I read that staircases should have a maximum pitch of 42°. I presume
this is a buildings reg. Can anyone tell me when this reg was
introduced, or to put it another way, was it introduced before 1980?

--
Chris

Chris Hogg wrote:

> I read that staircases should have a maximum pitch of 42°. I presume
> this is a buildings reg. Can anyone tell me when this reg was
> introduced, or to put it another way, was it introduced before 1980?

You might start looking at "The Building Regulations 1976"

Stairs were then covered in Part H (later they moved to Part K)
unfortunately it's a scratchy scanned PDF that hasn't been OCR'ed to
make it searchable ... no figure of 42° leaps off the page to me, but it
defines "pitch angle" so presumably it refers to that somewhere else?

<https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1976/1676/contents/made>

There were amendments in 1978, 1981, 1983, 1985 and a complete rewrite
also in 1985.

On 05/03/2023 06:52, Chris Hogg wrote:
> I read that staircases should have a maximum pitch of 42°. I presume
> this is a buildings reg. Can anyone tell me when this reg was
> introduced, or to put it another way, was it introduced before 1980?
>
domestic pitch was was 42 deg when I started in Building control in
1976.....never changed...escape stairs 38 deg assembly buildings 33 deg
......

On 05/03/2023 08:24, jim.gm4dhj wrote:
> On 05/03/2023 06:52, Chris Hogg wrote:
>> I read that staircases should have a maximum pitch of 42°. I presume
>> this is a buildings reg. Can anyone tell me when this reg was
>> introduced, or to put it another way, was it introduced before 1980?
>>
> domestic pitch was was 42 deg when I started in Building control in
> 1976.....never changed...escape stairs 38 deg assembly buildings 33 deg
> .....
Was in the near of Scotand though...then again englandshire might differ
but I doubt it.....

On 05/03/2023 08:20, Andy Burns wrote:
> Chris Hogg wrote:
>
>> I read that staircases should have a maximum pitch of 42°. I presume
>> this is a buildings reg. Can anyone tell me when this reg was
>> introduced, or to put it another way, was it introduced before 1980?
>
> You might start looking at "The Building Regulations 1976"
>
> Stairs were then covered in Part H (later they moved to Part K)
> unfortunately it's a scratchy scanned PDF that hasn't been OCR'ed to
> make it searchable ... no figure of 42° leaps off the page to me, but it
> defines "pitch angle" so presumably it refers to that somewhere else?
>

It's in "Table to Regulation H3 (Specific requirements for stairways)"

"Building or compartment of purpose group I or III"

"any stairway within a dwelling or serving exclusively one dwelling"

"C. Pitch of flight Not exceeding 42°"

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

Andy Burns wrote:

> no figure of 42° leaps off the page to me

It's in there on page 4320, max 42° for a stair within/serving a single
dwelling, and 38° for a common stair serving multiple dwellings.

Thanks both; very useful.

I don't have immediate access to the staircase in particular so can't
measure the pitch, but it is considered 'rather steep' and may require
replacing. It's in a building with possible public access. I do know
that in 1983 it was widened from 1m to 1.5 metres. I don't know if the
pitch was unchanged at that time, but would simply widening the
staircase have required changing the pitch to bring it into line with
the regulation if it was steeper than 42°?

--
Chris

On 3/5/2023 9:19 AM, Chris Hogg wrote:
> Thanks both; very useful.
>
> I don't have immediate access to the staircase in particular so can't
> measure the pitch, but it is considered 'rather steep' and may require
> replacing. It's in a building with possible public access. I do know
> that in 1983 it was widened from 1m to 1.5 metres. I don't know if the
> pitch was unchanged at that time, but would simply widening the
> staircase have required changing the pitch to bring it into line with
> the regulation if it was steeper than 42°?
>
should have been 38deg

On 05/03/2023 08:20, Andy Burns wrote:
> Chris Hogg wrote:
>
>> I read that staircases should have a maximum pitch of 42°. I presume
>> this is a buildings reg. Can anyone tell me when this reg was
>> introduced, or to put it another way, was it introduced before 1980?
>
> You might start looking at "The Building Regulations 1976"
>
> Stairs were then covered in Part H (later they moved to Part K)
> unfortunately it's a scratchy scanned PDF that hasn't been OCR'ed to
> make it searchable ... no figure of 42° leaps off the page to me, but it
> defines "pitch angle" so presumably it refers to that somewhere else?

Lob me a copy if you want and I can convert it to searchable...

