Handrails on stairs necessary?
Comments
-
I'm not sure how long you want to keep playing with words, but sure, here goes.
TGD are not the baseline for anything. The Regs are the baseline, TGD is guidance on way(s) to comply with that baseline, but not the only way. TGD is not the baseline for anything, except for maybe crap design for unimaginative designers.
There is a valid question with a project like this as to why the Regs would be considered the baseline. Do you really aim for minimum legal compliance as your top achievable goal in electrical fittings, plumbing facilities, insulation and other design features? Generally no, a half-decent designer will aim to go beyond minimum legal compliance, where reasonable to do so. For some reason, some narrow-minded short-termist designers take a minimalist approach to Part M, accessibility and UD - leaving their clients with unnecessary additional costs down the line.
That's the context of my statement about UD regs and the baseline. I didn't say that they were a minimum legal requirement. I did suggest that the baseline for a project like this should be a bit more than minimum legal compliance.
It's funny to see how you have to twist my words to bolster your argument. I didn't say that "the official government guidance was the UD guidelines". I said that the UD guidelines were official government guidance, which they absolutely are. You just HAD to slip in the extra 'the' at the start to bolster your complaint, but that came from you, not me. NDA/CEUD are a Government body, set up by statute, staffed by public servants, subject to the Code of Governance for Public Bodies, using systems provided by the central Government ICT service at OGCIO. They're a government body, and their guidance is government guidance.
Where were the drawings of these stairs posted please?
For Blessington, yes, I think that's the one - good of you to have a look at the project to try to retrospectively justify your commentary. Once again, you seem to think that Bannon deserves a medal or award for achieving minimum legal compliance by providing a ramp.
The real question, of course, is why have a step and a ramp on a new build site for an elderly couple in the first place? Why not lower the site by 100mm or raise the driveway by 100mm to design out the step? That's what a good designer would do.
0 -
-
That's not what I said, but obviously you're still sore that I called out your strange theory that compliance with building regs constitute good design.
0 -
Baseline means the minimum level. That is the TGDs. You are making strawman argument by trying to present that baseline equates to the target, nobody has suggested that.
"Why the Regs would be considered the baseline" is not a valid question at all. It makes no sense. As does statements like "above the regs", "beyond the regs". Any design that is not to the the regs is illegal. There is no room for solutions that do not meet the regs. Do you think UD guidelines are outside of the the Regs and the TGDs? They are not.
I specifically asked you what the minimum width for compliance was, as you falsely claimed the width was non complaint. You replied the UD guidelines. That is incorrect. Simple fact. You can continue to waffle about the NDA being a government agency, it makes no difference, your answer to the question you were asked was wrong. Simples.
People should absolutely design past the minimum stated in the TGDs. But that doesn't mean the TGDs are not compliant. And thinking that the UD guidelines are appropriate here is a poor understanding of those guidelines.
The drawings were posted previously. Have a look. I'm not going to repost, they're not hard to find. I find it pretty bad taste that people in the RTI thread ask for eircodes to be posted. It's borderline doxing.
What commentary did I make on Blessignton without seeing it? You're just repeated the same false claims. And where did I suggest he deserves a medal (another lie, shocker). I simply pointed out it was compliant. As you claimed it wasn't. Like the stair, you were wrong there too. As for why the steps? I don't know. I would assume there is a reason, as the ramp is hardly the aesthetic choice.
0 -
It's really hilarious how far you have to twist my words to find something to complain about. You twist 'above the regs' and 'beyond the regs' as being 'not meeting the regs'. No one suggested not meeting the regs - quite the opposite. I'm suggesting that for a build like this, meeting the regs should not the target, the target should absolutely be beyond minimum compliance in many areas, including accessibility.
I've never claimed that these stairs are not compliant with regs. I've stated that there isn't room to add two proper handrails to the staircase, which is an example of poor design, poor future proofing.
UD guidelines are appropriate EVERYWHERE. We're all getting old. We're all going to have some or other form of disability.
That doesn't mean that they're all mandatory and all required on every single build project. But designing a staircase that will allow for proper handrails isn't exactly a huge ask.
