smart51
|
| posted on 26/1/16 at 11:27 AM |
|
|
Building regs - stairs to loft conversion
We're in the process of buying a house and planning a loft conversion. We hope to exchange and complete in the next few weeks. All the work is
permitted development so we don't need planning permission. But I'd planned to use an architect to do drawings for building regulations
approval.
I spoke to an architect yesterday who said my drawings are detailed enough to not need an architect, so I've gone through them to prepare them
for a building regs submission, but I've spotted a potential problem.
You have to have a clear 2m above the stairs. The new stairs leave a clear 2.18m above the existing stairs except for one point. The loft stairs
will have a winder at the bottom (treads 2 - 4). Tread 2 will cut the head height to about 1.85m for about 1/8 of the width of the staircase.
Now at this point, the existing head height is about 1.75m where the first floor overhangs the stairs. So we'll actually be increasing the
head height by taking out part of the floor under the new loft stairs. Is it true with conversions that you don't need to meet building regs
where the existing building doesn't currently meet them, so long as you don't make things worse?
In the pic, it is the blue shaded area that is less than 2m clear height.
 
StairDetail
|
|
|
|
|
Smokey mow
|
| posted on 26/1/16 at 11:42 AM |
|
|
I'm not quite following the description fully but in short, if an existing building (or part thereof) doesn't comply with the building
regulations then you cannot make it worse (with regards to compiance) than it was previously. That's to say that if the existing stair or
headroom to an individual tread does not currently meet the regs then you cannot make the headroom to the stair or an individual tread any worse.
There are relaxations for the headroom to stairs serving loft conversions, but these apply to the new stair to the loft and not the existing stair.
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 26/1/16 at 12:12 PM |
|
|
OK, let me try to be a bit clearer. The existing stairs starts under the first floor. As the stairs go up the headroom drops to about 1.75m. Then
the stairs open up to the 1st floor ceiling above that. We plan to put a new staircase above this. The headroom between the old and new stairs will
be more than the required 2m for most of the stairs.
We plan to cut out the first floor above the stairs to increase the head height. But because the new stairs have a winder (3 stairs that turn 90°)
part of one of the stairs will reduce the head height to less than the required 2m. The reduction will only be about 1/8 of the width of the stairs.
At the lowest point, the head height in this bit will be 1.85m - more than it is currently.
Will we get away with not meeting the 2m head hight at this point, given that we are improving it from the current height?
|
|
|
Chris_Xtreme
|
| posted on 26/1/16 at 12:49 PM |
|
|
when we did our loft conversion, the building regs chap came round through the build and when the loft stairs went in pointed out this problem, we had
a ceiling over the kites (3 turning steps) which was in a cupboard. we raised the ceiling height for that bit, and I am sure we were still not at the
2m, but he let us have lets say 190. I would say it is down to the building regs inspector and how strict your council rules are.
where I am you can book a free consult with them before you pay up and get going with the work.
|
|
|
Smokey mow
|
| posted on 26/1/16 at 12:51 PM |
|
|
Increasing the headroom to the existing stair would be fine as you're making something hat doesn't comply better than it was before (even
though it still won't comply to current regs), you just can't make it worse.
|
|
|
YQUSTA
|
| posted on 26/1/16 at 03:39 PM |
|
|
Could you not leave that small piece of floor/ceiling in place, therefore complying with the regs as you are not changing the height?
Edit to add : it could always fall off after the paper work/job is signed off.
[Edited on 26/1/16 by YQUSTA]
"If in doubt flat out"
Colin McRae
|
|
|
Sam_68
|
| posted on 26/1/16 at 08:15 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by smart51Tread 2 will cut the head height to about 1.85m for about 1/8 of the width of the staircase.
My eyesight's not good enough to read your drawing, but if the reduced headroom is only for about 1/8th the width of the stair, you'll
probably get away with it... the 'official' rule is that for loft conversions you're allowed a minimum of 1.8m at one side of
the stair, so long as you have a minimum of 1.9m at the centre of the stair - see
Diagram 3 on page7 of approved Document K - and it sounds as though you
might comply with this, anyway?
...But in any case, Building Control Officers tend to be quite lenient and sensible about this rule, so long as you're not proposing something
that takes the Mickey completely.
But if in doubt, talk directly to your local Building Control department to get their view before proceeding.
|
|
|
hizzi
|
| posted on 26/1/16 at 09:19 PM |
|
|
gp speak to the building control officer. we did a loft conversion again no planning required but builder warrant and structural engineers report was
reqd, we had to bring the existing house up to spec which wasnt too bad as the house is only 20 years old, but we had height issues at one bit of the
stair and couldnt meet the 2m height for a 100mm wide bit of beam we were down to 1.95m and they gave us loads of grief and at one point threatened to
halt the work and make us undo the dormer roof.
maybe different up her in scotland but go speak to them first
|
|
|
LBMEFM
|
| posted on 27/1/16 at 05:17 AM |
|
|
It is always good to ask for peoples advice and opinions, particularly on this site as everyone tries to help. That said, if you want advice just ask
your local building control officer to visit. They are always very helpful in my experience, and if you involve them at the planning stage you will
have no problems during the build. As a builder and do this all the time
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 27/1/16 at 10:38 AM |
|
|
Thanks everyone. I've been talking to planning about the job about it falling under permitted development. I'm satisfied that it is.
I've checked over my original survey notes and I've worked out the problem. It turns out that the original stairs are steeper than are
allowed by current building regs. I'd drawn the landing as measured then drawn a 42° staircase. My measurements show the foot of the stairs is
nearly 400mm further back than I had drawn. This gives me the headroom I need. Problem solved.
It proves three things, make notes and keep them, measure twice - once from each end, don't make assumptions without checking them.
|
|
|
