Poll: Is this staircase made to drawing and specifications?

jgorres

Hi everybody,

We ordered a staircase from a builder. The architect made a drawing and passed it on to the builder, including specifications.

The builder's point of view is that the staircase he delivered is according to the drawing and specs.

We disagree.

From our point of view it is clear from the specs that

• only oak should have been used
• no supporting beams should go through the steps
• no string at the side of the steps

Have a look at the two images, have fun and vote!









Any other comments would be welcomed as well.


Jörn

DOCARCH

I'd be more curious to know if what's drawn/built complies with the Building Regulations (Part K)?

Rabbo

It is questionable whether the taped steps at the top are compliant.
From TGD K:

The varying tread width of a tapered
step can cause people to misjudge distances
and can lead to falls. For this reason, the use
of tapered steps should be avoided. If it is
necessary to use them, they should
preferably be situated at the bottom of the
stairs.

The use of the word preferably might get you out of trouble though.

DOCARCH

Also note, in the same section of TGD K, at the end, it says:

In addition, the going at the narrow end should be a
minimum of 75 mm.

Balustrade/guarding to the stairs, as designed, would also be questionable.

sydthebeat

two comments

1. thats not a solid oak stair as you know, did they offer a reason they have poplar strings and newel posts?

2. the newel posts are not "vertical supporting beam" as described in the specification. Its not clear, in my opinion, that no newel posts were specified. there has to be some element of structure where the strings meet at the first turn.

sydthebeat

Rabbo wrote: »

It is questionable whether the taped steps at the top are compliant.
From TGD K:


The use of the word preferably might get you out of trouble though.

the use of the word 'necessary' might get them back into trouble

jgorres

Hi sydthebeat,

We (customers) were not informed at all about the various changes during the construction phase in the workshop. The builder faced us with a fait a compli without any consultation.

sydthebeat wrote: »

1. thats not a solid oak stair as you know, did they offer a reason they have poplar strings and newel posts?

The builder's argument was it was cheaper (glad that he did not select cardboard, although it would have been even cheaper ).

Also, the newel posts were a result of the builder's selection ***without*** any consultation with us. Reason given was it would be more stable.

sydthebeat wrote: »

2. the newel posts are not "vertical supporting beam" as described in the specification. Its not clear, in my opinion, that no newel posts were specified. there has to be some element of structure where the strings meet at the first turn.

Any element of structure where the strings met should have been "hidden" under the staircase and this was something we have been discussing face to face with the builder (even with the architect being present).

Regards,
Jörn

Rabbo

sydthebeat wrote: »

the use of the word 'necessary' might get them back into trouble

True, although the railing/guarding is nearly more worrying from a safety point of view.

jgorres

Hi DOCARCH,

DOCARCH wrote: »

I'd be more curious to know if what's drawn/built complies with the Building Regulations (Part K)?

I was focussing whether/whether not the order was executed accordingly.

Regards,
Jörn.

Stone Deaf 4evr

just a a matter of interest - how are you closing off the landing area above that looks down on the stairs opening? because If you're using that horizonal wire arrangement, you're going to have a problem - kids will be climbing it like monkeys.

otherwise, there are 2 wrongs, the material should have been oak that much is clear, and secondly, you should have been consulted before any change to spec or design was done. If he was in any doubt, he should have asked for further construction details,not taken a flyer at a design. thats what the architects / engineers are getting paid for.

jgorres

Hi DOCARCH,

DOCARCH wrote: »

Also note, in the same section of TGD K, at the end, it says:

In addition, the going at the narrow end should be a
minimum of 75 mm.

The "going" is not issue - this surface is on the same level as the floor upstairs.

Regards,
Jörn.

jgorres

Hi Stone Deaf 4evr,

Stone Deaf 4evr wrote: »

just a a matter of interest - how are you closing off the landing area above that looks down on the stairs opening? because If you're using that horizonal wire arrangement, you're going to have a problem - kids will be climbing it like monkeys.