There's no drawings posted on this thread. So you're either spoofing or dreaming or thinking about a different thread.
Don't make me quote your comment about Blessington for a second time. It's in your post, right after where you said that you couldn't comment about Blessington.
You seem to have missed some key details from Part M about accessible entrances though. A step 'for a reason' is not compliant. A stepped entrance to a dwelling should only be there as an exceptional circumstance.
In exceptional circumstances, where it is not practicable to provide a level entry to a dwelling, one or more steps may be used. This may arise where there is insufficient space between the point of access and the entrance of the dwelling to provide a suitable level landing because of the need to conform to the existing building line or where the entrance storey does not contain at least one habitable room.
None of the examples given as justification for the step apply to Blessington, so don't go tripping yourself up there in the mad rush to make excuses for Bannon again.
0 -
Advertisement
-
That's exactly what you said. Moving the goalposts after scoring an OG is pointless really.
0 -
And when you say "exactly what you said", you mean "not exactly what you said" but how I misinterpreted what you said.
0 -
I'm simply pointing ridiculous and incorrect statements you've made, none of that involves twisting any of you words. . "Beyond the regs" is literally what you said. I even gave you the benefit of doubt that you actually meaning TGD not regs, (to highlight you silly pedantry). But you doubled down on it 🤣.
Post 307..."which go considerably beyond building regs. If adherence with building regs is the best you can do, it's time to find a new career."
A solution that is "beyond the regs", and is not "adherence with building regs" is a terrible design, and illegal (as other posters pointed out). We both know you meant TGDs, and I clearly said TGD are not the target. But by all means but by all means dig in deeper.
I've never claimed that these stairs are not compliant with regs.
So you said. And as I point out, it was a lie then, and its still a lie now. I guess I'll have to find the post to remind you.
See Post#109 and Post#163 (linked for your embarrassment). Both in response to people who said the stairs were compliant.
So No, it's not in compliance with Part K TGD
and
Actually, it's not down to me. It's down to the architect to confirm that it DOES comply with regulations, which it doesn't.
You have presented nothing but your opinion that a lump of plywood is actually a handrail. There are no specifications, but there are requirements that it can be "readily gripped by the hand" and "safely used". Which of lump of plywood can't.
I'm half expecting an nonsensical claim that saying it doesn't comply with TGD doesn't mean it doesn't comply with the regs. Nonsense, because in this case that exactly what the TGD mean. As you just said the TGDs are minimum compliance, falling short of the TGD does not meet the regs.
UD guidelines are appropriate EVERYWHERE. We're all getting old. We're all going to have some or other form of disability.
No they are not. Anyone with a competent knowledge of UD understands why. Like the NDA... who do not recommended those guidelines to be used everywhere. They understand they come with limitations, especially in relation to an attic conversion, which is nothing to do with number of handrails. Speaking of which, I didn't say the drawings were posted in this tread, they were posted else where on the forum last week. If you interpreted it as this thread, that's your incorrect assumption.
I'd have thought the above was common sense. But apparently not. So I should probably probably point out that designing every home to fully accessible UD+ standard would also be terrible for the same reasons. They recommended a tiered approach for a reason.
Don't make me quote your comment about Blessington for a second time. It's in your post, right after where you said that you couldn't comment about Blessington.
You haven't quoted it for a first time. If you foolishly mean the part I referenced above, I'll happily repeated it. "As I haven't seen it. But given the misunderstandings here. I would[n't] be surprised if they also apply." Nothing in that sentence is a comment about the design in Blessington, and no part of it requires me to have seen the episode. It's a comment of the misunderstandings of laypeople. A comment that was, as it turns out, accurate (although that's not relevant to my lack of surprise).
You seem to have missed some key details from Part M about accessible entrances though. A step 'for a reason' is not compliant. A stepped entrance to a dwelling should only be there as an exceptional circumstance.
Once again demonstrating your lack of understand and inability to read the TGDs correctly. I'll explain you you, although this is the last time, otherwise it's essentially trolling.
