Staircase headache

[FRAN1870]

Building Control are chewing my balls about the staircase landing so you walk into the slope of the roof. Even though I have 2m headroom at landing point and 1.8 at half the width of the stairs into the landing, she is still asking for a drop landing which means disturbing the ceiling below on a room that currently isn't being effect by the loft conversion.

I have two options to avoid this

4 tread winder
45 degree pitch.

Does anyone have any experience of either being signed off by a BC please.... how can I negotiate the issue.

 

[Doggit]

Ask for a review by her boss, but be prepared to cut the ceiling out.

 

[FRAN1870]

It's down to interpretation imho ... If I've got todo it then I will but regs say 1.9 headroom down to 1.8 at half width of the stairs which I have !!

Basically the regs are drawn 90 degrees to how I land.

 

[tony1851]

If it is a staircase to a single-room loft conversion and where space is limited, Part K of the regs specifically states that some flexibility is allowed.
It should not be necessary to adhere strictly to the dimensions and pitch recommended in the Approved Document.
A 45° pitch could well be acceptable in that situation, as could a 4- tread kite winder.
Recently, I had a 45° staircase accepted, though we always use private inspectors, who we find more realistic than the LABC bods.
(As for having your privates chewed - is that so bad having regard to the gender of your inspector?)

 

[FRAN1870]

Haha .. Guess I should take the rough with the smooth

This is a private BC firm that I chose for that very reason .... It's also a Victorian property and the main stairs are 43.5 degrees.

I've suggested a space saver as an alternative

 

[tony1851]

Space savers are naff central. Surely you can get a conventional stair in?
If you google 'building regulations, appeals and determinations', there are links to appeals on staircases, many involving
loft conversions. In a lot of those, inspectors have allowed appeals against building control refusals. It could help your case
if you could look up some of those and refer your inspector to them. Many inspectors don't even seem to be aware of these appeals.

 

[FRAN1870]

The spacesaver was more of a threat really lol ... Just playing the game tbh, i hate them and don't want one at all.

I can get a staircase in but it's just going to be steep ... 3 degrees on a flight of stairs can't feel that different surely ?

 

[FRAN1870]

Space savers are naff central. Surely you can get a conventional stair in?
If you google 'building regulations, appeals and determinations', there are links to appeals on staircases, many involving
loft conversions. In a lot of those, inspectors have allowed appeals against building control refusals. It could help your case
if you could look up some of those and refer your inspector to them. Many inspectors don't even seem to be aware of these appeals.

Also Tony I've googled some appeals and the ten I skimmed before I got bored were all denied

I can't see any of them being passed without setting an example for a flood gate of similar appeals ?

 

[tony1851]

You mis-understand the appeal procedure; in the first appeal I read, the inspector stated that 1.9m to a loft would be OK.

Most people wrongly apply for a relaxation of the regulations (in the case of loft stairs - often for a reduced headroom).
This is tantamount to the applicant saying "I know it doesn't comply, but would you allow it just in my case"

What they should be doing, is arguing that the reduced headroom still complies with the regs.

So in many cases, the inspector dimisses the appeal, but states within the text of the decision that it would in any case comply, so there would have been
no reason for a relaxation in the first place; that's why they dismiss the appeal.

If it's that important to your case, you need to read through them carefully - you will find a few which support your case.

 

[FRAN1870]

Ah I'm with you ..... So I'm saying it complies and they aren't.

I'm on it

 

[noseall]

we always use private inspectors, who let you get away with a lot more than the LABC bods.

I've altered it for you Tony so that it sounds more plausible.
Bunch of lazy dossers if you ask me. Happy with photos of everything and not good for the trade.

 

[Colin Green]

I shortened the length of my stairs by having 12 risers of 220mm each instead of 13 risers of 200mm. This only works if you have a winder staircase. (increasing the height of the winders doesn't increase the length of the staircase). For you, this would mean the landing is a little bit further from the slope of your roof, giving you a bit more headroom.

Lets say your planned stair has 12 treads (13 risers) and 3 of these are a kite winder. With 200mm risers, the length of the straight section will be 2007mm at 42°. With 11 treads (12 risers) each 220mm high, the length of the straight stairs will be 1800mm, a saving of 207mm.

That would give you 119mm more headroom if your roof pich is 30°,145mm at 35°, 173mm at 40° or 207mm with a 45° roof pitch.

 

[tony1851]

we always use private inspectors, who let you get away with a lot more than the LABC bods.

I've altered it for you Tony so that it sounds more plausible.
Bunch of lazy dossers if you ask me. Happy with photos of everything and not good for the trade.

There will always be a few rogues, but I have found them - on the whole - more realistic in many aspects of building than
the LABC people.
To my mind, there are regulations - and regulations............

 

[noseall]

To my mind, there are regulations - and regulations............

Yes, and there are builders and there are builders. From a customers point of view, there are a good many builders who are only too willing to get away with stuff and I would expect diligent scrutiny from Building Control as a minimum.
I do admire your ethos though Tone - if the building don't suit the officer - change the officer.

 

[tony1851]

To my mind, there are regulations - and regulations............

Yes, and there are builders and there are builders. From a customers point of view, there are a good many builders who are only too willing to get away with stuff and I would expect diligent scrutiny from Building Control as a minimum.
I do admire your ethos though Tone - if the building don't suit the officer - change the officer.