No steps into new builds?

mustela

Hi all,

In my mothers house there is a large step at the front of the property and at the rear. I was always under the impression that this was to accommodate the FFL which had to be a minimum of 150mm above ground (I’m open to correction on that)

I have viewed some new builds with the view of buying recently and all doors into the houses have level thresholds. I understand this is for universal access but how would that work with rising damp etc?

Thanks

Calahonda52

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058369789/no-steps-into-new-builds

Post a photo of the next one you trip over😎

muffler

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058369789/no-steps-into-new-builds

The devil is in the detail or in this case the threshold detailing.

Penn

It's generally only the entrances that are gently sloped up to the door, and designed with drains or sloping away from the threshold. The rest of the ground level will still likely be 150mm below floor level.

So for the areas which are less than 150mm above ground level, good DPC/DPM and threshold details will negate any effects of possible rising damp.

mustela

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122639162#Comment_122639162

I seen a new build recently, a one off, it had a step up and it was nearly finished. A few weeks later the construction team were out pouring an ugly ramp. I wonder what went wrong there?

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122640989#Comment_122640989

lack of understanding / care by the builders as to what the actual regulations are.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058369789/no-steps-into-new-builds

FFL being 150mm above GL was about water ingress, not rising damp. This is not solved with a ~150mm upstand DPM detail.

Level thresholds are much preferred and have been the norm for over 20 years now.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122640989#Comment_122640989

Watch Room to Improve and you'll see Bannon designing stepped entrances for new builds. Just because.

Gumbo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122646112#Comment_122646112

Any examples?

He mostly upgrades existing houses which the accessible entrance requirements do not apply.

If he’s done a new build, I’d say the rank goes in as the cameras are rolling out.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122646122#Comment_122646122

This is the one I remember - you can see an aeriel shot of the stepped entrance. He had full control over designing the approach, so it's hard to see any justification for that.

https://cococontent.ie/episode-3-blessington-room-to-improve-series-14

Penn

Their entrance has both steps and a ramp. Often because of the length of ramp required (because there are rules regarding length, landings, angles), I wouldn't think it uncommon or unusual to construct the steps first and the ramp later.

Sure, the argument could be made that the externals could have been constructed to provide a better gently sloped access to the front entrance, negating the needs for steps or a specific ramp at all. I didn't see the episode so don't know the justification for it (though looking at the photos it could just be due to the existing slopes on the site and the build-up that would have been required), but steps and a ramp aren't that uncommon.

Gumbo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122646143#Comment_122646143

Nothing to justify IMO. They have an accessible approach to the dwelling in the form of a ramp. It’s in the aerial picture.

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122646143#Comment_122646143

there is a very obvious sloped access to the front door.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122646277#Comment_122646277

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122646337#Comment_122646337

Why have steps and a ramp when you can just have level access?

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122646636#Comment_122646636

Its never an either / or.

Regulations require sloped access for people with additional needs, but do not restrict teh use of steps (actually they allow steps over sloped access in certain circumstances)

the example you provide actualy shows why you can have steps as well as sloped access (the use of the word "ramp" is not advisable here, and results in the sutuation described in post #5)

anyone who parks at the front door is going to use the steps to enter, and not go the circuitous route of the sloped access.

essentially topography will determine the design in these situations

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122646713#Comment_122646713

You miss the point. The alternative to stepped access isn't that poxy awful ramp on the left of the door.

The alternative is to design out the steps with a gentle sloped approach, a very small change to the topography.

This house is for two people in their seventies, and he's designed in steps FFS.

Gumbo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122646636#Comment_122646636

Because they can.
I don’t want sloped access now, I’d put the steps in. But the slopped access is required which allows the house to be visitable and future proof.

Gumbo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122646833#Comment_122646833

He’s also designed the approach in compliance with the regulations so it appears your beef is now with the architect since your original quibble was incorrect.

It’s like the idiots I see every day cycling on the path when there’s a perfectly good cycle lane beside them, Proof that there’s no pleasing some.

