 requires interlinked alarms. That's Technical Guidance Document Part B 1997.

Before that we had TGD Part B 1991, it mentions fire alarms but doesn't specifically say they have to be interlinked, although it does say in compliance with IS3218 1989 and that may have mentioned interlinked.

jasper100 wrote: »

In addition to this most appliances will be out of use during the night reducing the risk.

Appliances don't have to be in use to catch fire in my experience. Grenfell started from a faulty fridge.

Gumbo

Woshy wrote: »

Some attic companies will give you an idea by looking at google maps and/or looking at similar houses they have worked on in the area. It's not foolproof but it will give you an idea.

We're living in a house that we will be buying shortly so I was able to get them to come in and look at our attic but before I did I sent them the address and they looked it up online and gave me a decent idea of what we could do (e.g. we knew before they came out to view the house that the roof on the house is quite low so to do the conversion properly and be able to get a proper stairs and landing up to the room it will require alterations and getting planning permission - which we're happy to do). The problem is if you need planning to do it you can't guarantee you will get it before purchasing the house. Although you can see what houses in your area have had similar done as a guide (there are three in our estate that have done it).

You can also check google maps yourself or drive around and see what houses have attic windows to give you an idea of how many neighbours have had it done.

You can apply for planning before buying the house.
You just need consent from the owner. A simple letter can do.

1874

For attic conversions, is it as well to go with an experienced attic conversion business? or any other builder?
Do the attic conversion businesses do all the work including getting the sign off, and would another builder be more inclined to use the plans from an architect or draughtsperson?
Ive seen many (online mainly) attic conversions, some look great and others awful, poor use of space mainly, like they were just built and they turn out how they turn out in the end rather than plan it and see what works.
Is it usual for attic conversion businesses to build to a customers specification? or just lash it up so it passes structurally maybe even looks good, but is based on their own plans/ideas.
Im considering specific stuff, like beefing up the pre assembled truss set up I have by putting in stronger roof beams, proper membranes, insulating and then airtightening it all, a lot of that seems like extra hassle but its reasonably easy to to fit at a construction phase, rather then try do it later, just not sure if anyone will be assed to go to that detail or know or do it right.
Im tempted to get the structural stuff done and do the insulation and airtightness myself, then have them come back and finish off the work, even then the structural stuff is my main requirement for getting done.

Regarding fireproofing, I was thinking of adding an additional fire resistant layer, (I believe there is plasterboard that is specifically for this thats more resistant/withstands fire longer) on the entire downstairs ceiling and possibly on the 2nd floor too.

Gumbo

1874 wrote: »

For attic conversions, is it as well to go with an experienced attic conversion business? or any other builder?
Do the attic conversion businesses do all the work including getting the sign off, and would another builder be more inclined to use the plans from an architect or draughtsperson?

It depends. Some builders will want a plan to price so they have some form of written contract or specification to price to.

My personal preference is independent sign off. The home owner should be getting their own Engineer to design the structural elements and sign off on same.

1874 wrote: »

Ive seen many (online mainly) attic conversions, some look great and others awful, poor use of space mainly, like they were just built and they turn out how they turn out in the end rather than plan it and see what works.
Is it usual for attic conversion businesses to build to a customers specification? or just lash it up so it passes structurally maybe even looks good, but is based on their own plans/ideas.

You have to remember that attics are predefined triangles. The space you have is the space you have, so sometimes, all you get is one room. There's not a lot of scope for radical design in general or in your typical 3 bed semi.

1874 wrote: »

Im considering specific stuff, like beefing up the pre assembled truss set up I have by putting in stronger roof beams, proper membranes, insulating and then airtightening it all, a lot of that seems like extra hassle but its reasonably easy to to fit at a construction phase, rather then try do it later, just not sure if anyone will be assed to go to that detail or know or do it right.
Im tempted to get the structural stuff done and do the insulation and airtightness myself, then have them come back and finish off the work, even then the structural stuff is my main requirement for getting done.

You beef up in accordance with the Engineers spec. No point beefing up beams or rafters for the sake of it, as this beefing up adds additional weight to the roof structure without adding any use.

Air tightness layers and insulation is standard practice, or it should be and its always spec'd on my drawings.

Its similar to a general builder coming in and pricing an extension and he says "that's a big ope, ill use a heavier beam", that heavier beam adds additional weight to the bearing pads and may have more deflection that if the beam was designed properly in the first place. Sometimes a taller beam at the same weight is better than a heavier beam.

