Building regs, landing size

[regsmyth]

The regs state that a landing length (measured from tip of first tread nosing to inner edge of opposite handrail) must be not less than stair width.
Does "stair width" mean distance between handrails?
At the moment, my stairs don't have a handrail on the wall, and my landing is a bit short.
If I was to put a handrail on the wall, would this effectively reduce the stair width, and allow me to have this shorter landing?

 

[Richard C]

The regs state that a landing length (measured from tip of first tread nosing to inner edge of opposite handrail)

I can’t find that particular definition, does it come from Part K BR’s or some other Publication? Part K defines min landing width as “the width & length must be at least as great as the smallest width of the flight”

Does "stair width" mean distance between handrails?

It doesn’t actually define but the stair width would, IMO, be the distance between the stringers, none of the landing examples in Part K show h/rails.

At the moment, my stairs don't have a handrail on the wall, and my landing is a bit short.
If I was to put a handrail on the wall, would this effectively reduce the stair width, and allow me to have this shorter landing?

I can see where you’re going with it but I can’t see you getting away with that one; at the end of the day it’s going to down to what LABC will accept.

I don’t know what your doing but cant you reduce the width of what looks like another wider flight of stairs which, according to the levels, seem to be coming up from somewhere.

 

[regsmyth]

Thanks Richard.
Can't reduce the width of it - not now it's built.
I have the options to move the top set to the left and the lower set to the right, but just where they are is perfect.
Between the strings is 830mm, at present we'd have a landing length of 730mm. Oh the dilemma.

 

[mikric]

Best advice I would give is give your LABC a call, and run it by them, if its a new build though you have got no chance but they do sometimes use professional discretion And if you get it ok ed note the name of the person you spoke to.

 

[noseall]

i believe the minimum is 400mm.

 

[regsmyth]

Sadly I fear not, the 400mm relates to positioning doorways near stair tops/bottoms. I've updated the drawing and made it all to scale. It doesn't look tooo bad does it?
I guess I'd better not wing it though. I'll see what the BC says. Place your bets.

 

[regsmyth]

Well, just in case you're interested, BCO came yesterday, was completely happy with it shown in the drawing. Said it was a "special exception" and that he probably wouldn't define that area as a "landing" anyway.
So there you go.

 

[big-all]

most are reasonable
the regs are to maintain a minimum safe standard and in your instance you exceed that so flexability was correct in your case

 

[mikric]

Good news on that . Did you get his name in case its not him that signs it off ?

 

[regsmyth]

Its the same chap who's done all of my inspections. He's also come along a few times when I've had queries to discuss.
As it happens, I had aready prepared the way to shift the lower stairs 50mm further away, it makes it more "comfortable" and puts the assembly pretty close to the "by the book" regs anyway.
Thanks for all your thoughts.