Be grateful it’s not your house then and move on.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122647425#Comment_122647425

Why would you not want sloped access?

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122646833#Comment_122646833

The owners of the house are not the only users of an entrance?

In this case they have the best of both worlds, steps for those able to use them, and sloped access for those who cannot

Which is precisely why the regulations exist

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122647637#Comment_122647637

Why are steps better than sloped level access?

muffler

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122647659#Comment_122647659

You can have steps at a rise/fall off 40 degrees for example but you cant have sloped access at that. Steps take up less space.

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122647659#Comment_122647659

Never said they were??

Both serve different purposes

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122647704#Comment_122647704

This situation was one or two steps, so a fairly gentle change of level, on a large site where he had full control over the approach area.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122647709#Comment_122647709

What purpose do steps serve, in a situation where they could easily be designed out?

muffler

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122647717#Comment_122647717

Ah, I thought it was a general question.

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122647720#Comment_122647720

Easiest way to create a rise over a short distance.

They are not interchangeable. Sloped access at 1 in 20 will take about 16 times the distance to rise the same as one step.

I've no idea what your issue is here when both solutions are offered for use. Are you offended by steps?

Gumbo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122647821#Comment_122647821

Post History!
That will explain their argumentative persona.

The posters get ran out of the motor forum for similar behaviour unfortunately.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122647821#Comment_122647821

There's no short distance here. He has full control over the approach. The 'rise' is not an inevitable feature of this site. It is a design approach.

He can design out the rise and eliminate the need for steps and ramp.

Steps are dangerous. People trip on steps. Why not eliminate them where you can?

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122646277#Comment_122646277

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122646337#Comment_122646337

Good luck lads. This exact house has been mentioned previously in the forum, on a few threads
Poster above insisted it is non compliant, even when the TGDs were pasted, he refused to accept that he was mistaken and goalposts move. Won't get any where talking about compliance.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122646833#Comment_122646833

The owners would have been fully aware that steps where at the entrance. Assuming that he does this without consulting them is odd. Not everyone has mobility issues. I'd assume they have a much greater understanding of the the site, the desig and their needs than any of us here.

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122647907#Comment_122647907

You are factually wrong again. They're are not an either / or choice. I'm this case the designer has provided both means of access.

Your crusade is against steps is very weird.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122647720#Comment_122647720

While ramps are pretty much essential for people with signficant mobility impairments, they do have some comparitively minor disadvantages for others, so people who don't require ramps may prefer steps, where available. Disadvantages include a greater danger of falls if the surface become slick (e.g. due to ice); a greater risk that dropped or placed objects will roll, rather than stay where they land, creating increased inconvenience and increased tripping hazards. Also ramps are typically at right-angles to the entrance, requireing a turn at the top, which is the not the most convenient approach if you need to maneouvre a large object — an item of furniture, say — through the entrance. And — fun fact — people on crutches often report that it is easier to use stairs than a ramp. It helps if the surface on which you rest a crutch is always level, which is the case with stairs but not with a ramp.

Tl;dr: steps do offer some advantages over ramps, so if it's convenient and economical to provide both, that's often done.

flyer_query

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122647836#Comment_122647836

@AndrewJRenko was also ran out of the farming forum last week. Pure pointless argument as you said. Common theme across the site

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122648110#Comment_122648110

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122648221#Comment_122648221

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122648185#Comment_122648185

On the more general issue, lads, let's not consider Part M compliance to be a good standard. It's a minimal standard, a long way off achieving a good level of accessibility and nowhere near universal design.
But while we're at it, let's remind ourselves about what Part M says about approaches to dwellings;

"The dwelling should be designed, within the overall constraints of space, so that
the difference in level between the entrance to the dwelling and the dwelling
plots point of access is minimised. A level approach route accommodates the
widest range of abilities. For the purpose of this guidance document a gradient of
1:50 or less steep is considered to be level. "

"Where site gradients do not allow a level access route, the flattest gradient
achievable should be used. Access routes of 1:20 or less steep are preferred."

