Handrails on stairs necessary?

Francis McM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121690465#Comment_121690465

You change you notification preferences by clicking on the tab on the top right of the page, and then clicking on "notification preferences".

It is quite an interesting topic as there is a certain vagueness in the Irish regs, and it is indisputable that the stairs in Cashel are not as safe as they could or should be. It is of interest to some of us who may know people who have fallen down stairs and been seriously injured, or even just to those of us who have friends or relatives who are elderly, may have MS or injuries, may sometimes carry kids or laundry while descending those narrow "kite winder" stairs corners ( inner tread width of only a few inches) etc.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121689262#Comment_121689262

100% agree with you. I think the vast majority of professional architects and stair designers would agree with you too.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121690249#Comment_121690249

A 10 minute glance is not a considerable amount of time. Many of the posters here are professionals, architects, engineers, etc, like your friends.

Saying it could be safer is irrelevant, nobody has disputed that. The question was only compliance. The safest option is no stairs at all.

eg the bit where it say: Circular handrail 32 to 45mm diameter ; non circular handrail 50mm wide and 39mm deep having rounded edges, 15mm radius etc.

Thats not a requirement for handrails in dwellings in Ireland or the UK. It applies to public buildings only, and it’s in both Irish and UK regs for public stairs.

Francis McM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121690586#Comment_121690586

Safety is very relevant : stairs in newly constructed buildings should be at least as safe as in the vast majority of existing buildings.

The professional I know said he spent 10 minutes looking up regs and he thought it did not comply: certainly he said it should be made safer.

I spent hours looking at the regs. On part.1.31 it says

"within the entrance story of a dwelling, if a flight comprises three or more risers, provide a suitable continuous handrails

(a) on each side of the flight

(b) on each side of any intermediate landings

FJMC

I once referenced UK Regs to support a proposed solution on a Building Regs issue with a Building Control Officer - he gave me very short shrift on the matter as a result!

F

Francis McM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121690754#Comment_121690754

+1.. My understanding from someone who built a house over there, who who had visits from building control officers, is that they enforce the regs.

There is no bending the rules / cloudiness or "ah sure it'll do" attitude like there may be here. I suppose they are right, so many people a year have accidents, and we have had enough cases like mica, priory hall, national childrens hospital etc where things were not done very well.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121691045#Comment_121691045

So then we can assume that all the stairs linked to are compliant in the UK.

Gumbo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121690739#Comment_121690739

Very unprofessional for your friend to spend 10 minutes looking at a document he/she doesn’t understand and form an opinion based on that.

Also very strange that you have this “professional” friend that you can casually call up and ask this question to, yet you started a thread to get the answer.

Me thinks there’s porkies somewhere.

Can you link to section 1.3.1 please as the Irish Regulations appear to finish at 1.27 and then straight into section 2.

FJMC

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121691045#Comment_121691045

I've used local authority Building Control and private Building Control over there in the past and it very much depends on the personnel you get on any project - I've had good and bad experiences. They have had their Priory Halls, etc. as well - you only have to read some of the Grenfell Inquiry evidence on Building Control to realise that it is far from perfect.

You will see a lot of UK house porn projects featured in magazines and on TV where stairs, etc. look as though they do not fully comply with regulations.

My view would be that the RTI stairs do comply with the relevant building regulations (TGD K) - but bear in mind that the regs / guidance are generally a minimum standard not a maximum - if a client wants a specific handrail type provided to their stairs or additional balustrading they could agree that in design proposals with their architect or designer. Many of the standard handrails you see on traditional stair balustrades could be described as not easily gripped - especially for children, anyone with smaller hands, anyone with disabilities, etc. Traditional handrails on traditional stairs are often interrupted by fairly large newel posts where you have to let go of the handrail at the point where you negotiate a turn on the stairs or change to winders, etc. - yet they will be deemed compliant.

Are the RTI stairs compliant - Yes.

Could stairs be made safer - Yes.

