Fire Escape Windows

tullyhumphrey

Hi

Just in the middle of building our house (timber frame, blocks and roof complete - windows going in today)and got a call from site today saying that it is not possible to make the master bedroom window (1st floor)compliant with building regs Part B. We can achieve the opening but the maximum it can be off the ground is 600mm. (Building regs say 800mm min). I have looked at all options and it just wont work due to the eaves height and cant put in velux cos of planning. There is an adjoining walk in wardrobe which has a door ope but we are not planning on putting a door in it. The walk in wardrobe has a fire escape window but can this be used as a fire escape for the bedroom?

Any guidance appreciated!

Poor Uncle Tom

You will need to get the opinion of your supervising Architect, Arch Tech or Engineer.

It is my opinion that if the build is new I would not accept this. If the build is a modernisation of an older building I would be more lenient.

The bottom line is that your house was not designed in accordance with the Building Regulations and needs to be adjusted accordingly, whether that means losing a wardrobe or getting planning for a new window.

sydthebeat

600mm off the floor level would be totally unacceptable in what is safe to assume to be a first floor bedroom.

I have accepted en-suite windows in the past due to the argument that the wc cistern and pan actually aids escape rather than hinders it, and also that the likely occupants would be aware of the escape route.

Remember that these windows are the "alternative" means of escape, alternative to the main access stair.....

i agree with PUT in that its your certifiers final call. Im not sure a walk-in wardrobe would be as, arguably, suitable as an en-suite.

Rather silly to be building off plans that havent been designed in accordance with building regs though....:rolleyes:

mickdw

If you want to get your architect on side, I would be opening up the wardrobe as much as possible to make it part of the bedroom. You couldnt possibly go with a window 600mm of the floor. You would fall out it. Even 800mm is dangerous imo. Nearer the higher end of the regulation is the safest option in my opinion.

Mellor

I can't see why 800mm isn't possible.
You may have to alter the shape of the window.

Also, 800 refers to the height of the opening section, not the cill.
It's acceptable to have a fixed glazed portion below the opening section, @ 800mm off the floor

tullyhumphrey

Should have pointed out that the window in question was originally in the en-suite. We changed internal layout when ordering the timber frame and although the window in the en-suite was also shown as suitable as an escape window on the architects drawings we eneded up having to put in a structural beam over the window which lowered the head height and hence the suitability as an escape window. Ended up looking at all possibilites on site and agreed with architect & engineer to move a few studs now and it should be ok. Bedroom is now back in place of walk in wardrobe.

Thanks for your comments

dadon70

Hi all,

looking for some advice please. In the middle of building our new home,
and have been meeting with a few window companies. We have large long windows in two rooms on the ground floor, and one of the rooms is a bedroom.

One of the window companies said we would need to split the windows to ensure the opening part of the window was above 800mm and complied with fire escape regulations. (The lower part of the window would not open following his suggestion).

We would prefer to stick to a single frame window as we were hoping to have the effect of one large window. Does the regulation of the opening section of windows being above 800mm apply on the ground floor? The bedroom exits in to the main entrance hall, right next to the front door.

The other window company did not mention this, and our engineer has said we would not need to split the window, but we want to be sure we build within regulations.

Sorry for rambling a bit and thanks for any help offered!

muffler

If ground to cill level externally is less than 1400mm then the internal min. height of 600mm of the floor can be reduced.

dadon70

Thanks for the reply. Just to clarify, since the ground to cill level is less than 1400mm, does this mean the height of the window opening can be reduced to 600mm (from 800mm) or can it be anything less than 600mm

Thanks again!

Corkblowin

muffler wrote: »

If ground to cill level externally is less than 1400mm then the internal min. height of 600mm of the floor can be reduced.

Hey muffler - can I ask where the 1.4m dimension comes from? Cheers

Poor Uncle Tom

Corkblowin wrote: »

Hey muffler - can I ask where the 1.4m dimension comes from? Cheers

Part K in relation to guardings allows a relaxation on the floor to cill height for a window whose outer ground to cill height is below 1400mm, provided a guarding is provided inside at 800mm above the floor.

muffler

Corkblowin wrote: »

Hey muffler - can I ask where the 1.4m dimension comes from? Cheers

Yes, as PUT said its in Part K. See amendment K(xiii) of TGD K here which is at the bottom of the third page.

muffler

dadon70 wrote: »

Thanks for the reply. Just to clarify, since the ground to cill level is less than 1400mm, does this mean the height of the window opening can be reduced to 600mm (from 800mm) or can it be anything less than 600mm

Thanks again!

Yes, the opening can be 600mm or less from the floor in these circumstances. Just watch out for the guarding as mentioned above.

dadon70

According to Appendix K (xiii):

"Guarding should be provided for any window, the sill of which
is more than 1400 mm above external ground level and is less
than 800 mm in height above internal floor level."

