Building Regs - need some advice please?

Haych

I've started to renovate my stairs.  It's a switchback staircase with a half landing.  The house is about 40 years old and the current staircase is fugly, built as cheaply as possible.

My plan is to take out the existing handrail and second and third 'planks' which serve to stop anyone falling through and replace them with a nice oak handrail, baserail (on top of the existing stringer) and add some spindles, but keep all the existing newel posts.

Here-in lies the problem:

The existing handrail is about 840mm above the tread-line, current building regs state that it must be 900mm minimum.  The existing newel-posts aren't tall enough to raise the handrail to meet minimum height for building regs.

Had I not read the requirements I would have just gone ahead and finished the job as I intended to.  Now I'm aware that my refurb won't meet regs I don't know what to do.  To rip out the newel posts and replace is a major headache, not to mention the additional costs.

But I also don't want to be in a position where I can't sell the house, if I ever need to, or have to do it all over again to meet regs.

strtdv

Difficult one, as if you leave them alone they'd likely be fine as the regs were presumably different when the house was built.

How hard would it be to replace the Newell posts?

Haych

strtdv said:

Difficult one, as if you leave them alone they'd likely be fine as the regs were presumably different when the house was built.

How hard would it be to replace the Newell posts?

Quite difficult.  At least three of them are integrated with the landing and half landing.  Plus, they don't seem to be a standard size any longer, they're about 70mm square in section so if I bought purpose made posts I'd have to upgrade to at least 90mm square so there would be some additional alterations to the rest of the staircase to make them fit.

I suppose one option would be to buy some timber of the right sort of size and extend the existing posts.  This would be the easiest option but a hassle to gain an extra 100mm of height even if I could make it look tidy.

strtdv

If you were painting them you could probably extend the existing post, either with something like steel dowels or a mortise and tenon joint

Iamnobody

Haych said:

I've started to renovate my stairs.  It's a switchback staircase with a half landing.  The house is about 40 years old and the current staircase is fugly, built as cheaply as possible.

My plan is to take out the existing handrail and second and third 'planks' which serve to stop anyone falling through and replace them with a nice oak handrail, baserail (on top of the existing stringer) and add some spindles, but keep all the existing newel posts.

Here-in lies the problem:

The existing handrail is about 840mm above the tread-line, current building regs state that it must be 900mm minimum.  The existing newel-posts aren't tall enough to raise the handrail to meet minimum height for building regs.

Had I not read the requirements I would have just gone ahead and finished the job as I intended to.  Now I'm aware that my refurb won't meet regs I don't know what to do.  To rip out the newel posts and replace is a major headache, not to mention the additional costs.

But I also don't want to be in a position where I can't sell the house, if I ever need to, or have to do it all over again to meet regs.

In your shoes I’d carry on with the refurb notwithstanding current Regs...

I say that on the assumption that it’s not notifibale work? 

People still sell dilapidated houses with no staircases - no buyer or surveyor will ever care about a handrail being 60mm low.

monofin

The regs will apply to w new build or complete replacement staircase.
You'll find many things in your house that don't meet current regs.

Simon_M

It’s your house so, within reason, you can do what you want. Presumably you have got this information from Approved Document K? In which case, you will probably find that this regulation does not apply to dwellings, particularly dwellings that are being refurbished/renovated (I.e. not a new build).

Haych

Simon_M said:

It’s your house so, within reason, you can do what you want. Presumably you have got this information from Approved Document K? In which case, you will probably find that this regulation does not apply to dwellings, particularly dwellings that are being refurbished/renovated (I.e. not a new build).

Yes, Approved Document K by-proxy of the suppliers of the parts I'm buying for the refurb.

Haych

Iamnobody said:

In your shoes I’d carry on with the refurb notwithstanding current Regs...

I say that on the assumption that it’s not notifibale work? 

People still sell dilapidated houses with no staircases - no buyer or surveyor will ever care about a handrail being 60mm low.

Pretty sure I don't need to notify anyone, not that I intended to in any case.

Budgie

Well... you can’t go any higher than the existing newel posts and as you are not replacing them, then that’s that. If you were replacing the posts too, then you would make it so that it complied but you’re not. I’ve just bricked up a window in a wall with a 50mm cavity. Obviously, I can’t make the new work comply with building regs for the cavity because the existing structure won’t allow it.

boogieman

Is anyone going to actually measure them when it comes time to sell? I’d just go ahead and take my chances. 

