Building regs when not a new build or extension

antiskeptic

The wording regarding application of building regs goes as follows:

"The aim of the building regulations is to provide for the safety and welfare of people in and about buildings. The building regulations apply to the design and construction of a new building (including a dwelling) or an extension to an existing building."

https://www.housing.gov.ie/housing/building-standards/building-regulations/building-regulations

I'm looking at the possibility of shifting the position of the stairs in an existing tiny house so as to be able to use the space more efficiently.

The existing stairs is definitely narrower than current standards (at about 650 wide). Can I install a new stairs (since the old one has a couple of winders whereas the new would be straight) of that same width - the rules not confining me?

BryanF

New stairs new (current) regulations

TGD part k
https://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/migrated-files/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/BuildingStandards/FileDownLoad%2C37830%2Cen.pdf

Gumbo

Not a new building, or an extension but its an alteration to the existing building. New stairs, so new regs apply IMO.
Unless you are replacing like for like within the existing opes. then no new or great contravention IMO.

antiskeptic

BryanF wrote: »

New stairs new (current) regulations

TGD part k
https://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/migrated-files/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/BuildingStandards/FileDownLoad%2C37830%2Cen.pdf

"Existing buildings
In the case of material alterations or
changes of use of existing buildings, the
adoption without modification of the
guidance in this document may not, in all
circumstances, be appropriate. In
particular, the adherence to guidance,
including codes, standards or technical
specifications, intended for application to
new work may be unduly restrictive or
impracticable. Buildings of architectural or
historical interest are especially likely to
give rise to such circumstances. In these
situations, alternative approaches based on
the principles contained in the document
may be more relevant and should be
considered."


Discuss

Say the insertion of a wider staircase requires significant alteration to the building (whereas a replacement could slot into the existing structure). Would that be impractable?

Or the new wider stairs robs from an already narrow passageway at ground level. Would that be unduly restrictive? You end up with an improved fire egress situation all the way from upstairs down the nice n' wide stairs. Only to be faced with a narrowed passageway from end of stairs to front door

The wording of the guidance doc above seems pretty vague. Alternatives should be considered is almost encouraging deviation. Who is it that decides on the appropriateness of deviating from the guidance?

antiskeptic

kceire wrote: »

Not a new building, or an extension but its an alteration to the existing building. New stairs, so new regs apply IMO.
Unless you are replacing like for like within the existing opes. then no new or great contravention IMO.

It seems that yes, if its alteration rather than repair or replace (with same) then you're into (only, it seems) the A and B regs. B regs (fire) in this case.

Yet the question arising from what I've posted directly above: this seemingly grey area, though which you could drive a bus when it comes to existing buildings.

Metric Tensor

I don't think that grey area is anywhere near as grey as you think antiskeptic.

The first thing is to know the difference between the Building Regulations and Technical Guidance Documents (TGDs). The TGDs are NOT the building regulations - they are the only prima facia way of complying with the building regulations, but that doesn't make them the regulations. What it means is that if you decide to ignore the TGD guidance you have to be able to prove you have complied with the building regulations in some other way.

Hence you must be capable of proving (in court if necessary) that the "alternative approach" you are considering complies with the regulations.

Note that the "in such circumstances" provison on the alternative approaches guidance solely applies to the buildings of historical interest.

For other non-historical existing buildings it simply says that you can take a difference approach to complying with the regulations than that shown on TGD K - which is actually always the case for all the TGDs - as explained above.

antiskeptic

Metric Tensor wrote: »

I don't think that grey area is anywhere near as grey as you think antiskeptic.

Thanks for the observation. I hope you don't mind me picking through things a bit (since it has far wider reaching implications than just this particular staircase)?

The first thing is to know the difference between the Building Regulations and Technical Guidance Documents (TGDs). The TGDs are NOT the building regulations - they are the only prima facia way of complying with the building regulations, but that doesn't make them the regulations. What it means is that if you decide to ignore the TGD guidance you have to be able to prove you have complied with the building regulations in some other way.

Where are the building regulations regarding stairs to be obtained (since everyone appears to point to the TGD when asked what the regs are)?

Are they as specific in detail as the TGD? Or are they vague ("the stairs shall be safe") and the TGD is the way workable, objective legs are given to the idea of what's safe?


-

Surely it's the case that I've to be proven guilty of transgressing the regs, rather than proving myself in compliance with them?

