On 05/03/2023 21:56, John Rumm wrote:
> 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
>
>

I have something similar but for my garage loft, it has normal treads
rather than half cut treads and the angle on this is something like 65
degrees.... bought really to minimise the amount of garage floor space lost.

https://www.loftcentre.co.uk/dolle-arundel-wooden-space-saving-staircase-kit

The hieght from garage floor to garage loft is something like 2.7 metres
so i had to get a longer set.

I also then fitted chipboard floor to the garage loft and its a useful
storage space now within the roof Fink trusses.

I also fitted a cross beam in the middle of the garage from the left
window lintel into the right party wall of the house and then sistered
the trusses with two sets of proper flooring joists, one set from back
garage wall to the cross beam and then again from cross beam to front of
garage so that the new floor and its contents could be supported properly.

In message <zBa7zxMvAaBkFA0f@perry.uk>, Roland Perry
<roland@perry.co.uk> writes
>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.

There are lots of holiday cottages in Southwold with over steep stairs.
Often conversions where two fishermen's dwellings have been combined.
Building regulations may not have penetrated East Anglia or Waveney DC
thinks the income more important:-)

--
Tim Lamb

On 06/03/2023 09:19, Tim Lamb wrote:

>
> There are lots of holiday cottages in Southwold with over steep stairs.
> Often conversions where two fishermen's dwellings have been combined.
> Building regulations may not have penetrated East Anglia or Waveney DC
> thinks the income more important:-)
>

lawful I think if they've kept an original staircase

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

What about tread width?
Several people say that they feel unsafe on my stairs since the whole of
their foot will not go on it. Well its been like it is since 1939, and 1957
from my knowledge. I guess its what you get used to. We had no stairs in the
flat we lived in before.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Chris Hogg" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:sqe80i1r9u66g8ohbqt9jhg80a07q4lma9@4ax.com...
>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

To get that pitch here, you would need to widen the house by about 6 feet or
more.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Robin" <rbw@outlook.com> wrote in message
news:8ada59dd-919f-3b3c-ac66-aa19eaaae906@outlook.com...
> On 06/03/2023 09:19, Tim Lamb wrote:
>
>>
>> There are lots of holiday cottages in Southwold with over steep stairs.
>> Often conversions where two fishermen's dwellings have been combined.
>> Building regulations may not have penetrated East Anglia or Waveney DC
>> thinks the income more important:-)
>>
>
> lawful I think if they've kept an original staircase
>
> --
> Robin
> reply-to address is (intended to be) valid
>

On 06/03/2023 10:28, Brian Gaff wrote:
> What about tread width?
> Several people say that they feel unsafe on my stairs since the whole of
> their foot will not go on it. Well its been like it is since 1939, and 1957
> from my knowledge. I guess its what you get used to. We had no stairs in the
> flat we lived in before.
> Brian
>
more dangerous is where the going is greater than the tread in an open
rise stair or the nosing is greater tha 15mm

On 06/03/2023 11:19, jim.gm4dhj wrote:
> On 06/03/2023 10:28, Brian Gaff wrote:
>> What about tread width?
>>   Several people say that they feel unsafe on my stairs since the
>> whole of
>> their foot will not go on it. Well its been like it is since 1939, and
>> 1957
>> from my knowledge. I guess its what you get used to. We had no stairs
>> in the
>> flat we lived in before.
>>   Brian
>>
> more dangerous is where the going is greater than the tread in an open
> rise stair or the nosing is greater tha 15mm
or was it 16mm ?

