Balustrade on outside of winder - required?

ChrisZx · 27 Nov 2019

I think I know the answer to this, but want to double check.

Starting to think about the stairs for our loft conversion, thinking of doing this:

There would be a wall running along the right hand side of the main run (ie back of the picture) as you would expect, BUT not along the bottom, ie the right hand side of the winder (and picture).

As I understand it, guard rails are only required where the drop is more than 600mm. So if we kept our risers below 200mm, the 3 step winder wouldn't require a guard rail.

So, this meets the regs.

Right?!?!

tony1851 · 30 Nov 2019

There is no hard-and-fast rule as to whether or not that would be safe; you would need to convince your building inspector that it was.
Personally I don't think it is but it might improve safety if you fixed a vertical grab rail to the newel.

ChrisZx · 2 Dec 2019

Hmm interesting, the regulations in Part K seem very explicit to me - gaps, risers, treads, handrail height and widths etc. From a logical point of view I don't see how anyone could argue it doesn't meet the regs, but maybe out in the real world it's different.

SFK · 2 Dec 2019

I presumed it failed on the Handrail height rule.
When you are on the bottom step the handrail is very high (top of the post).
SFK

tony1851 · 2 Dec 2019

@ OP; you may well be right; and SFK also has a point about safety.
Don't confuse Part K with 'the regulations'. Part K is definitely not law - it is guidance only and therefore advisory. The actual regulation for stairs is reg. K1, which simply states:

"stairs shall be designed, constructed and installed so as to be safe for people moving in and about the building"

I suspect the problem you may be faced with is that the majority of stairs of your type either have a balustrade or wall against the winders, and the inspector may not have come across any without either of those. In this case he or she is likely to 'play safe' and require some sort of protection, even though it may only be following their subjective opinion that 'it doesn't feel right'. You may need to be prepared to argue your case; just because it may not be excluded by AD K, doesn't mean it complies with the law.

ChrisZx · 2 Dec 2019

SFK said:
I presumed it failed on the Handrail height rule.
When you are on the bottom step the handrail is very high (top of the post).
SFK

We haven't ordered it/asked BCO, just wanted to check my interpretation and I'm glad I did!

tony1851 said:
@ OP; you may well be right; and SFK also has a point about safety.
Don't confuse Part K with 'the regulations'. Part K is definitely not law - it is guidance only and therefore advisory. The actual regulation for stairs is reg. K1, which simply states:

"stairs shall be designed, constructed and installed so as to be safe for people moving in and about the building"

I suspect the problem you may be faced with is that the majority of stairs of your type either have a balustrade or wall against the winders, and the inspector may not have come across any without either of those. In this case he or she is likely to 'play safe' and require some sort of protection, even though it may only be following their subjective opinion that 'it doesn't feel right'. You may need to be prepared to argue your case; just because it may not be excluded by AD K, doesn't mean it complies with the law.

Thanks for the advice, I wasn't aware of that.

Thinking about it again, I think even if I could get it allowed, it would probably put some prospective buyers off whenever we come to sell. Might seem safe for me, but I doubt a parent would think so for their children.

Leofric · 2 Dec 2019

How about the argument from a safety point of view that although the bottom 3 steps are less than 600mm total rise they are part of a flight of stairs and if you tripped on the 4th step up you would not have anything to hold on to and could fall more than 600mm

ChrisZx · 2 Dec 2019

Leofric said:
How about the argument from a safety point of view that although the bottom 3 steps are less than 600mm total rise they are part of a flight of stairs and if you tripped on the 4th step up you would not have anything to hold on to and could fall more than 600mm

The balustrade does extend to the end of the 4th step, so it does have a guard rail. Tripping on the 4th step of this staircase would be no different to tripping on the 4th step of a straight run.

Leofric · 2 Dec 2019

If you tripped on the 4th step you would be falling past the end of the handrail

A straight flight would not be the same because the handrail wouldn't stop at the 4th step

ChrisZx · 2 Dec 2019

It's quite normal to not have a handrail for the bottom two steps though, and AFAIK that's because most stairs have risers higher than 200mm so you can only fit two steps in the 600mm allowance (as per the regs anyway)

SFK · 2 Dec 2019

Chris
"Tripping on the 4th step of this staircase would be no different to tripping on the 4th step of a straight run."

Not quite, when you trip on step 3 to 1 of a straight staircase you still have a hand rail to 'try' and get hold of before you fall. With these stairs you have nothing to get hold of.

And I have had these stairs in a house (admittedly smaller as they were Victorian). Unfortunately i did slip several times on the bottom three steps and caught myself (using my shoulder) on the wall where you currently have a drop.

Might pass regs, but not sure I would want to myself or nieve guests or elderly parents to frequently use those stairs, as I feel there is a higher probability of a fall compared to stairs with a continuous rail.

Leofric · 2 Dec 2019

You don't normally stop the handrail short just because the regs allow 600mm rise without a handrail . I don't think architects would design a situation like yours without guarding to the outside of the winders because they could be accused of designing in a hazard as I explained earlier.

ChrisZx · 3 Dec 2019

SFK said:
when you trip on step 3 to 1 of a straight staircase you still have a hand rail to 'try' and get hold of before you fall

Not if you don't have a rail, as is allowed by the regs and quite common for the bottom two steps. Every staircase manufacturer I've looked at actively advertises this as an option, so it must be widely accepted.

So my question really was why is a winder different, to which the answer essentially is 'don't take the regs as black and white'. It seems stupid to me to have all these regs and then not enforce them (as I'm also realising happens with fire doors) but I happily accept that that is the case.

As I said earlier, I think you're all right anyway - might seem safe to me, but not others.

diynot

If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.

Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.

Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local

Balustrade on outside of winder - required?

Leofric

Leofric

Leofric

Similar threads