--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

On 05/03/2023 09:11, Robin wrote:
> On 05/03/2023 08:20, Andy Burns wrote:
>> Chris Hogg wrote:
>>
>>> I read that staircases should have a maximum pitch of 42°. I presume
>>> this is a buildings reg. Can anyone tell me when this reg was
>>> introduced, or to put it another way, was it introduced before 1980?
>>
>> You might start looking at "The Building Regulations 1976"
>>
>> Stairs were then covered in Part H (later they moved to Part K)
>> unfortunately it's a scratchy scanned PDF that hasn't been OCR'ed to
>> make it searchable ... no figure of 42° leaps off the page to me, but
>> it defines "pitch angle" so presumably it refers to that somewhere else?
>>
>
> It's in "Table to Regulation H3 (Specific requirements for stairways)"
>
>
> "Building or compartment of purpose group I or III"
>
> "any stairway within a dwelling or serving exclusively one dwelling"
>
> "C. Pitch of flight    Not exceeding 42°"
>
>
>
>
I believe steeper pitches are allowed to access a single (e.g. loft) room

--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.

Al Capone

On 05/03/2023 09:19, Chris Hogg wrote:
> Thanks both; very useful.
>
> I don't have immediate access to the staircase in particular so can't
> measure the pitch, but it is considered 'rather steep' and may require
> replacing. It's in a building with possible public access. I do know
> that in 1983 it was widened from 1m to 1.5 metres. I don't know if the
> pitch was unchanged at that time, but would simply widening the
> staircase have required changing the pitch to bring it into line with
> the regulation if it was steeper than 42°?
>
42 degrees IS pretty steep

Ive only seen it broken in a listed cottage, and it was several hundred
years old.
Building inspector said it wasn't safe and needed replacing with a
shallower angle . Listed building inspector insisted that it was part of
the listing.
In the end the staircase was 'repaired' to original steepness, which
since it didn't constitute a 'material change' was passed by the
building AND listing inspectors!

--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

John Rumm wrote:

> On 05/03/2023 08:20, Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> it's a scratchy scanned PDF that hasn't been OCR'ed to
>> make it searchable ...
>
> Lob me a copy if you want and I can convert it to searchable...

I suppose looking at historic building regs is a bit of a minority
sport, without comparing details, quite a lot was defined by 1976 that
seems to be familiar from the current approved docs.

I don't need it, but if you want to OCR it for the wiki, it came from here

<https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1976/1676/pdfs/uksi_19761676_en.pdf>

On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 13:03:56 +0000, John Rumm
<see.my.signature@nowhere.null> wrote:

>On 05/03/2023 08:20, Andy Burns wrote:
>> Chris Hogg wrote:
>>
>>> I read that staircases should have a maximum pitch of 42°. I presume
>>> this is a buildings reg. Can anyone tell me when this reg was
>>> introduced, or to put it another way, was it introduced before 1980?
>>
>> You might start looking at "The Building Regulations 1976"
>>
>> Stairs were then covered in Part H (later they moved to Part K)
>> unfortunately it's a scratchy scanned PDF that hasn't been OCR'ed to
>> make it searchable ... no figure of 42° leaps off the page to me, but it
>> defines "pitch angle" so presumably it refers to that somewhere else?
>
>Lob me a copy if you want and I can convert it to searchable...

Thanks for the offer, but I've fond the relevant section.

--
Chris

On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 13:20:47 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 05/03/2023 09:19, Chris Hogg wrote:
>> Thanks both; very useful.
>>
>> I don't have immediate access to the staircase in particular so can't
>> measure the pitch, but it is considered 'rather steep' and may require
>> replacing. It's in a building with possible public access. I do know
>> that in 1983 it was widened from 1m to 1.5 metres. I don't know if the
>> pitch was unchanged at that time, but would simply widening the
>> staircase have required changing the pitch to bring it into line with
>> the regulation if it was steeper than 42°?
>>
>42 degrees IS pretty steep

I see that for an 'assembly building' (which arguably this could be
classified as) the pitch should be 33°.

--
Chris

On 05/03/2023 13:16, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 05/03/2023 09:11, Robin wrote:
>> On 05/03/2023 08:20, Andy Burns wrote:
>>> Chris Hogg wrote:
>>>
>>>> I read that staircases should have a maximum pitch of 42°. I presume
>>>> this is a buildings reg. Can anyone tell me when this reg was
>>>> introduced, or to put it another way, was it introduced before 1980?
>>>
>>> You might start looking at "The Building Regulations 1976"
>>>
>>> Stairs were then covered in Part H (later they moved to Part K)
>>> unfortunately it's a scratchy scanned PDF that hasn't been OCR'ed to
>>> make it searchable ... no figure of 42° leaps off the page to me, but
>>> it defines "pitch angle" so presumably it refers to that somewhere else?
>>>
>>
>> It's in "Table to Regulation H3 (Specific requirements for stairways)"
>>
>>
>> "Building or compartment of purpose group I or III"
>>
>> "any stairway within a dwelling or serving exclusively one dwelling"
>>
>> "C. Pitch of flight    Not exceeding 42°"
>>
>>
>>
>>
> I believe steeper pitches are allowed to access a single (e.g. loft) room
>

Although we, like many around here, have a compliant staircase leading
to the fairly recent loft conversion whereas the ground/first floor
staircase in this old house is pretty steep.