F

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121691725#Comment_121691725

Anyone who think planning is a nirvana over in the UK should have a look at a few youtube channels. The Restoration Couple's debacle with planning is pull your hair out stuff and still not resolved.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121690532#Comment_121690532

To put it simply, you haven't been paying attention to the detail.

I never said that Part M apply to a stairs to bedrooms in a dwelling. Part M is indeed minimum requirements which is exactly why should be looking for more than bare compliance.

A key part is to indeed ensure ease of conversion if required, which is exactly why the stair needs to be wide enough to accommodate two proper handrails. You're making my point for me.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121691991#Comment_121691991

Hold on Andrew, ease up on the back-pedalling for a sec.

Apparently you’re saying now “the point is to allow ease of conversion”. Which is literally what I’ve explaining to you for multiple posts. But your last post, you said;

The whole ethos of Part M and Universal Design is about designing for everyone from day one.

Designing for everyone for day one, is not allowing for future conversion. So you're abandoned your original point and are trying to play off mine (that you repeatedly disagreed with) as what you meant. That's as close to an admission that you were wrong that we'll get. Thanks I guess.

which is exactly why the stair needs to be wide enough to accommodate two proper handrails. You're making my point for me.

I literally explained that to you in the very first post 🙄. As I said then, it's a non issue. It's a trivial to allow for this in a new build, (a renovation of a much older property will come with latent conditions of course).

That stair width does not look to be wide enough to accommodate handrails on both sides.

Does it not? Previously, you pointed out that you were not claiming to know the width of the stairs. But you seem confident that it's not wide enough.

So the obvious Q, is how wide does the stairs need to be to allow future provision handrails on both sides? What is the required dimension, that this stairs is falling short of. Obviously you must have a number in mind if you think it's insufficient. what it is?

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121690739#Comment_121690739

Nobody said safety in buildings was not relevant. Please stop with the really poor attempts at strawmaning. It's not relevant to this discussion whether the stairs could be safer. As nobody has disputed that (a fully accessible stair is a higher threshold). The contentious point is soley whether it is compliant.

The professional/architect you know had to look up the regs, he didn't already have an understanding. That's very odd. Either a) he's not involved with that aspect of technical design, or b)that simply didn't happen. In either case, his opinion isn't very relevant is it?

You may have spend hours looking at the regs, but obviously given all the mistakes you made. As it appears you are still quoting the UK guidance. That requirement does not apply to a stairs up to a bedroom as it's not within the entrance story. And as I know you incorrectly bring up the handrail diagram next, let me save you the bother.

So you looked at the regs (the UK regs, not the Irish bizarrely) for hours, but missed the really obvious "See para. 1.36" in the corner. Seeing as you missed it, I'll post that for you too;

• For buildings other than dwellings
• 1.36 Provide handrails in accordance with all of the following (in addition to paragraph 1.34).
• g. Use the handrail profile shown in Diagram 1.13., and

So this UK handrail diagram that you repeatedly insisted was the UK's superior definition, does not apply to dwellings. So maybe you should have spent a few more hours before arrogantly claiming to know more that others.

The actual dwelling requirement is;

a. Position the top of the handrail 900mm to 1000mm from the pitch line or floor.

b. The handrail may form the top of a guarding if you can match the heights.

Pretty vague, pretty subjective. I'm still not sure why we are fixated on the UK guidance. So for completeness here's the Irish TGD of the above;

https://i.imgur.com/NWXKc9k.png

Oh look at that, it's incredibly similar, is more restrictive, and includes additional requirement for safety and accessibility (turndown/turn-in). It also only applies to buildings other than dwellings being taken from section 1.

The actual dwelling requirement is;

a. The top surface of the handrail should be between 900 mm and 1000 mm measured vertically above the pitch line,

b. A handrail may form the top of the guarding if the height is suitable

c. The handrail should be be capable of being readily gripped by hand

So the Irish regs are not lax compared to the UK regs as you claimed, they are basically the same as I pointed very early on. No idea what your fixation was with the UK. But there is noting there that the plywood guarding would not comply with in the UK. The Irish regs is the that has more elaborate text, but "readily gripped by hand" is subjective. A set of dimension would be much less subject to personal ability, but because this requirement is only for private stairs, they actively against a universal requirement and let user ability dictate compliance. Therefore is also complies in Ireland.