Simon_M

Haych said:

Simon_M said:

It’s your house so, within reason, you can do what you want. Presumably you have got this information from Approved Document K? In which case, you will probably find that this regulation does not apply to dwellings, particularly dwellings that are being refurbished/renovated (I.e. not a new build).

Yes, Approved Document K by-proxy of the suppliers of the parts I'm buying for the refurb.

In which case, this isn’t classed as ‘building work’. This is defined under part 3 of the building regulations. To paraphrase, building work is erection or extension of an existing building; alteration or provision of a controlled service or fitting or a material change of a controlled service or fitting. 

Controlled fittings are usually things like windows, doors, cladding, roof vents. Controlled services are plumbing, gas, electrics etc...

By replacing a handrail on the stairs in your house you’re not doing ‘building work’ by that definition.

Generally building regulations state that any building work should not make any part of
the existing building any less safe than it was before work but as you’re pretty much doing like for like in terms of preventing falls (which is what document K is for) then you aren’t making it worse. Other approved documents might apply but, as this isn’t a new build, extension or a change to a controlled fitting or service then I think you’re okay.

This is my interpretation of the regulations anyway. I don’t work for buildings control or any regulating body but that is how I read the regulations.

underdog

Budgie said:

Well... you can’t go any higher than the existing newel posts and as you are not replacing them, then that’s that. If you were replacing the posts too, then you would make it so that it complied but you’re not. I’ve just bricked up a window in a wall with a 50mm cavity. Obviously, I can’t make the new work comply with building regs for the cavity because the existing structure won’t allow it.

What he said.

Jimbro66

There must be masses of folk who modify their stair balustrade without going through building regs, often because they are completely unaware of any requirements. There is the catch-all that nothing existing needs to comply with building regs but if you modify it then any relevant regs do apply.

Having said that, if you are planning to use Richard Burbage or similar readily available components they will quite likely be made with building regs in mind, e.g. spindle lengths, etc. Because of this you may find your purchased components bring you in line with Part K1 requirements anyway. So you are just left with the issue of what to do with the newel posts and, without seeing your stair, the answer would seem to be to extend their height if it can be done in a way that is aesthetically satisfactory - easier with plain newels than with turned ones.

Any chance you could post a photo of an existing newel?

King85

I honestly wouldn't worry about it. I've moved internal walls, sockets and switches and kept them at the original heights rather than moving them to current regs so it all matches with the rest of the house.

Dominic

monofin said:

The regs will apply to w new build or complete replacement staircase.
You'll find many things in your house that don't meet current regs.

This exactly........it's not an issue in an established domestic environment where the existing is more than 6 years old and has the benefit of existing use.

rsvmark

Building regs are not retrospective And don't apply to a specific item. Although without seeing pictures, I would be tempted to replace the posts if you are replacing balustrades from an aesthetic perspective

Haych

Thanks y’all. I think I’ll just go ahead and get it done. Nobody has fallen over the balustrades yet to my knowledge and to be honest, I just want the project finished!

Parts are on order and I’ve booked time off work to finish the job so hopefully in a couple of weeks it’ll all be completed.  

Fuengi

I deal with building control all the time as I run my own architecture practice (which, incidentally is 10 years old tomorrow). 

If you did this through Building Control any reasonable officer (there are some!) would allow you to work outside the regs, especially as it is an existing house. 

I always play it safe with building control issues, but in your case it's minor, I'd just crack on. 

hywelg

When I did a loft conversion on a house I rented out I was told by building inspectors that the balustrade on the top landing had to be 1200mm from floor level When I pointed out that that would prevent any furniture from being taken to the top floor they suggested I put the handrail at 900mm with a removable handrail 300mm above it. That's what I did to get it signed off, then promptly lost the temporary rail. 

Simon_M

hywelg said:

When I did a loft conversion on a house I rented out I was told by building inspectors that the balustrade on the top landing had to be 1200mm from floor level When I pointed out that that would prevent any furniture from being taken to the top floor they suggested I put the handrail at 900mm with a removable handrail 300mm above it. That's what I did to get it signed off, then promptly lost the temporary rail. 

Classic over-eager building inspector. They’re everywhere.