Which is exactly what I suggested - that the level difference should have been designed out, rather than being addressed with steps and a poxy right angle ramp, which as @perigrinus points out, is far from ideal.

I've no idea what the point about the owners being 'fully aware' is supposed to mean. None of us have any idea about the awareness of the owners of this level of details. It's fair bet that the owners didn't have a professional understanding of the risks of steps and the benefits of universal design, the kind of understanding that you'd expect from a leading architect like Bannon.
Designing for the current mobility needs of the owners is absolutely unprofessional. He should have been designing for the lifetime needs of the owners, which given their age, should have involved designing out steps where possible.

Your crusade FOR unnecessary steps-and-ramps is weird. Very weird.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122650009#Comment_122650009

Hahaaaaaahaaaaaaa - you crack me up. Thanks for letting me know that I was run out, because I didn't notice being run out at all at all.

flyer_query

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122650170#Comment_122650170

I'm not surprised you didn't notice, sure you are juggling 44 new pointless arguments each and every day so easy to lose track. AJR, winning the internet one day at a time.

Just noticed from your profile, you have 29481 posts but only 28992 still exist, that means mods deleted 489 of your posts! Impressive trolling.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122650233#Comment_122650233

Thanks for all that rent-free space in your head.

Gumbo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122650170#Comment_122650170

”Designing for the current mobility needs of the owners is absolutely unprofessional. He should have been designing for the lifetime needs of the owners, which given their age, should have involved designing out steps where possible.”

And that’s exactly what was done. Gently sloped access to the entrance door for future needs. Glad you’ve seen it now and sense has prevailed.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122651148#Comment_122651148

Except that he hasn't. He's provided a narrow ramp with no handrail that requires a right angle turn.

Has anyone got any actual reason to explain why a stepped entrance is better than level access, contradicting Part M?

Gumbo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122651355#Comment_122651355

Except, he has. Proof is in the photo you provided.
just accept that you were wrong and move on. Thanks.

Calahonda52

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122651373#Comment_122651373

Time to step over this and move on😎

Gary_dunne

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122651704#Comment_122651704

Be careful now, steps are extremely dangerous.

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122651834#Comment_122651834

Come on, let's not ramp up tensions any further on this.

Gumbo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122651837#Comment_122651837

I’m taking steps to reduce my interaction here.

Gary_dunne

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122651837#Comment_122651837

Apologies, this thread has just recently gone on quite the downward slope.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122650170#Comment_122650170

Nobody has said part M min requirements are optimal. The fact you are strawmaning instantly says it all.

A completely level approach is better. And yes, maybe they could have new designed out, either via a greater rise in the driveway, or a lower FFL. Both of which have impacts beyond part M. I don’t think anyone here enough detail to assess those impacts. And even then, they are largely subjective.

The issue is that you have repeatedly claimed that a combined sloped and stepped entry like the image is non-compliant. That it false, plain and simple. It’s not subjective, it’s just wrong. You’ve misunderstood something in part M. And seem to confuse it with universal design. Digging your heels in and question the understanding of others is hilarious.

Yeah Right

None of us have any idea about the awareness of the owners of this level of details. It's fair bet that the owners didn't have a professional understanding of the risks of steps and the benefits of universal design, the kind of understanding that you'd expect from a leading architect like Bannon.

"None of us has any idea about what they're thinking, but I'm gonna go ahead and make a huge assumption about their 'professional understanding of the risk of steps", whatever the fcuk that means, and use it to bolster my argument"

Really?

You think they had no awareness about the details of something as major as the entire entrance into their new gaff? Why not assume that they went with the steps/ramp combo because of costs, like absolutely everything else on GD?

"hey, Mr. homeowner, we can completely transform the ground outside into a wide, gradually sloped hill that is 15' long and 10m wide for a total of €30k, or I can install 3 steps and a ramp for €5k……..whaddya think?"