Francis McM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121693157#Comment_121693157

Look at page 23 of the UK building regs

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a79b642e5274a684690b8f0/2077370.pdf

On page 23 There is a headline " Handrails for Stairs."

It then says immediately below that:

1.31

within the entrance story of a dwelling, if a flight comprises three or more risers, provide a suitable continuous handrails

(a) on each side of the flight

(b) on each side of any intermediate landings

Then 1.32 says "for buildings other than dwellings..."

Look at the definition of handrail anywhere: most people could not see a handrail on either side of the stairs in Cashel, never mind on both sides.

And not not tell us it was not a dwelling: it is a dwelling.

We know the house in Cashel is a dwelling, and it is in Ireland, not the UK. For Ireland, Yes, a handrail may form the top of the guarding if the height is suitable. There is no rail on the top of the guarding in Cashel. See definition of handrail. If there was a handrail, Yes the top surface of the handrail should be between 900 mm and 1000 mm. What height is the top of the guarding in Cashel: it looks higher than that?  In any case, the handrail should be be capable of being readily gripped by hand - that is certainly open to debate as it has relatively sharp edges and is not designed as a handrail. In any case, there is no handrail on the other side of the stairs either.

Then you say "It's not relevant to this discussion whether the stairs could be safer."!!! The topic is about safety on stairs / "Handrails on stairs necessary"? I do not care if you work in a company associated with the house in Cashel or not. 280 people a year have died from falls in Ireland alone ( not UK), with many more injured. If you are involved in designing or building you should think of those who may have MS, ankle injuries, be elderly, have vision difficulties, be carrying a child or laundry or be careless or drunk etc. You are too interested in making as much money as possible from your construction work rather than making things safer?

If you knew someone seriously injured as a result of a fall you would be more inclined to want to veer towards good and safer design, methinks.

FJMC

I think the UK Regs are a moot point - but the example above is taken from an earlier draft consultation version of AD K - it never made it into the final version - the 2013 Edition. There was a variation of 1.31 retained in AD K - it became 1.37 and was edited to clarify what was meant by risers in the entrance storey...

"1.37 In exceptional circumstances where severely sloping plots are involved, a stepped change of level within the entrance storey may be unavoidable. In those instances, if a flight comprises three or more risers, provide a suitable continuous handrail in accordance with both of the following.

a) On each side of the flight

b) On each side of any intermediate landings."

The original question is whether the RTI stairs would be compliant with Irish Regs - I think they are.

The discussion went off as to whether the UK Regs were more onerous - I don't think they are.

The discussion also went off as to whether the RTI stairs could be safer - I think they could.

F

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121693071#Comment_121693071

Designing for everyone absolutely IS about ease of conversion. You've interpreted it incorrectly.

Designing for everyone doesn't mean fitting every possible feature from day one. It means designing so that features can be added as required without doing major structural changes - making sure stairs and doors are wide enough, making sure services for wet room are available downstairs, making sure bedroom ceiling can take a hoist - all about enabling later adaptations as required.

Official government guidance specifically refers to an incremental approach;

https://universaldesign.ie/built-environment/housing

UD guidelines recommend 900mm clear width between handrails, which seems like a good target. The stairs that I saw looked to be a good bit off that.

Do you think there's 900mm between the non-existent handrails here?

Could well be about 150mm short of that by the looks of it.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121693975#Comment_121693975

The dimension of a handrail, for a dwelling, are not defined anywhere in the Irish TGD, nor the UK Guidance. You insisted the diagram above was the definition. It's not, hopefully you grasp that now. When something is undefined, it is open to all options, including a 50mm rectangular profile (Cashel).