That exceptional circumstance is referring to steps, without provision of an accompanying ramp or level entry (as you might find in a Georgian Terrace). That is obvious if you actually read that section n M P in full and no out of context. Did you really thing that stairs found everywhere in the public domain are not compliant with Part M? 🤯
If you read that whole section (3.2.2) is spelled out pretty clearly, with a definition for level entry, and criteria for steps (steps you claim are not allowed under part M, derp!)
External steps should comply with the guidance given in Section 3.1
The entrance should be provided with a level entry i.e. with maximum threshold height of 15 mm
The requirement is to provide accessible pathway and a level entryway. The level entry is the landing and doorway at the top of the ramp. The ramp is the accessible path of travel to that landing. Pretty Straightforward. Would a fully level seamless entry be better. Of course. But its absolutely insanity to say a combined steps and a ramp is not compliant. This is not making excuses for the design, this is simply pointing out your claims are wrong, again.
If you look around you, you'll see many buildings with combined ramped and stepped approach, it's extremely common and these buildings obviously have DACs. Literally everything you just was was misinformed, dunning kruger in fully effect. I'm done with the ELI5.
1 -
Eh, dwellings don't have Disability Access Certs, so I've absolutely no idea why you're referencing non-dwelling buildings as relevant precedents in this discussion. The 'exceptional circumstances' clause only applies to dwellings, so examples from non-dwellings with DACs have no relevance here.
I'm starting to see what's going on here. You did a one-day course on Universal Design or similar a few years back. Maybe it was a virtual course and your attention was elsewhere. Maybe the presenter wasn't great, but whatever happened, you certainly didn't get the very real benefits of Universal Design, which is a bit of a shame for you.
You've literally been twisting my words, turning 'official Government guidance' into 'the official Government guidance', not something I ever said.
I see you've appointed yourself as unofficial spokesperson for the NDA again! You might want to catch up with what they actually said about using UD.
[quote]Given the wide diversity of the population, a universal design approach, which caters for the broadest range of users from the outset, can result in buildings and places that can be used and enjoyed by everyone. That approach eliminates or reduces the need for expensive changes or retro fits to meet the needs of particular groups at a later stage.[/quote]
No one is suggesting that every home is designed to UD+ standards, that's another of many strawmen from you. In every building, designers absolutely should apply UD design where that is feasible and sensible, such as stair widths.
If you don't have access to the drawings, please just say so. You don't need to keep making excuses.
Yes, there IS a definition of level entry in the TGD. That's exactly the standard that Bannon failed to comply with in Blessington, by including a step and ramps, on a new build, where he was in full control of the site. The requirement is to have level entry, not steps, not ramps, but level entry - except in 'exceptional circumstances' which are defined, and don't apply to this case. CEUD guidance refers to level entry as 'step free', not 'step with ramp'. Bannon slaps in an oul ramp and steps (with, dare I say it, no handrails on either) and walks away, not a care in the world for the fate of the two elderly residents. Fascinating though how you seem to think you're qualified to rewrite the TGD, adding in your own clauses and explanations to suit your purpose.
1 -
so I've absolutely no idea why you're referencing non-dwelling buildings as relevant precedents in this discussion.
This whole thread has bee nan essay on all the things you don't know. I guess I as expect a bit much to grasp that. I thought that was pretty simple.
I point of DACs To highlight the public buildings with steps and ramps are compliant with Part M. Try to remember that for later. Clue:⚠️
I'm starting to see what's going on here. You did a one-day course on Universal Design or similar a few years back.
You think that what you like. But the reality is, I am a professional working in this industry. You are not. If you've a one day, or even two day course. Good for you. That's absolutely worthless professionally. You've proven that repeatedly that your grasp of the building regs and TGDs in insufficient.
I see you've appointed yourself as unofficial spokesperson for the NDA again! You might want to catch up with what they actually said about using UD.
The NDA are about a dozen or so people. I'm not their spokeperson, not claimed to be. The above is simply another demonstration of your ignorance on the topic. The part you quoted says nothing about 100% of houses being UD houses. I referenced this already, but its takes a few goes with you. Here is a link to their policy statement.
The overall framework of Housing for All is committed to ensuring that affordable, quality housing with an appropriate mix of housing design types provided within social housing, including universally designed units...