1874 wrote: »

Regarding fireproofing, I was thinking of adding an additional fire resistant layer, (I believe there is plasterboard that is specifically for this thats more resistant/withstands fire longer) on the entire downstairs ceiling and possibly on the 2nd floor too.

You will need to fire rate the stairs anyway. Pink Fireline board is whats required although you can achieve similar results with 2 layers of standard board (staggered), 47 mins I think from a recent test protocol.

Adding it to the entire downstairs ceiling is a good practice, but in a retrofit, this could add 10-15k to the job again you remove, replace skim etc and it is not required for the regulations.

whatever76

Victor wrote: »

Do you mean horizontal distance between the top of the lower stairs and the bottom of the upper stairs? I don't think there is a specific rule, but you do need to consider the overall distance from every point in the building to final escape point.

Regarding height, you need a minimum of 2 metres clear space above any stairs. Diagram 3 here: https://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/migrated-files/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/BuildingStandards/FileDownLoad%2C37830%2Cen.pdf


thanks that's really helps …. its exactly that the distance between the main stars on entry and the additional stairs added to attic… what happens if its slightly under the 2M do you know ?

1874

kceire wrote: »

You have to remember that attics are predefined triangles. The space you have is the space you have, so sometimes, all you get is one room. There's not a lot of scope for radical design in general or in your typical 3 bed semi.


I understand, but Id intend to max out the benefit and not try leave too many dead spaces, ie have the stairs from first floor start as near to the interior front wall to leave enough headroom and for insualtion but also to allow an increase in headroom in the existing stairs, or maybe even move it back as I think a replacement is in order, someone asked and a price to build? stairs was given at 1k? is that realistic?


You beef up in accordance with the Engineers spec. No point beefing up beams or rafters for the sake of it, as this beefing up adds additional weight to the roof structure without adding any use.

Air tightness layers and insulation is standard practice, or it should be and its always spec'd on my drawings.


Well, yes, thats why I want an engineer to specify whats required, mine is a prefab truss setup, maybe 3inches high on the parts of the beams. In my mams, Im sure they are at least 5inches if not more (much older building).
Mainly I thought to increase depth to take a breathable layer to put insulation right up to, but still leave 50mm for air up to the existing bitumen, as I dont want to have to redo the whole roof by taking tile/bitumen off from the exterior, that said some parts need to be repaired (mainly as the work when built was not great quality wise in terms of detail). AND to add any required structural, I want thinking of just adding weight, hence need for engineer rather than rely on someones judgement/opinion/guesstimate on it.


You will need to fire rate the stairs anyway. Pink Fireline board is whats required although you can achieve similar results with 2 layers of standard board (staggered), 47 mins I think from a recent test protocol.

Adding it to the entire downstairs ceiling is a good practice, but in a retrofit, this could add 10-15k to the job again you remove, replace skim etc and it is not required for the regulations.

I was simply planning on stripping off the stipple and have fireproof boards put over the existing plasterboards, rather than remove existing, less mess, less work, slightly less cost, maybe even slightly improved fire resistance for little or nothing, maybe even reduced cost. Id intend to do any work for changes on 1st floor first so could cover up any holes to access any changes to plumbing.
Basically top down renovation internally as I wanted to make better use of the poor 1st floor layout by changing it, start at attic and work downwards, outside, EWI, work upwards.

Probably dont need the entire downstairs covered in fireproofing really, but kitchen might be an idea and front room something is deteriorating part of the ceiling, so there might have been a leak, might need doing, could be easier to do it all so it looks the same, do you really think 10-15k just for layering plasterboard and plastering it?? seems a bit excessive?

Victor

whatever76 wrote: »

thanks that's really helps …. its exactly that the distance between the main stars on entry and the additional stairs added to attic… what happens if its slightly under the 2M do you know ?

You risk a head injury on the stairs and falling down the rest of the stairs.

It's no compliant.

Victor

Victor wrote: »

You risk a head injury on the stairs and falling down the rest of the stairs.

It's no compliant.

So it could never be considered habitable space if the space is acessed via a stairs that doesnt comply with part K?

0gac3yjefb5sv7

Odd question but considering an attic conversion but there would be very little / no room for a stairs in the landing. Also not feasible to have the stairs in the bedrooms...any other options?

Gumbo

ronoc wrote: »

So it could never be considered habitable space if the space is acessed via a stairs that doesnt comply with part K?

Open up TGD B and TGD K.

They both contain sections for loft conversions. The stairs can be relaxed slightly so they don’t need to comply with the full requirements of the standard stairs.

The 2m headroom is a common requirement though.

Gumbo

Pheonix10 wrote: »

Odd question but considering an attic conversion but there would be very little / no room for a stairs in the landing. Also not feasible to have the stairs in the bedrooms...any other options?