Tim Lamb <tim@marfordfarm.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> There are lots of holiday cottages in Southwold with over steep stairs.
> Often conversions where two fishermen's dwellings have been combined.
> Building regulations may not have penetrated East Anglia or Waveney DC
> thinks the income more important:-)
>
Waveney DC is no longer, it merged with Suffolk Coastal a year or so
ago and became East Suffolk. Guess what, we had East Suffolk about 70
years ago! :-)

--
Chris Green
·

In message <vb1hdj-it8a2.ln1@esprimo.zbmc.eu>, Chris Green <cl@isbd.net>
writes
>Tim Lamb <tim@marfordfarm.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> There are lots of holiday cottages in Southwold with over steep stairs.
>> Often conversions where two fishermen's dwellings have been combined.
>> Building regulations may not have penetrated East Anglia or Waveney DC
>> thinks the income more important:-)
>>
>Waveney DC is no longer, it merged with Suffolk Coastal a year or so
>ago and became East Suffolk. Guess what, we had East Suffolk about 70
>years ago! :-)

Oh! I must tell my son in law who named their middle child after it!
Much of Southwold is in a conservation area anyway.
>

--
Tim Lamb

On 05/03/2023 09:14, Andy Burns wrote:
> 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.

What happens when an old(er) house is converted to flats ?.
The original staircase is normally kept (but enclosed),
and then doesn't meet the regs.

On 06/03/2023 11:19, jim.gm4dhj wrote:
> On 06/03/2023 10:28, Brian Gaff wrote:
>> What about tread width?
>>   Several people say that they feel unsafe on my stairs since the
>> whole of
>> their foot will not go on it. Well its been like it is since 1939, and
>> 1957
>> from my knowledge. I guess its what you get used to. We had no stairs
>> in the
>> flat we lived in before.
>>   Brian
>>
> more dangerous is where the going is greater than the tread in an open
> rise stair or the nosing is greater tha 15mm

I walked from Boxhill and Westhumble station to Boxhill Village
hall last Saturday.

Across the A24, over the stepping 'stones' and up the Box Hill
steps, all 261 of them and no handrail. Would not want to come
down, even in good light but several people passed me, going
down, *jogging*.

The National Trust must have spent a fortune rebuilding all the
steps because they used 2 inch thick rough sawn hardwood for the
side rails and the step verticals, many with 9-10 inch vertical
rise.

On 06/03/2023 08:11, Roland Perry wrote:
> 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.

I bought a loft ladder from Screwfix last week. It arrived with one
rung damaged - and was fitted with two left feet - so rather wobbly.

The replacement had the correct feet but with missing fixtures.

Both of them had the typical, safe-angle sticker on the inner face of
the wrong stile. This (very common) sticker has a thick line on it
indicating the correct angle that the ladder should be used at.

With the sticker as it is, you are instructed to climb, sloth-like, up
the back / underside of the ladder.

I used to think that Screwfix were some good. Not now !

PA

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?
>
The staircases at work are mental, they give me vertigo. They need to be
steep though because the ceiling to floor is 12+ feet.The building is
getting on for 200 years old, weren't people generally shorter then? Why
did they waste bricks?

On 08/03/2023 13:28, R D S 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?
>>
> The staircases at work are mental, they give me vertigo. They need to be
> steep though because the ceiling to floor is 12+ feet.The building is
> getting on for 200 years old, weren't people generally shorter then? Why
> did they waste bricks?

Ceiling height conveyed status in days gone by.

On 08/03/2023 13:48, Fredxx wrote:
> On 08/03/2023 13:28, R D S 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?
>>>
>> The staircases at work are mental, they give me vertigo. They need to
>> be steep though because the ceiling to floor is 12+ feet.The building
>> is getting on for 200 years old, weren't people generally shorter
>> then? Why did they waste bricks?
>
> Ceiling height conveyed status in days gone by.

....and helped in the days of overcrowding and poor ventilation

On 08/03/2023 13:48, Fredxx wrote:
> On 08/03/2023 13:28, R D S 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?
>>>
>> The staircases at work are mental, they give me vertigo. They need to
>> be steep though because the ceiling to floor is 12+ feet.The building
>> is getting on for 200 years old, weren't people generally shorter
>> then? Why did they waste bricks?
>
> Ceiling height conveyed status in days gone by.

That was my conclusion, surely though given that there was less
overcrowding and more space they'd have been better off just building
something bigger?