...The NDA recommends that the 30% of all new dwellings being built as Universal Design homes should split as follows: 20% UD and 10% UD+.
Note that last part aligns with the actually government policy (Dept of Housing).
In every building, designers absolutely should apply UD design where that is feasible and sensible, such as stair widths.
You think a UD design attic conversion is sensible. Maybe you should actually read the guidelines for a UD stairs. Instead if pointing the finger at other, maybe start at home. Does you stairs not meet UD guidelines? Statistically, probably not.
If you can't figure out how to use the search to find the drawings, you could look them up. The planning drawings, like all planning drawings are available on the relevant council website. So we all have access to them, so idea why you think I wouldn't.
That's exactly the standard that Bannon failed to comply with in Blessington, by including a step and ramps, on a new build, where he was in full control of the site. The requirement is to have level entry, not steps, not ramps, but level entry - except in 'exceptional circumstances' which are defined, and don't apply to this case.
I literally explained why this logic was wrong in my last post. Please re-read. If I have to keep teaching you the same thing over any over, I should probably start invoicing. Remember this symbol earlier⚠️. Remember how steps and ramps are compliant in public buildings, which have a more onerous part M requirement. Therefore, a ramp with steps is
CEUD guidance refers to level entry as 'step free', not 'step with ramp'.
Which has nothing to do with the TGD part M. As you well know. You quoted the TGD, not UD guidelines. Was that really you best argument? You can't even keep up with your own posts now.
Fascinating though how you seem to think you're qualified to rewrite the TGD, adding in your own clauses and explanations to suit your purpose.
I didn't add anything of my own. That was a copy and paste. As you well know, as we both know that you've checked it. Ironically you are the one misquoting the TGD. Whether through incompetence or ignorance is irrelevant.
Do you actually think this playing dumb act reflects well on your credibility here? And it's clearly an act. If you want to play dumb and ignorant, go for it. But only makes you look dumb and ignorant.
You been proven wrong at every turn. And been caught out in multiple lies now ("I've never claimed that these stairs are not compliant with reg" 🤣🤣🤣) I think when somebody is openly lying like that, and skipping over the points that prove them wrong, there is nothing left to debate. It's become a pathetic bad faith argument. At this point you know you are wrong.
0 -
Advertisement
-
Hmm, maybe I went a bit too fast. I'll take it a bit more slowly and see if you can work it out.
The TGD requirements for dwellings and non-dwellings are different. That's why they have different sections. There are certainly some overlaps, but they're different. To show " public buildings with steps and ramps are compliant with Part M" tells you nothing about dwellings. The 'exceptional circumstances' condition quoted earlier, the one that you tried to rewrite by adding your (and only your) "steps, without provision of an accompanying ramp or level entry", applies only to dwellings, and not to non-dwellings. So DACs and pretty pictures of non-dwellings with ramps and steps have no relevance to this discussion, though it's obviously a measure of your desperate clutching at straws to find any support for your propagation of dangerous practices. And you repeating your mistaken conclusions about the relevance of non-dwellings to dwellings isn't 'teaching' anyone anything, except maybe those who want to judge your own level of understanding.
No one said anything about "100% of houses being UD houses" except you, Mr Strawman extraordinaire. Making sure that a stairway can accommodate dual handrails is not 'being a UD house'. It is applying a one simple UD approach, one that will probably have negligible cost impact when done as part of an initial design, and can save considerable costs later.
How would I have access to planning drawings on the Council website, unless I knew the address of the property? Jeez, have you ever done this before, like?
That's a big oul dozen they have in the NDA though; https://nda.ie/about/who-we-are/nda-staff 🤣🤣🤣
1 -
I didn't add anything to the condition. The "steps, without provision of an accompanying ramp or level entry" was an explanation for you, as clearly you have trouble understanding. Or rather are is pretending to.
Did I not point out, public and private requirements are different? Providing a level entry is one of the rather obvious areas of overlap. You've tried to claim steps with a ramp is not a level entry. You can't even keep up with you own nonsense.
The 'exceptional circumstances' you quoted, does not apply. As i've already explained; It's not complicated.