The treads seem normal size but have about 3" overhanging the stair
below. Going up is easy, coming down takes more care, particularly
getting the ball of the foot on the tread if you have larger feet.

--
Cheers
Clive

On 05/03/2023 13:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> 42 degrees IS pretty steep
>
> Ive only seen it broken in a listed cottage, and it was several hundred
> years old.
> Building inspector said it wasn't safe and needed replacing with a
> shallower angle . Listed building inspector insisted that it was part of
> the listing.
> In the end the staircase was 'repaired' to original steepness, which
> since it didn't constitute a 'material change' was passed by the
> building AND listing inspectors!
>
I've seen similar - an old crofthouse with an extremely steep staircase,
was being renovated. The staircase was in bad shape, and needed
replacing - but _replacing_ meant needing to meet current standards,
which would have made the ground floor barely usable. The joiner
'repaired' it, which was allowed. The repair involved removing, and
complete rebuilding...

On 05/03/2023 14:09, S Viemeister wrote:
> On 05/03/2023 13:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> 42 degrees IS pretty steep
>>
>> Ive only seen it broken in a listed cottage, and it was several
>> hundred years old.
>> Building inspector said it wasn't safe and needed replacing with a
>> shallower angle . Listed building inspector insisted that it was part
>> of the listing.
>> In the end the staircase was 'repaired' to original steepness, which
>> since it didn't constitute a 'material change' was passed by the
>> building AND listing inspectors!
>>
> I've seen similar - an old crofthouse with an extremely steep staircase,
> was being renovated. The staircase was in bad shape, and needed
> replacing - but _replacing_ meant needing to meet current standards,
> which would have made the ground floor barely usable. The joiner
> 'repaired' it, which was allowed. The repair involved removing, and
> complete rebuilding...

Triggers broom eh?
:-)

I believe there are in fact three 'original' 1932 ferraris that won a
given race in existence. Each one has a bit of the original in it,
enough to qualify as 'original'.
Makes a total mockery of listing regulations, really.
Well i used the original nail that held it to the wall, so its
'repaired' innit?>

Ive been restoring some blown monitor speakers. Most of the problems are
glue failing in the units. and foam surrounds turning to dust.

Ive reglued one voice coil to a tweeter diaphraghmm replaced both mid
range units, apart from an adaptor to fit the original faceplates, and
both bass units have new surrounds, centre domes and spiders and ONE has
a new voice coil but not the other.

Are they original? Sadly not, but they sound nearly as good, and the
cases are nice.

--
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They
always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them"

Margaret Thatcher

On 05/03/2023 13:30, Andy Burns wrote:
> John Rumm wrote:
>
>> On 05/03/2023 08:20, Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>>> it's a scratchy scanned PDF that hasn't been OCR'ed to make it
>>> searchable ...
>>
>> Lob me a copy if you want and I can convert it to searchable...
>
> I suppose looking at historic building regs is a bit of a minority
> sport, without comparing details, quite a lot was defined by 1976 that
> seems to be familiar from the current approved docs.
>
> I don't need it, but if you want to OCR it for the wiki, it came from here
>
> <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1976/1676/pdfs/uksi_19761676_en.pdf>

Ok, included it here:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php/Building_Regulations#Historic_Documents

(as a link to the exiting, and also the OCR version with a text layer)

--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 19:53:57 +0000, John Rumm
<see.my.signature@nowhere.null> wrote:

>On 05/03/2023 13:30, Andy Burns wrote:
>> John Rumm wrote:
>>
>>> On 05/03/2023 08:20, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>
>>>> it's a scratchy scanned PDF that hasn't been OCR'ed to make it
>>>> searchable ...
>>>
>>> Lob me a copy if you want and I can convert it to searchable...
>>
>> I suppose looking at historic building regs is a bit of a minority
>> sport, without comparing details, quite a lot was defined by 1976 that
>> seems to be familiar from the current approved docs.
>>
>> I don't need it, but if you want to OCR it for the wiki, it came from here
>>
>> <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1976/1676/pdfs/uksi_19761676_en.pdf>
>
>Ok, included it here:
>
>http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php/Building_Regulations#Historic_Documents
>
>(as a link to the exiting, and also the OCR version with a text layer)

Thanks John. OOI, what OCR software do you use?

--
Chris

John Rumm wrote:

> Ok, included it here:
>
> http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php/Building_Regulations#Historic_Documents

yes that works, you really have to search for "42°" because just
searching for "42" matches all the page numbers in the 4200 to 4299 range!

