Head height on stairs

[Robyn Soma]

We've been having a loft extension built and have hit a problem with head clearance on the stairs. We think the architect made an error, and it was not realised until too late. The old roof line protrudes into the stairway, which brings the available head height down well below 1.9m on one of the steps. One of the builders has already hit his head on it.

But the buildings control inspector is telling us that it's all ok. We are using the inspector recommended by the big company that are managing the extension. We're really unhappy and it looks to us like it doesn't comply with the building regs. But we're not sure what we can do if the buildings control inspector passes it: the company won't rebuild it just because we disagree. Any advice please?

 

[^woody^]

Although the b/regs allow for 1.9m at the centre and less at one side, that (like all b/regs) is a minimum standard.

As a client I would argue that my needs and expectations were greater than what the regulations allow, and that I need and expected greater headroom.

You may have a contract or previous discussions with the designer and builder to support this – a verbal conversation is as good as anything written.

But what tends to happen with these cases is that the client gets told “that’s how it is, it complies” and has to accept it. However, as the building inspector is recommended by the company, then there is inherent bias. That’s not to say the inspector is wrong, as he is just doing his job interpreting what the b/regs allow. But this is a contractual matter between you and the designer and builder and so you want what you are paying for – a flight you can walk down without compromise and without bumping your head.

The building inspector provides a checking service not a design service so he is just the inspector checking the work done ..... that is effectively a separate thing to what you were paying the builder and designer for (a contractual service), so really does not come in to it.

Do you have a contract and a specification?

What do the drawings detail – do they show greater height?

Is this a design and build by one firm or independent designer and builder?

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

If the inspector passes it then it will be signed off and accepted. Inspectors do have some discretion with regards to head height. Most people who use the stair will probably be familiar with it (ie family members presumably) and will learn to duck! If that's acceptable to you or not is another matter. In a commercial building it is assumed that users would be less or not familiar with it at all so the regs are more stringently applied. In reality it is for the builder to check head height as he orders the stairs, whilst an architect should use best his best endeavors to ensure a stair as drawn will fit, it will inevitably come down to the quality of the survey and drawings and actual site conditions. I'm not defending the architect, he might be a totally crap but merely saying that the builder also bears some responsibility to ensure a bespoke stair that he orders is going to fit.

 

[Robyn Soma]

Thanks for your replies. Sorry, my original post wasn't clear: it is currently well below 1.9 in the middle, not just at the edge. My understanding is that head height can go down to 1.8 at the edge, but actually it doesn't comply with this either.

We are dealing with a company that did the design in-house but have contracted out to a builder to execute it.

So, from what you are saying freddiemercurystwin (great name!), the buildings inspector is allowed to say "Yeah, it breaks the regs, but they'll be all right, they'll learn." Is that true? It feels really unacceptable to me: I'm not at all happy to have a risk of hitting my head at the top of a flight of stairs, of all places! But if he says it's ok, even though the regs are broken, then there's nothing we can do? Then what are the regs for?!

Thanks,
Robyn

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

No the client's requirements must always overide the regs. So if you're not happy you'll need to flag it up. But if the inspector is private and is pally with the builder (which it sounds is the case) it could get ugly.

 

[Robyn Soma]

Thanks and yes, the old pals issue is what is worrying us. I was wondering (although it would cost us money) whether we could sack the current buildings control company and hire a new one. Although we've already paid the current one, so I guess they might just issue a certificate of compliance whether we want it or not.

 

[wessex101]

If you really want the building inspector to pick it up then point it out to him/her, preferably in writing. I would be very surprised if they sign it off with a blatant contravention as they would become partly liable for your frequent head injuries.

However, make sure you want to get into that fight as it might come back to bite you. Better to get the builder to rectify it without involving the building inspector. Sometimes you can pinch a bit of extra headroom by putting a rooflight above the low spot.

 

[Robyn Soma]

Ah yes, a further complication is that the builder is the subcontractor here, who is working to the design company's brief. We blame them for their dodgy drawing, but they blame him for following it and are expecting him to bear the cost of corrections. We feel a bit sorry for him, to be honest - yeah, he should perhaps have picked it up but it wasn't obvious until after the stairs had been delivered and by then it was too late.

And neither he nor the design company can find a way of correcting it easily. If the roofline is moved then we contravene another aspect of building regs (apparently a flat roof cannot go right to the edge because it's a maisonette rather than a whole house). So the only obvious solution is to replace the stairs, which is a massive job that nobody wants to do (or pay for). We'd rather find an easier solution too: the last thing we need is more disruption. But neither do we want to be risking life and limb every time we walk upstairs!

