National Gallery stairs
- This topic has 21 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 4 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
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
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.
-
-
@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!!
-
-
-
@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
-
-
@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!!
-
The first wing opened around 1864. Listed buildings, buildings of historical interest and existing buildings can use “alternative approaches” base on “principles” contained in the document (Part B). This new wing opened in 2002 but I bet that’s how they argued their point. Someone signs it off at the end of the day giving an “opinion” of compliance with the building regulations. Note that the building “regulations” are in the box before all the “guidance” document. Part B is where it says if the width is greater than 1800mm it should have a handrail in the middle. But thats “guidance”. The regulations say “A building shall be so designed and constructed that there are adequate means of escape in case of fire from the building to a place of safety outside the building , capable of being safely and efficiently used.”
In MY opinion it isn’t safe in a stampede of people running for their lives to the door but I’M not the one who signed it off especially as the “guidance” recommends that 1/3 of the people in an “assembly & recreation” building will go out the door they came in.
Anyway. P.I. Insurance. Who cares if it looks good?
AND with all that marble- how in the hell is it going to go on fire? Maybe they got away with it because everything is safer than Class 0.
OH and if they have a fire certificate, which they must, that means that the building control authority said they agree that it’s safe. -
@nikmead wrote:
The first wing opened around 1864. Listed buildings, buildings of historical interest and existing buildings can use “alternative approaches” base on “principles” contained in the document (Part B). This new wing opened in 2002 but I bet that’s how they argued their point. Someone signs it off at the end of the day giving an “opinion” of compliance with the building regulations. Note that the building “regulations” are in the box before all the “guidance” document. Part B is where it says if the width is greater than 1800mm it should have a handrail in the middle. But thats “guidance”. The regulations say “A building shall be so designed and constructed that there are adequate means of escape in case of fire from the building to a place of safety outside the building , capable of being safely and efficiently used.”
In MY opinion it isn’t safe in a stampede of people running for their lives to the door but I’M not the one who signed it off especially as the “guidance” recommends that 1/3 of the people in an “assembly & recreation” building will go out the door they came in.
Anyway. P.I. Insurance. Who cares if it looks good?
AND with all that marble- how in the hell is it going to go on fire? Maybe they got away with it because everything is safer than Class 0.
OH and if they have a fire certificate, which they must, that means that the building control authority said they agree that it’s safe.Fair enough. Stuck record but how’d they bypass Part K? Same way – an opinon of compliance?
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