Note that the "in such circumstances" provision on the alternative approaches guidance solely applies to the buildings of historical interest.

It's exactly the opposite. Which is why the doors are flung open. These are the relevant words (my i.e.) and everything hinges on but one word.

"Buildings of architectural or historical interest are especially likely to give rise to such circumstances (i.e. it being permitted to deviate from the guidance)."

Especially.

Especially means that it's not solely buildings of architectural or historical interest that can deviate. Yes, your protected structures will especially raise this issue, but not solely those buildings. Once not solely then the doors are flung wide open.

And we seem then to land down on issues of impractability and the like. Which is completely vague.


-

I would conclude:

Innocence until proven guilty (someone has to prove you didn't conform to regs)

The regs don't apply to material modifications to existing buildings along utterly vague lines.

Metric Tensor

antiskeptic wrote: »

Where are the building regulations regarding stairs to be obtained (since everyone appears to point to the TGD when asked what the regs are)?

https://www.housing.gov.ie/housing/building-standards/building-regulations/building-regulations

are they vague ("the stairs shall be safe") and the TGD is the way workable, objective legs are given to the idea of what's safe?

Spot on.

Surely it's the case that I've to be proven guilty of transgressing the regs, rather than proving myself in compliance with them?

If the local building control officer is of the opinion that you have not complied with the building regulations you will get a letter asking you to rectify the situation. If you fail to comply with the letter you will eventually be taken to court where you will have the building control officer will state his/her opinion to the judge and you will be afforded the opportunity to defend your position. To be truthful I haven't ever been present for such a case so I can't point to any precedent either way.

A much more likely event is that when you go to sell the house a surveyor for a potential purchaser will inform their client that they don't believe the stairs to be compliant. The potential purchaser will then ask you to provide a letter from a competent, insured professional stating that it is compliant. Will you be able to get this? If you are certain what you are doing is compliant then you should be able to get the letter right now and save yourself future hassle.

It's exactly the opposite. Which is why the doors are flung open. These are the relevant words (my i.e.) and everything hinges on but one word.

"Buildings of architectural or historical interest are especially likely to give rise to such circumstances (i.e. it being permitted to deviate from the guidance)."

Especially.

Especially means that it's not solely buildings of architectural or historical interest that can deviate. Yes, your protected structures will especially raise this issue, but not solely those buildings. Once not solely then the doors are flung wide open.

And we seem then to land down on issues of impractability and the like. Which is completely vague.

My opinion of your reading is that it would be at odds with how the local building control officer would read it and also at odds with how a court would read it. But that's just my opinion.



That's the best I can do for you. It's all opinions until a ruling is made - but some opinions are more informed than others! (And I'm not arrogant enough to mean my own in this case)

Metric Tensor

P.S. All of the above is a great abstract discussuion but without actually visiting your house and seeing the issue I would not like to offer an opinion on whether your proposal actually is a material alteration or not!

BryanF

BS 5395-1:2010

antiskeptic

Metric Tensor wrote: »

P.S. All of the above is a great abstract discussion but without actually visiting your house and seeing the issue I would not like to offer an opinion on whether your proposal actually is a material alteration or not!

The current stairs (private house / 2 storey) consists of a straight section from ground floor > into 180 degree return/winder > into straight section > into corridor landing (co-linear with the last stairs section).

The width of the landing is the same as the width of the existing stairs - the landing bounded by a party wall on one side and a stud partition bedroom wall on the other. It's been like that for an 'undred years.

I'm considering replacing the existing stairs with a single straight run from ground to same landing - pushing the long landing backward a few metres whilst at it. It's not a repair or replacement with same - so I understand it to be a material alteration.



If the new stairs were wider, then you're into pulling down the stud wall (and narrowing the narrow bedroom). Compared with slotting a new, straight stairs into the existing width, widening has an significant impact: space and cost wise. This is were the word "impractable" might be considered to come in.


-

Re: your observations in the previous post.

I'd agree with your assessment re: where the real world problem might be expected to arise - on the sale of a building. In practice I don't think problems would arise - conveyancing surveys, in my experience, are too surface to even begin to consider such a nuanced thing.

I can't say I agree with taking the word especially to mean one thing to the exclusion of all others, i.e. only historical/protected structures. My whole life through, I've understood especially to mean one thing emphasized amongst other things. "That I especially like Wicklow Wolf Elevation
is an indication that I'm partial to other beers, M'lud"