As I said, I rather there was a definition for dwellings, but there isn't. And compliance only concerns the actual regs.

within the entrance story of a dwelling, if a flight comprises three or more risers, provide a suitable continuous handrails

The stairs to be bedrooms is not within the entrance story, It is the stair to the upper story. None of that applies, As I explained above. FJMC reexplained above. You keep jumping to a new section of the document an misinterpreted in. You are incorrect, again.

 Yes the top surface of the handrail should be between 900 mm and 1000 mm. What height is the top of the guarding in Cashel: it looks higher than that? ....

In any case, there is no handrail on the other side of the stairs either.

I doubt its higher than 1000mm. And I doubt you work in design or construction if that's your estimate.

There also doesn't need to be a handrail on the other side unless it is over 1,000mm. Once and demonstrating that you have not read the TGD properly.

"It's not relevant to this discussion whether the stairs could be safer."!!! The topic is about safety on stairs / "Handrails on stairs necessary"? I do not care if you work in a company associated with the house in Cashel or not.

It's not relevant to the discussion. No single person has argued that the stair could be safer. Of course they could be safer. And I guarantee if your stairs could too, if you have one. Most dwellings are nowhere near accessible standards. If your handrail an accessible profile? probably not.

First you accused me on not reading the TGDs (lol). Now you're accusing me for working for the company involved. Absolutely pathetic, just because I've proved all of your claims wrong.

If you are involved in designing or building you should think of those who may have MS, ankle injuries, be elderly, have vision difficulties

If the design is multi-res, or speculative housing then all of those things are considered, obviously. This was a home for a young couple who were not elderly, did not have MS, were not blind. That should be pretty simple.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121697485#Comment_121697485

I'm the one who said it's about ease of conversion, that's the goal of part M. You're repeating my own point back to me again, which is a little silly. Look around, we've accessible design to posters around here for years, why a one-off needs a wheelchair accessible ground floor, even if the owner is not in a wheelchair. So no, I'm not interpreting it incorrectly. And I'm not a layperson pretending to know the regs (like others here).

Designing for everyone doesn't mean fitting every possible feature from day one. It means designing so that features can be added as required without doing major structural changes - making sure stairs and doors are wide enough, making sure services for wet room are available downstairs, making sure bedroom ceiling can take a hoist - all about enabling later adaptations as required.

I mentioned add-on like that previously. Wet rooms, grab rails etc. All of those add-ons are covered by Part M, those are the regs.

Official government guidance specifically refers to an incremental approach;

https://universaldesign.ie/built-environment/housing

Incorrect. That's not the official guidance. The official government guidance are the TGDs.

That UD guidance is from the National Disability Authority, for a portion of houses to be a higher level. Portion being a key word. The NDA's recommendation is in new Developments, for 30% of homes to be UD Homes. It is not intended to be a recommendation for All homes (and would be not great design to try do that). Certainly it's absolutely nothing to be with refurbishing existing homes, as we have here. It's worth while topic, and I'm happy to discuss what it means for irish house, but that's another thread, and this one is already miles off topic.

UD guidelines recommend 900mm clear width between handrails, which seems like a good target. The stairs that I saw looked to be a good bit off that.

Do you think there's 900mm between the non-existent handrails here? Could well be about 150mm short of that by the looks of it.

UD recommends 900mm minimum clear, (and multiple other requirements for chair lifts etc)

The actual requirement is 800mm min clear after both handrails. Allowing for a wall rail, 900-950mm is typical. (going too far past 100cm is less idea in a dwelling imo).

It's very hard to estimate from a screenshot, angles are deceiving. But it's definitely not 750mm as you guess. That would be completely non compliant, and would much narrower compared to the rise. I'd say that stairs is approaching 900mm. Scaling visually, from the obviously high rise. As it happens, the plans were posted on another thread last week. We don't need to guess, could simply check.

If that were the case, if they in future wanted dual rails. They could fit a part M profile to the wall, and on top on the guard, and would lose 90mm from the width.

They would still be many suboptimal aspects of the stairs. Rise is high, going is short, kite winders. But it's a retrofit second story in a bungalow. You often have to make allowances in that situation. A high-rise tower atrium stair is a very different set of parameters.