John Rumm wrote:

> http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php/Building_Regulations#Historic_Documents

Browsing it a bit more, Schedule 6 seems to include info that I don't
recall seeing in the current regs, namely span charts for various
species of timber in given applications. Presumably grades like GS,
MGS, SS, MSS predate e.g. C16 and C24 ratings?

On 05/03/2023 13:16, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 05/03/2023 09:11, Robin wrote:
>> On 05/03/2023 08:20, Andy Burns wrote:
>>> Chris Hogg wrote:
>>>
>>>> I read that staircases should have a maximum pitch of 42°. I presume
>>>> this is a buildings reg. Can anyone tell me when this reg was
>>>> introduced, or to put it another way, was it introduced before 1980?
>>>
>>> You might start looking at "The Building Regulations 1976"
>>>
>>> Stairs were then covered in Part H (later they moved to Part K)
>>> unfortunately it's a scratchy scanned PDF that hasn't been OCR'ed to
>>> make it searchable ... no figure of 42° leaps off the page to me, but
>>> it defines "pitch angle" so presumably it refers to that somewhere else?
>>>
>>
>> It's in "Table to Regulation H3 (Specific requirements for stairways)"
>>
>>
>> "Building or compartment of purpose group I or III"
>>
>> "any stairway within a dwelling or serving exclusively one dwelling"
>>
>> "C. Pitch of flight    Not exceeding 42°"
>>
>>
>>
>>
> I believe steeper pitches are allowed to access a single (e.g. loft) room

Loft conversions can in some cases use "space saver" stairs - half way
between a staircase and a ladder. Often with treads that are cut away
alternately - so you have to start on the correct leg! Like:

https://www.loftcentre.co.uk/gamia-mini-space-saving-stair-kit-silver-grey

--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

On 05/03/2023 20:30, Chris Hogg wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 19:53:57 +0000, John Rumm
> <see.my.signature@nowhere.null> wrote:
>
>> On 05/03/2023 13:30, Andy Burns wrote:
>>> John Rumm wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 05/03/2023 08:20, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> it's a scratchy scanned PDF that hasn't been OCR'ed to make it
>>>>> searchable ...
>>>>
>>>> Lob me a copy if you want and I can convert it to searchable...
>>>
>>> I suppose looking at historic building regs is a bit of a minority
>>> sport, without comparing details, quite a lot was defined by 1976 that
>>> seems to be familiar from the current approved docs.
>>>
>>> I don't need it, but if you want to OCR it for the wiki, it came from here
>>>
>>> <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1976/1676/pdfs/uksi_19761676_en.pdf>
>>
>> Ok, included it here:
>>
>> http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php/Building_Regulations#Historic_Documents
>>
>> (as a link to the exiting, and also the OCR version with a text layer)
>
> Thanks John. OOI, what OCR software do you use?

Abbyy Fine reader 14

(not the latest version which seems to have gone subscription only)

(also not sure of it's availability at the moment since the parent
company is Russian!)

--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

On 05/03/2023 20:56, Andy Burns wrote:
> John Rumm wrote:
>
>> http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php/Building_Regulations#Historic_Documents
>
> Browsing it a bit more, Schedule 6 seems to include info that I don't
> recall seeing in the current regs, namely span charts for various
> species of timber in given applications.  Presumably grades like GS,
> MGS, SS, MSS predate e.g. C16 and C24 ratings?

Yup, I think the C ratings have been deferred to a BS doc now.

BS 5268 Structural Use of Timber is probably the one...

--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

In message <tu24vf$vn7i$15@dont-email.me>, at 13:20:47 on Sun, 5 Mar
2023, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> remarked:
>On 05/03/2023 09:19, Chris Hogg wrote:
>> Thanks both; very useful.
>> I don't have immediate access to the staircase in particular so
>>can't
>> measure the pitch, but it is considered 'rather steep' and may require
>> replacing. It's in a building with possible public access. I do know
>> that in 1983 it was widened from 1m to 1.5 metres. I don't know if the
>> pitch was unchanged at that time, but would simply widening the
>> staircase have required changing the pitch to bring it into line with
>> the regulation if it was steeper than 42°?
>>
>42 degrees IS pretty steep
>
>Ive only seen it broken in a listed cottage, and it was several hundred
>years old.
>Building inspector said it wasn't safe and needed replacing with a
>shallower angle . Listed building inspector insisted that it was part
>of the listing.
>In the end the staircase was 'repaired' to original steepness, which
>since it didn't constitute a 'material change' was passed by the
>building AND listing inspectors!

I rented a period holiday cottage last summer, recently renovated, and
the staircase wasn't just significantly steeper than 45 degrees, it had
two right angle bends in it.

The sitting room had a large open fireplace with an alcove between that
and the front wall. The staircase was an anti-clockwise almost spiral
climb wedged into that. And felt very unsafe, especially going down.
--
Roland Perry