In exceptional circumstances, where it is not practicable to provide a level entry to a dwelling....
A ramp to a landing with <15mm threshold is a level entry. Therefore the rest of that section does not apply. 🤣 CEUD guidelines doe not apply to the TGD. Run along now, you've proven your incompetence enough.
Are you going to try claim you never said it wasn't compliant with part M, and you repeatedly did with the stairs - only to be shown up as a liar.
0 -
-
Was there a handrail?
It didn’t help anyway?
0 -
I always find it funny when you add in extra bits, and then deny adding in extra bits. You added "steps, without provision of an accompanying ramp or level entry" to the TGD description and then went on about Georgian buildings for some reason. There's not too many Georgian buildings being built these days.
Once again, I can only repeat that the 'exceptional circumstances' clause refers to dwellings and only dwellings. It refers to developments that come under the building regs - new builds and material alterations - not to buildings that were built hundreds of of years ago. You know all this, presumably, but you're trying to create a fog of confusion to cover things up.
A ramp isn't level entry. A ramp is what you put in when you don't have level entry. If you have level entry, you don't need a ramp. It's not complicated.
0 -
...
4 -
I wasn’t gona, but since the idiots keep it active ….This is cool 😎
Mall stairs..
https://x.com/gunsnrosesgirl3/status/1760941520704684293?s=46&t=ArOMgLfyFb29yHHAtEzpGA
0 -
Cool, but dangerous for many people - anyone who doesn't like heights, anyone who doesn't have good vision, anyone who isn't paying attention. Classic form over function.
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Dangerous stairs are the safest.
Edit;
to elaborate, I don't mean broken/rotten steps or handrails that catch you out on an otherwise regular stairs, but stairs you realise you have to be careful on. Maybe too steep or short/worn threads ( or God forbid, no handrail).
We moved house a few years back, old house had the lower newel post in front of the bottom step, new house newel post was behind the bottom step, both simple straight stairs. So, complancency, absent mindedness, wine whatever- broken pelvic bone, despite having negotiated the new stairs for a couple of months.
Post edited by chooseusername on0 -
Nah. It has a handrail so the all is balanced is the world.
0 -
You are wrong. A ramp with a landing counts as a level entry. Just like an inclined driveway with a landing is a level entry. It’s that simple
I didn’t add anything to the TGD. I explained it for you. You can choose to not accept that explanation. But you’re wrong 😂
Post edited by Mellor on0 -
ICYMI, Renko is never wrong .... 😂
1 -
You can keep repeating your restatement as often as you like, that doesn't make it right. The TGD is crystal clear and doesn't need any restatement from you.
Let's remind ourselves what the TGD says;
In exceptional circumstances, where it is not practicable to provide a level entry to a dwelling, one or more steps may be used. This may arise where there is insufficient space between the point of access and the entrance of the dwelling to provide a suitable level landing because of the need to conform to the existing building line or where the entrance storey does not contain at least one habitable room.
There were none of those exceptional circumstances in the house in Blessington, yet Bannon still stuck in a big ol step there.
0 -
The TGD is crystal clear, that you are incorrect. That part you quote literally highlights where you are wrong. 😂
(d) In exceptional circumstances, where it is not practicable to provide a level entry to a dwelling...
Exceptional circumstances refers to dwellings without a level entry. That doesn't apply here because a ramped access route to a level landing is a level entry under TGD M, as I've already explained that.
Ramped and sloped access routes are cover under 3.1. You are quoting 3.2.2 (d). Maybe you should have tried to understand (a), (b) & (c) first, as they are the requirements for a accessible, level entry. (the journey prior to that being the approach covered in 3.1). TGD text below, you really should have read it before making ridiculous claims.
Where an accessible entrance is provided:
(a) There should be a clear level area at least 1200 mm wide and at least 1200 mm deep in front of every accessible entrance.
(b) The entrance should be provided with a level entry i.e. with maximum threshold height of 15 mm with exposed edges chamfered or pencil rounded;
(c) The minimum effective clear opening width of the entrance door should be 800 mm
But feel free to continue to demonstrate the dunning kruger effect for us.
1