No.

How else can you get access?
Redesign of the first floor layout completely?

L1011

kceire wrote: »

Any house built since 1s January 1998 requires interlinked alarms. That's Technical Guidance Document Part B 1997.

My house is vastly pre-1998 so this isn't of legal relevance, just interest - does the mesh networking of something like Nest Protect count for that? They have backup batteries (or are battery powered entirely like mine) and have their own network that's not dependent on Wifi or internet to talk to each other; and they will all go off - but its not cabled.

utmbuilder

I've a rope type ladder that connects to my skylight never used it mind you

L1011

L1011 wrote: »

My house is vastly pre-1998 so this isn't of legal relevance, just interest - does the mesh networking of something like Nest Protect count for that? They have backup batteries (or are battery powered entirely like mine) and have their own network that's not dependent on Wifi or internet to talk to each other; and they will all go off - but its not cabled.

I think in new builds they have to be mains powered with battery backup and interlinked. It indicates the link can be radio or hardwired.

I assume since the mains requirement is there its easier to use wired links.

https://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/publications/files/technical_guidance_document_b_fire_safety_volume_2_dwelling_houses.pdf

Gumbo

L1011 wrote: »

My house is vastly pre-1998 so this isn't of legal relevance, just interest - does the mesh networking of something like Nest Protect count for that? They have backup batteries (or are battery powered entirely like mine) and have their own network that's not dependent on Wifi or internet to talk to each other; and they will all go off - but its not cabled.

They can be compliant as the Regulations allows for wireless units.

utmbuilder wrote: »

I've a rope type ladder that connects to my skylight never used it mind you

These are quite popular in attic conversions.
They need to extend down to ground level, or mostly in my experience, they've been put in when there's a flat roof extension at ground floor level, so you are only scaling down 1 storey.

They have no regulation approval, or no requirement, but they can aid in the escape for sure.

Yellow_Fern

I am all for safety and its great that high safety standards are developed by the gov. These high safety standards should be made very clear and easy to understand but they should be optional provided this information is extremely clear to a buyer/owner/renter. If I want to sleep in a bedroom without locking windows or a window 5 cm higher than the maximum it is my business and the state should quite literally butt out of my bedroom.

handlemaster

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

I am all for safety and its great that high safety standards are developed by the gov. These high safety standards should be made very clear and easy to understand but they should be optional provided this information is extremely clear to a buyer/owner/renter. If I want to sleep in a bedroom without locking windows or a window 5 cm higher than the maximum it is my business and the state should quite literally butt out of my bedroom.

Let's apply the same logic to all other builth ideas... cars,machines... etc ..see how crazy this thinking gets very quickly.

FitzElla

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

I am all for safety and its great that high safety standards are developed by the gov. These high safety standards should be made very clear and easy to understand but they should be optional provided this information is extremely clear to a buyer/owner/renter. If I want to sleep in a bedroom without locking windows or a window 5 cm higher than the maximum it is my business and the state should quite literally butt out of my bedroom.

That's all well and good, but I'm sure you would be happy for the state to provide an ambulance, fire brigade, hospital and social welfare if you were injured because you ignored safety standards. You can't have it both ways...

Yellow_Fern

handlemaster wrote: »

Let's apply the same logic to all other builth ideas... cars,machines... etc ..see how crazy this thinking gets very quickly.

Not really though. The world is full of dangerous devices.

FitzElla wrote: »

That's all well and good, but I'm sure you would be happy for the state to provide an ambulance, fire brigade, hospital and social welfare if you were injured because you ignored safety standards. You can't have it both ways...

Building codes are not based on statistical risk though. They only pertain to sales and new builds and rentals. Many perhaps most people sleep every night in these so called death traps.

Well as someone who pays for private health insurance I am actually subsidizing others so you wont hear me complaining about Irish public healthcare.

handlemaster

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Not really though. The world is full of dangerous devices.

That's why we have strict regulation on building so that Mrs Fern doesn't build as she see fits and risks not only her life but also others would be be unfortunate to live next door. Rules and regulations are there for a reason so that have a go dont give a damn citizen s cannot do this.

Yellow_Fern

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

I am all for safety and its great that high safety standards are developed by the gov. These high safety standards should be made very clear and easy to understand but they should be optional provided this information is extremely clear to a buyer/owner/renter. If I want to sleep in a bedroom without locking windows or a window 5 cm higher than the maximum it is my business and the state should quite literally butt out of my bedroom.