Francis McM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121697485#Comment_121697485

Looking at those pictures, I think it is a stretch to claim the top edge of the vertical plywood is a "handrail". Thanks for posting the pictures.

A handrail is usually defined as " a rail fixed to posts or a wall for people to hold on to for support." or "  a long, narrow bar of wood or metal that people can hold on to for support" or " a long piece of metal or wood which is fixed near stairs or places where people could slip and fall".

The actual dwelling requirement is;

a. The top surface of the handrail should be between 900 mm and 1000 mm measured vertically above the pitch line,

b. A handrail may form the top of the guarding if the height is suitable

c. The handrail should be be capable of being readily gripped by hand

In any case, I do not think the edge of the plywood could be "readily gripped by hand", especially by a person who may trip of be falling down those kite winder steps on the corner ( steps much narrower - say only a few inches wide on one side ) , or if the person was elderly or had MS, sprained ankle, be drunk, careless or carrying child or laundry etc.

Certainly if I paid over 700k for a house with a stairs ( essentially a new build ), I would expect a handrail fitted, no excuses.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121698920#Comment_121698920

Certainly if I paid over 700k for a house

You didn't.

Francis McM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121699039#Comment_121699039

You are correct I didn't pay 700k for a house without a handrail. All houses I know have handrails. Read it again. I wrote " Certainly if I paid over 700k for a house with a stairs ( essentially a new build ), I would expect a handrail fitted, no excuses."

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121699114#Comment_121699114

As I said my house has the same type of stairs as the one in Cashel.

I didn't 'expect' a handrail as the solid timber guarding that formed the handrail was safe and compliant.

And there are plenty like me.

Francis McM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121699132#Comment_121699132

If you have solid timber then it may be different to the relatively thin edge of plywood for people to grip to, like the house in Cashel.

If you google stairs, you will see the vast majority of stairs ( 99% ? ) have handrails. You may or may not have, that is fine, I could not care less to be honest.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121699197#Comment_121699197

Mine is two sheets of MDF sandwiched together with a same width solid wood banding strip on the top edge. All finished in paint.

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121699197#Comment_121699197

"Relatively thin" does not equal non-compliant.

"Vast majority" does not mean the others are non-compliant.

"99%?% does not mean the other 1%, including the house in Cashel, are non-compliant.

You don't like the design, that's fine. It's not your house. You don't think they're compliant, that's fine. Your opinion of them means nothing. You have absolutely no basis on which to continue complaining about this.

Francis McM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121699230#Comment_121699230

There are some things in the house I do like. You are correct that "relatively thin", "vast majority" etc by itself does not mean much: I believe now that the main reason the stairs do not meet regs is because the edge of the plywood could not be "readily gripped by hand"...as I said, especially by a person who may trip of be falling down those kite winder steps on the corner ( steps much narrower - say only a few inches wide on one side ) , or if the person was elderly or had MS, sprained ankle, be drunk, careless or carrying child or laundry etc.

I know a few people seriously injured in falls: at least now we have a better understanding of what could / should be done. Thank you.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121699289#Comment_121699289

All deflection and personal opinion. I think this done now. Just recycling the same old same old

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121699289#Comment_121699289

Your "belief" that the handrails aren't compliant does not mean they're not compliant.

What "could/should" have been done means nothing if the handrails are compliant which you haven't proven that they're not. Because again, your opinion is irrelevant in this regard.

The stairs are compliant. You need to build a bridge, with however many handrails along the side as you want, and get over it.

Francis McM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121699344#Comment_121699344

Not just my belief, but that of others too.

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121699517#Comment_121699517

Does not matter. None of you are the designers, contractors or specialists, and as evident by your previous posts, not a building professional either. You have had several people here who are construction professionals from different professional groups who have pointed out repeatedly, at length, why they're compliant.

Your belief on what they did do, should have done, could have done, what you would have done etc, is only an opinion and does not change the fact that the works as completed are compliant, and you have not at any stage been able to demonstrate that they're not.

This is it

I can't believe this is still going... 😂