National Gallery stairs
- This topic has 21 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 21 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
Sorry to be a bit boring but I was in the B&F national gallery today and I’m perplexed. I’m busting my arse trying to design an art gallery at the moment and especially struggling with the usual Part K / Part M hassle.
How exactly did B&F get a 4m wide stair with no intermediate handrails with a straight run of 20 risers?????
Further up the building there’s a straight run of 19 risers??????
Help
Well if that’s what was needed then so be it – it’s fantastic!
Great running down the very centre in a hurry – makes you feel all big and powerful like you’re in the movies – um, or so I’m told…
😀
dammit. i was trying to all pictorial to keep the legal at bay. everyone just assume it was witty but inappropriate.
I’d just like to say that you’ve all been a great help, but I can’t!
If anyone ACTUALLY has an idea how B+F got around the building regs, I’d love to know.
in real life, i’d examine the dates of the implementation of the relevant regs, then examine the date planning was granted, you may find that one was before the other. in my own office, we had an application to be granted a week before the part m regs were revised, but were thrown out on a ridiculous technicality (they sent it back for paying too high a fee, if you can believe that). subsequently the whole scheme had to be revised to comply with the new requirements.
@sw101 wrote:
in real life, i’d examine the dates of the implementation of the relevant regs, then examine the date planning was granted, you may find that one was before the other. in my own office, we had an application to be granted a week before the part m regs were revised, but were thrown out on a ridiculous technicality (they sent it back for paying too high a fee, if you can believe that). subsequently the whole scheme had to be revised to comply with the new requirements.
It’s Parts B and K that bother me. I can only assume that B&F have taken the Guidance notes as simply that and are hoping for the best. I doubt a solicitor would see it that way. Anyway, I’m off to the NG to fall down the stairs and spend the cash on a holiday.
do you have a photo/sketch/dwg to illustrate where they went wrong? i was in there when it reopened but can’t recall the one you mention.
@sw101 wrote:
do you have a photo/sketch/dwg to illustrate where they went wrong? i was in there when it reopened but can’t recall the one you mention.
Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s a fabulous space that would have been less impressive had they followed the TGD. I want to do the same – purely selfish!!
Always thought it a bit dodgy for hoards of schoolkids alright, but sure feck them – shove em in the lift I say 😀
is their an alternative means to getting up to that level? as in another stairwell. i always thought the regs were designed to accomodate disabled persons, even if they have to use a secondary route (even thought it’s not ideal), rather than apply the regs to limit fully ambulant persons.
@sw101 wrote:
is their an alternative means to getting up to that level? as in another stairwell. i always thought the regs were designed to accomodate disabled persons, even if they have to use a secondary route (even thought it’s not ideal), rather than apply the regs to limit fully ambulant persons.
The Part M regs require a lift in a building of this size and use so the requirement for an ambulant stair is void, although it’s obviously polite to provide one if you can.
Part B requires a stair wider than 1.8m to have handrails at no more than 1.8m apart. OK, you could argue that it isn’t a fire stair although if you’re at the top of it, you’re gonna use it. And judging by the fact that B&F’s escape to the side is circular, I don’t put much faith in their exit strategy either!
Anyway, Part K takes over at that point with it’s requirement that no flight have more than 16 risers, full stop.
Of course you can write and apply for a relaxation but I guess you’d have to state that, in your opinion, the stair was safe. um, risky.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz I know but dammit it’s bugging me.
B&F, though, have a thing about being a bit lax – I may be wrong but I think they were replaced on the charlotte quay job due to slightly eccentric room planning rendering the scheme undo-able
i assume all is fine and dandy with the stairs in question until some old bat breaks a hip on the way to the bottom, at speed.
a large stairwell like that need not be rendered hideous by landings and rails. that’s your job burge. stop trying to dodge the issue. i don’t envy you the task though.
@sw101 wrote:
we had an application to be granted a week before the part m regs were revised, but were thrown out on a ridiculous technicality (they sent it back for paying too high a fee, if you can believe that). subsequently the whole scheme had to be revised to comply with the new requirements.
That is ridiculous and if I wasn’t bound by confidentiality I could tell a few similar timing related stories as well
@Diaspora wrote:
That is ridiculous and if I wasn’t bound by confidentiality I could tell a few similar timing related stories as well
i’m sure everybody has a couple. it’s a point of beuracracy for whoever is responsible for the return, but it can (and has) resulted in a loss of work for an architect, a loss of a job or status for an employee, and a general negative feeling is promoted towards planning offices. which is a shame.
@sw101 wrote:
i assume all is fine and dandy with the stairs in question until some old bat breaks a hip on the way to the bottom, at speed.
a large stairwell like that need not be rendered hideous by landings and rails. that’s your job burge. stop trying to dodge the issue. i don’t envy you the task though.
I thought it was pretty clear that I’m not trying to dodge the issue – quite the opposite – I WANT to break the rules – I’m trying to find out how to go about it!!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