As the sill is less than 1400mm above external ground level, (and also
less than 800mm above internal floor level) is guarding still required?

Thanks to all of you for your help!

Mellor

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

Part K in relation to guardings allows a relaxation on the floor to cill height for a window whose outer ground to cill height is below 1400mm, provided a guarding is provided inside at 800mm above the floor.

That's not quite correct PUT.
Fixed guarding at 800mm is required where the cill is above 1400mm externally, and the cill below 800 internally.

When the cill is below 1400mm then guarding is not required on that window*.
A patio door is essentially a window, and no guarding is required.

(*unless the level change is greater than 600mm, but the cill will most likely be above 1400mm anyway)

muffler wrote: »

Yes, the opening can be 600mm or less from the floor in these circumstances. Just watch out for the guarding as mentioned above.

The opening can be at any height without guarding if the level change is below 600mm.

dadon70 wrote:

According to Appendix K (xiii):

"Guarding should be provided for any window, the sill of which
is more than 1400 mm above external ground level and is less
than 800 mm in height above internal floor level."

As the sill is less than 1400mm above external ground level, (and also
less than 800mm above internal floor level) is guarding still required?

Thanks to all of you for your help!

If the cill is less than 1400mm then you prob don't need guarding and can have the cill at any height. But to be sure, what is the exact height of the opening section both internally and externally.

Poor Uncle Tom

Mellor wrote: »

That's not quite correct PUT.

It's hard to reduce a large section of a regulation to just a sentence, but the point I was making is that the regulation is relaxed when the ground to cill height is below 1400mm, which of course is correct.

Mellor wrote: »

Fixed guarding at 800mm is required where the cill is above 1400mm externally, and the cill below 800 internally.

yes, because the fixed guarding effectively becomes the bottom of the opening section, which has to be a minimum of 800mm above the floor inside in cases where the ground to cill height is above 1400mm externally, as you said.

Mellor wrote: »

When the cill is below 1400mm then guarding is not required on that window*.
A patio door is essentially a window, and no guarding is required.

As I see it too.

Mellor

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

It's hard to reduce a large section of a regulation to just a sentence, but the point I was making is that the regulation is relaxed when the ground to cill height is below 1400mm, which of course is correct.

Was clarifying more for the OP tbh.
I knew you understood the regs, of course. Hopefuly the OP knows what is required now.

I'm pretty sure we've discussed it else where, but that is one of the regs that I feel is phrased poorly at best. The use of 1400mm cill externally is very poor, using the cill height as a means to set the required cill height, as one obviously affects the other.
I'd much rather they broke it down in terms of 800mm cill required above 600mm level change, below 600m, any height permitted.
That's much clearer, and after all 600+800 is where I assume the 1400mm came from.

When is part K up for review?

Edit: I jsut seen it is up for review at the minute. I would be an awful hypocrite if I moaned about it here and then didn't bother top make a submission.
i'll open a new thread to discuss before making a submission.

Poor Uncle Tom

Mellor wrote: »

i'll open a new thread to discuss before making a submission.

Very good idea.

Mellor

New thread up,
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=74035802#post74035802

sydthebeat

a resurrection to this thread...

i assume all professionals in the industry are of the opinion that ground floor windows can go lower than 800mmm once the distance from the cill to path level externally doesnt exceed 1.4 m ???

i cant remember exactly, but i can recall getting this clarified by the building reg section of either the dept of my LA at the time of the amendment introduction.

does anyone have anything more "official" as a local window manufacturer is questioning this, and in turn questioning my design.

Mellor

sydthebeat wrote: »

a resurrection to this thread...

i assume all professionals in the industry are of the opinion that ground floor windows can go lower than 800mmm once the distance from the cill to path level externally doesnt exceed 1.4 m ???

i cant remember exactly, but i can recall getting this clarified by the building reg section of either the dept of my LA at the time of the amendment introduction.

does anyone have anything more "official" as a local window manufacturer is questioning this, and in turn questioning my design.

That's always been the case. Remind them that a patio door is essentially a window in terms of the regs. Those are the limits for when guarding is required. So you still allowed to build a window outside those limits (with guarding)

The draft part K included a diagram. But didn't change the regs or the wording.

Guarding should be provided for any
window, the sill of which is more than 1400
mm above external ground level and is less
than 800 mm in height above internal floor
level

Therefor, insuide those limits, no guarding required.

I've criticised it in the past that the wording creates loopholes. But a window cill is ok below 800mm as long as there isn't a significant level change.

A better wording is

Mellor's Regs wrote:

If the difference between (a)ground floor level, and (b)external level immediately outside the window is greater than 600mm. Guarding should be provided for cills below 800mm internally

Which is bascially the same, except that it covers loopholes.

braftery

Hi all perhaps I have not read all of this thread correctly but the rule seems pretty clear to me.

"Any opening that is above 1400mm above the external ground level."