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122652082#Comment_122652082

No one said 'part M min requirements are optimal' but people did say 'He’s also designed the approach in compliance with the regulations so it appears your beef is now with the architect since your original quibble was incorrect.' and 'Regulations require sloped access for people with additional needs, but do not restrict teh use of steps (actually they allow steps over sloped access in certain circumstances)' - indicating that Part M compliance is the ultimate target rather than a minimum baseline.

I didn't say anything about compliance of this design with Part M. I did point the VERY CLEAR preference in Part M for level access, and that steps/ramp should be used only when necessary due to constraints of space.

"A completely level approach is better. And yes, maybe they could have new designed out, either via a greater rise in the driveway, or a lower FFL. Both of which have impacts beyond part M. I don’t think anyone here enough detail to assess those impacts. And even then, they are largely subjective."

This is my key point (that a few people seem to want to deny) - that a completely level approach is better. That a narrow ramp with no handrail and right angle turn is far from equivalent to level access.

I'd be interested to hear more about the potential impacts beyond Part M that you mention, in the context of a greenfield site like this.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122652179#Comment_122652179

Are you seriously suggesting that the additional work to raise the level of the approach by the height of two steps is €30k?

Did you build the bike shed in the Dail, by any chance?

Yeah Right

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122652467#Comment_122652467

How much do you think it would cost to backfill/terraform 50 square metres of ground, pour concrete, and add all the ancillary stuff…….install a French drain etc.?

Do you think it would be more or less expensive than a ramp and three steps?

Bike shed isn't in the Dáil, btw. It's outside Leinster House.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122652450#Comment_122652450

That's not very clear in parts. The first line you literally just repeated what I said. Formatting helps.

No one said 'part M min requirements are optimal' but people did say 'He’s also designed the approach in compliance with the regulations so it appears your beef is now with the architect since your original quibble was incorrect.' and 'Regulations require sloped access for people with additional needs, but do not restrict teh use of steps (actually they allow steps over sloped access in certain circumstances)' - indicating that Part M compliance is the ultimate target rather than a minimum baseline.

Well, you said "let's not consider Part M a good standard". Part M requirements are not necessarily optimal (no regulation standard is optimal), but it is not a not a bad or poor standard by any means. The fact is the vast majority of building predate part M, therefore complying with part M is exceeding that. It's like saying Part L is a poor standard because passive houses exist.

The last line is nonsense. Nobody indicated part M is the ultimate target. Complete strawman.
They said design is in compliance. It is. You claimed otherwise, you were wrong.

I didn't say anything about compliance of this design with Part M. I did point the VERY CLEAR preference in Part M for level access, and that steps/ramp should be used only when necessary due to constraints of space.

That's not true. You previously claimed that exact designed was non compliant the last time you link to it. I proved you wrong, seems like you finally recognised that.

The line in bold highlights your lack of experience and understanding of Part M.
You are confusing the approach to a dwelling, and the entrance of a dwelling. A level entry is required. A ramp to a landing qualifies as a level entry (I believe I explained that to you previously).

The part of quoted above refers to the approach, which as per your quote, is from the point of plot access to the doorway - in other words, the driveway. It's clearly a very slopped site. The approach from the entry is far from ideal. May not completely comply, but concession has to be made for topography.

This is my key point (that a few people seem to want to deny) - that a completely level approach is better. That a narrow ramp with no handrail and right angle turn is far from equivalent to level access.

The fact its not optimal. Does not make it non compliant.

I'd be interested to hear more about the potential impacts beyond Part M that you mention, in the context of a greenfield site like this.

Surely you can figure out the impacts of making the driveway steeper to meet the floor level. And also the impact of dropping the entire FFL to meet the driveway. It's kinda of obvious

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122652758#Comment_122652758

Did you miss the bit where I said ADDITIONAL work? The only additional work, is to either raise level outside the house by the height of two steps, or lower the level of the house, by the height of two steps.

You seem to be assuming that the situation with the house at two steps higher than the surround was down to some unavoidable feature of the site, which seems unlikely. It is much more likely that this small difference in height was created by design, because someone likes the look of a If you're already digging down to create foundations for a house, the cost difference of going down an additional 500mm or similar is negligible