Protecton from falling related question

[cjard]

Imagine that a single landing staircase has a lower landing that is 598mm off the floor level. the staircase proceeds down the wall to its right, reaches the landing and turns left towards the centre of the room. The balustrade/handrail on the left (viewed as if descending the stairs) reaches a newel at the lower landing and then stops. There is no balustrade/handrail anywhere on the right hand side of the staircase. Assuming all other factors are within limits (rise, going etc) does the stair comply with Part K?

Does it comply if there is a winder in place of the landing?

 

[tony1851]

This is, as they say, a grey area; the only regulation for stairs is K1, which justs states that stairs shall be 'safe'.

AD K of course gives guidance, but does not cover all situations. The pre-2013 edition of AD K stated that a change of level of <600mm is not controlled.
Are you up against a difficult BCO? You could argue that you technically have two flights, and that the lower flight is therefore not controlled because the change in level is <600.

If you put a winder there, you are making it more of a single staircase, and it may not be as easy to argue. Perhaps you could put a vertical grab rail on the newel to inprove safety?

 

[Nakajo]

598 makes it sound like an exam question

 

[cjard]

Heh.. that is, however, the height of the landing - random accident rather than design. Made me wonder if I could get away with not putting a rail there, chiefly because she wants glass balusters and they're expensive but also because I fancy the minimalist look. BCO is fantastic, but he used to be a joiner and stairs are one of his bonnet bees. I'll ask him what he thinks

 

[^woody^]

Who measures a balustrade height to 598mm. Seriously.

 

[wessex101]

Interesting point but if you follow the 600mm issue to its logical conclusion no staircase would ever need guarding on the bottom 600mm. I can't help feeling a staircase cannot be taken in isolated sections but would be interested to hear what the BCO says. In the image I would be happy to leave the bottom 2 treads unguarded but I would be a bit concerned by that 3rd and 4th treads, especially being winders.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Of course it needs a balustrade. the whole thing is the staircase.

 

[PTS2]

Put a sheet of hardboard under the carpet.

Ah, I am of course talking nonsense....

 

[tony1851]

Of course it needs a balustrade. the whole thing is the staircase.

Of course, in everyday terms, the whole thing is 'a staircase'. But if it comes down to legalitites, it might be regarded as two flights.
AD K defines a flight as ' a part of a stair between landings that has a continuous series of steps'. As there is a square quarter landing near the bottom, and as the lower flight has a change of level of <600, IMO it would be OK without a balustrade.

Whether or not it's worth arguing the point with an obstinate BCO is another matter, and maybe not worth not getting a Certificate for the sake of a short balustrade?

 

[PTS2]

600 mm has one significant figure, therefore 598mm rounds to 600mm, so 600mm it is.

Do I pass?

 

[chappers]

Interesting point but if you follow the 600mm issue to its logical conclusion no staircase would ever need guarding on the bottom 600mm.

Which is correct it doesn't.