This phrase covers all windows and doors on upper floors in buildings as well as opening above 1400mm about external ground level.

"openings below 800mm above internal floor finish"

If the opening starts below 800mm when measued to the internal floor finish and the same opening starts above 1400m from the external ground level, then it must be guarded.

You can check this simply on any site by simply putting a tape measure on both sides of a window ope once the cill is in place and measure to the level surface.

If inside is less than 800 and outside is greater than 1400 then guarding is required ... if it is "less than" then no guarding is required.

Any window supplier that tells you anything else should be asked to leave the site !

Am I missing something ?

sydthebeat

i agree mellor, but the problem is there is a direct contradiction with TGD B in that 1.5.6 (b) states:

The bottom of the window opening should be
not more than 1100 mm and not less than 800
mm (600 mm in the case of a rooflight) above the
floor, immediately inside or beneath the window
or rooflight. As an exception to the general
guidance in TGD K (Stairways, Ladders, Ramps
and Guards) that guarding be provided for any
window, the cill of which is less than 800 mm in
height above floor level, guarding should not be
provided to a rooflight opening provided in
compliance with this paragraph.

as im 100% sure you know already.

The problem is this contradiction still exists, and will probably exist until a review of TGD B.

I know its the commonly held view (that i also share) that ground floor opendable windows can go lower than 800mm, because TGD K allows it.... but i need to point to something a bit more officious than "it doesnt say it in the fire regs, but..."

sydthebeat

braftery wrote: »

Am I missing something ?

hi braferty...

we posted at the same time

the problem is that one paragraph in one guidance document (TGD contradicts another paragraph in another (TGD K)

common sense; alternatives to the de facto; and the spirit of the regulation; would all point to allowing gf openings lower than 800mm.

However, the contradiction still exists.

braftery

sydthebeat wrote: »

hi braferty...

we posted at the same time

the problem is that one paragraph in one guidance document (TGD contradicts another paragraph in another (TGD K)

common sense; alternatives to the de facto; and the spirit of the regulation; would all point to allowing gf openings lower than 800mm.

However, the contradiction still exists.

I have just re-read TGD B. From my reading 1.5.6 only applies to Upper storey windows and doors and, in my opinion, does not therefore contradict TGD K elements.

However I will fully agree that it is not very clear !! These kind of documents tend to get written in a complicated manner in a effort to avoid confusion .. often causing greater confusion as a result !

1.5.2 states as follows;

all habitable rooms at the upper storey areprovided with windows for escape or rescue inaccordance with 1.5.6

and 1.5.6 states

Where provision is made in this sub-section for windows for these purposes (seeparagraphs 1.5.2, 1.5.3, 1.5.7.6 and 1.5.8.2), suchwindows should comply with the following:

(a)The window should have an openable sectionwhich can provide an unobstructed clear openarea of at least 0.33 m2with a minimum widthand height of 450 mm (the route through thewindow may be at an angle rather than straightthrough). The opening section should be capableof remaining in the position which provides thisminimum clear open area.

(b)The bottom of the window opening should benot more than 1100 mm and not less than 800mm (600 mm in the case of a rooflight) above thefloor, immediately inside or beneath the windowor rooflight.

As an exception to the generalguidance in TGD K (Stairways, Ladders, Rampsand Guards) that guarding be provided for anywindow, the cill of which is less than 800 mm inheight above floor level, guarding should not beprovided to a rooflight opening provided incompliance with this paragraph.

sydthebeat

braftery wrote: »

1.5.2 states as follows;

all habitable rooms at the upper storey are provided with windows for escape or rescue in accordance with 1.5.6

thank you braferty !!!!

thats the little section i hadnt takes account of when reading....


therefore theres no contradiction and everything is clear.

thanks again !!!!

braftery

sydthebeat wrote: »

thank you braferty !!!!

thats the little section i hadnt takes account of when reading....


therefore theres no contradiction and everything is clear.

thanks again !!!!

Your very welcome all i ask in return is that you spell my name correctly

sydthebeat

LOL my bad !!!

Mellor

There's no contradiction IMO. Part B refers to escape windows at first floors.

Edit: ah see you covered tht above. Too slow on my behalf. Trying to drink my tea and post from phone.

braftery

drinking tea, posting from phone .... are you in the car again !!

sydthebeat

is it not your bedtime mellor???

muffler

braftery wrote: »

all i ask in return is that you spell my name correctly

Mighty

You should have asked for immunity from warnings/infractions/bans for a year :pac:

Poor Uncle Tom

muffler wrote: »

Mighty

You should have asked for immunity from warnings/infractions/bans for a year :pac:

Too late now.....;)

muffler

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

Too late now.....;)

You didn't....did you? :pac:

Poor Uncle Tom

:eek: What kind of a monster do you th.........don't answer that....:p

Just sayin' the statute of limitations has expired on the offer.....:D

Mellor

Was only about 10pm. Nice cup of tea and a quick browse.