There is nothing stopping you from doing this, you will never have a planning issue for an internal conversion. You can even sell the house etc you just can’t call it a bedroom but the person who buys it is free to use it as a bedroom if they wish.

It’s like all this nonsense about not being able to lock doors with keys etc, you might have to have it done right as a new build but once you move in you can change all the locks to what ever you want. Was in a new self build recently that needs a key to open the front and back doors from inside for example, fitted from day one and no one said a word.

Gumbo

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

I am all for safety and its great that high safety standards are developed by the gov. These high safety standards should be made very clear and easy to understand but they should be optional provided this information is extremely clear to a buyer/owner/renter. If I want to sleep in a bedroom without locking windows or a window 5 cm higher than the maximum it is my business and the state should quite literally butt out of my bedroom.

Yeah great attitude. Maybe we should then make the emergency services optional. Or maybe to people like yourself that don’t want to comply with the fire standards, you are. Or allowed to call the services.

What happens if your sub standard puts an adjoining property in jeopardy? Or you allow yourself child’s friend to stay over and god forbid there’s a fire.

Gumbo

Otto Cold Spaghetti wrote: »

There is nothing stopping you from doing this, you will never have a planning issue for an internal conversion. You can even sell the house etc you just can’t call it a bedroom but the person who buys it is free to use it as a bedroom if they wish.

It’s like all this nonsense about not being able to lock doors with keys etc, you might have to have it done right as a new build but once you move in you can change all the locks to what ever you want. Was in a new self build recently that needs a key to open the front and back doors from inside for example, fitted from day one and no one said a word.

Cowboy builder.
Uninformed building owner.
Lazy professional.

All should be reported.

awec

Who on earth even wants doors that require keys from inside.

kceire

kceire wrote: »

Cowboy builder.
Uninformed building owner.
Lazy professional.

All should be reported.

None of the above. Self build direct labour, owner is a carpenter himself too. Spec’d the door locks to have keys inside and out as that’s what he wanted regardless of the regulations.

awec wrote: »

Who on earth even wants doors that require keys from inside.

Lots of people, I’ve never lived in a house that didn’t need a key to unlock the doors from the inside. Much more secure too.

awec

Otto Cold Spaghetti wrote: »

None of the above. Self build direct labour, owner is a carpenter himself too. Spec’d the door locks to have keys inside and out as that’s what he wanted regardless of the regulations.



Lots of people, I’ve never lived in a house that didn’t need a key to unlock the doors from the inside. Much more secure too.

Bizarre. It's definitely not "more secure" to require a key inside the house. :pac:

Yellow_Fern

awec wrote: »

Who on earth even wants doors that require keys from inside.

Creches but in order to be allowed to open they can#t use use such locks, and this in some cases is putting kids at risk.

Counter productive social control.

Yellow_Fern

kceire wrote: »

Yeah great attitude. Maybe we should then make the emergency services optional. Or maybe to people like yourself that don’t want to comply with the fire standards, you are. Or allowed to call the services.

What happens if your sub standard puts an adjoining property in jeopardy? Or you allow yourself child’s friend to stay over and god forbid there’s a fire.

Most people dont outsource their personal safety to the armchair experts who write these rules. Improvements in safety have been achieved through better knowledge of materials science, and establishment of transparent standards, not by forcing such rules on people but even if I agreed with you I still wouldnt support them because its my business to choose how much risk I want to live with. My body, my choice.

Ubbquittious

It is crazy to think that someone actually would feel unsafe in a house with some attic conversion. Or to think because it complies with the ramblings of some well paid civil servants in an office some place you won't burn to death.

In South Korea if the room is above a certain height you need to have a rope in the room that you tie onto something and lower yourself out the window. Useless here of course, fat mollycoddled lazy souls wouldn't be able to use it.

Do people think for their own fecking selves at all anymore? Imagine you are standing in the room and the place down stairs is filling up with smoke.. have you a way out, could the fire be in an awkward place where you wouldn't be able to get out?

Gumbo

Otto Cold Spaghetti wrote: »

None of the above. Self build direct labour, owner is a carpenter himself too. Spec’d the door locks to have keys inside and out as that’s what he wanted regardless of the regulations.

I guess my assumption just means the 3 cowboys are the same person. Builder, owner and profession are cow boys. Let’s hope he’s not too busy in his professional line of work if that’s the attitude he takes to regulations.

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Creches but in order to be allowed to open they can#t use use such locks, and this in some cases is putting kids at risk.

Counter productive social control.

Your incorrect here. I over saw the construction of 5 new Creche’s in Dublin this year. Not one of these had key Locks internally on escape routes.