So we feel a bit stuck. The builder is being quite helpful - he can see the problem too - but he's going to be losing money and wants the easiest solution. So he's obviously going to want to fudge the regs if possible.

 

[^woody^]

"Yeah, it breaks the regs, but they'll be all right, they'll learn." Is that true?

Yes that is correct. The b/regs are not all prescriptive, so there is scope for allowing things in certain circumstances.

I was wondering (although it would cost us money) whether we could sack the current buildings control company and hire a new one.

That wont help at all. Any new inspector may well make the same allowances and reach the same conclusion.

You need to forget the fact that the work complies or gets signed off, and concentrate on what you have asked (or implied) to be done - ie your contract with the firm. You may find that an adjustable spanner on bath taps will work and comply with building regulations for instance, but that will not make it acceptible.

 

[Robyn Soma]

Thanks Woody. I was presuming that our contract with the firm requires compliance with building regs, which is why I was focusing on that. I was thinking of the buildings control inspector as being the arbiter of whether that's achieved or not. So I should ignore the question of whether the inspector approves or not and just focus on whether the contract requires compliance?

 

[Ian H]

Post a pic and someone might suggest a few options.

 

[lt8480]

To clarify how "Building Regs" work, the regulation in debate here is K1 which states:

Stairs, ladders and ramps shall be so designed, constructed and installed as to be safe for people moving between different levels in or about the buildings.

(page 3 of Part K 2013).

The pages that then follow the regulation provide guidance and show a way of demonstrating compliance with the above regulation, but they are not regulations themselves.

The approved inspector can sign off an alternative design ("lesser standard" than outlined in the Approved Document), although they would usually only do so if marginal/slight variation or say based on a British Standard etc. (which is common in the Fire Regs which only shows basic situations).

If the final clearance is well below the guidance set out (1.9m in the middle and 1.8m at the edge as per Diagram 1.4) then the approved inspector is possibly acting wrongly, however if its only a couple of cm then its probably acceptable. For an example "low clearance" is often accepted on stairs where the centre is still higher than 1.9m and the side is lower than 1.8m (especially if the stairs are wider that the minimum required) as it basically assumed you would walk up the taller half of the steps.

As a rough guide though it would be reasonable to expect the design to meet the Approved Document unless it was clearly pointed out it would not.

In summary the person you should blame is the person you are contracted to - it is them up to them to pursue any other people who may be the person who is at fault for the error and for their loss.

Its not clear who you are contracted to as you mention an Architect, but then say the builder is subcontracted to the "design company". As I would not expect an Architect to subcontract a builder to do work I'm guessing you are instead in contract with and paying a single company to provide a full "design and build" service and they are subcontracting work (and probably not Architects). If this is the case then the blame is quite easy as you are contracted to one person who is taking full responsibility - ultimately that company is responsible for everything including the performance of their subcontractors.

If my speculation on your appointments is wrong could you clarity who you have paid to do what, and who they have paid to do what.

 

[^woody^]

Thanks Woody. I was presuming that our contract with the firm requires compliance with building regs, which is why I was focusing on that. I was thinking of the buildings control inspector as being the arbiter of whether that's achieved or not. So I should ignore the question of whether the inspector approves or not and just focus on whether the contract requires compliance?

Not quite. It's implicit that the work must be compliant with any applicable regulations, but as I said that is a minimum. Your contact with the designer/ builder tends to go further and will consist of more specific requirements which may be actually specified or implied. The inspector is not an arbiter. He's a checker that's all.

You could refer to the drawings or specification to see if they assist, otherwise refer to what is written or was said. Failing that you would revert to a more general concept of what would be expected and what would be normal - a clear staircase.

 

[TicTac]

It would seem that as both the Builder and the designers are at fault, then the cost should be shared between them, and you can then leave the builder to argue with the designers over his share. This is not your fault, and you should not be left with the problem, no matter what the relevance of not, of adherence to the "regs" suggests.

 

[lt8480]

To get a better understanding on this could you confirm the clearances by photographing/sketching and annotating, or supplying the construction drawing.

Clearance measured from the step nose to the ceiling/bulkhead on either side and in the middle would be most useful and also the width of the steps.

Also if you could confirm appointments etc. then we can advise who you should purse to resolve.