The wires will be electrified - in fact, the distance of the parallel wiring will be different from what is on the drawing, i.e. much smaller.

Regards,
Jörn.

DOCARCH

jgorres wrote: »

Hi DOCARCH,



I was focussing whether/whether not the order was executed accordingly.

Regards,
Jörn.

Ohh I know...I was just saying like...:)

DOCARCH

jgorres wrote: »

Hi DOCARCH,



The "going" is not issue - this surface is on the same level as the floor upstairs.

Regards,
Jörn.

Not sure you have understood what the Building Regulations intend by a minimum going of 75mm....nothing to do with the level of the floor upstairs.

sydthebeat

jgorres wrote: »

Hi sydthebeat,
We (customers) were not informed at all about the various changes during the construction phase in the workshop. The builder faced us with a fait a compli without any consultation.

not good enough from the builder, im sure he had included his quote in the tender process for the stairs as specified, now hes trying to cut prices...

jgorres wrote: »

Also, the newel posts were a result of the builder's selection ***without*** any consultation with us. Reason given was it would be more stable.

Any element of structure where the strings met should have been "hidden" under the staircase and this was something we have been discussing face to face with the builder (even with the architect being present).

if there was an issue with the stability of the stair design, the builder should have gotten back onto the architect as the point of contact and discussed the issue. again, not good enough from the builder.

however, the architect has designed a quite 'off standard' stairs if the main string just "disappears" at the first turn. Id argue the drawings are not descriptive nor prescriptive enough on this issue... and there should should have been a statement in the specification along the lines of "shop drawings of stair to be approved by architect prior to manufacture".
it should have been clear that a full string was specified on the wall side and a cut (or notched) string was specified on the 'open' side

but again, the builder shouldnt have gone on a solo run on this, especially after a meeting was had on the issue.


i often come up with issues similar to this when i specify something. a lot of Builders are so used to doing 'standard' procedures and using 'standard' materials that if you go outside this they dont know who to go to for the product.

for example, I see it a lot in windows. id specify a certain size casement opening and the builder will put in a price at tender stage... everything fine and well... and then.. well heres how the conversation goes

builder: we cant get a openable window that size, we have to make the ope smaller

me: no, thats whats designed and thats what youve priced for

builder: well our window guy says he cant do an openable window in that size

me: well go find someone who can?

builder: but this is the guy we've always used

me: *blank stare* ... so...?

you can almost hear the point at which it clicks with the builder that they actually have to find someone to fulfill the specification.

similarly with your situation above, the stair manufacturer should have been clear whether or not they could fulfill the specification, and if they couldnt the builder should have gone elsewhere. Of course, theyd be reluctant because more often than not they get the job by being the lowest tender by using the most competitive products and manufacturers.

sydthebeat

Rabbo wrote: »

True, although the railing/guarding is nearly more worrying from a safety point of view.

absoltely agree

still better than something like this though

jgorres

Hi sydthebeat,

sydthebeat wrote: »

if there was an issue with the stability of the stair design, the builder should have gotten back onto the architect as the point of contact and discussed the issue. again, not good enough from the builder.

The builder never did.

sydthebeat wrote: »

however, the architect has designed a quite 'off standard' stairs if the main string just "disappears" at the first turn. Id argue the drawings are not descriptive nor prescriptive enough on this issue... and there should should have been a statement in the specification along the lines of "shop drawings of stair to be approved by architect prior to manufacture".
it should have been clear that a full string was specified on the wall side and a cut (or notched) string was specified on the 'open' side

There were discussions on site between builder, architect and us, which clearly pointed out these issues.

sydthebeat wrote: »

i often come up with issues similar to this when i specify something. a lot of Builders are so used to doing 'standard' procedures and using 'standard' materials that if you go outside this they dont know who to go to for the product.

Certainly, you are right. This attitude is widespread. It would be a bit like going to a car dealer, asking for a Mercedes, but getting a Dacia instead and the dealer tells you: "OK, it is not blue as you requested, it has no aircon, but do not complain: it is a car."

Regards,
Jörn.