Compliance with the Building Regulations

Iain Sanderson
Member - 30 posts

What type of risk are you refering to?

Stephen Clyne
Member - 4 posts

I am due to take possession of a 9,000m2, 3 storey secondary school building with staircases that have quarter landings within straight flights of stairs. Because they are not vertically above each other, the 2m minimum headroom required by the building regs does not stop a tall person hitting their head as they move from landing to flight - you leave the landing area horizontally. For an institutional building with crowded stairs - risk assessment makes this situation unacceptable for the building owner.

Graham Kenyon
Member - 39 posts

I'd say that the minimum for Building Regs conformance doesn't mean you meet all other legislation under all circumstances.

Was this an inadeqaute assessment by the designers under CDM ?

Anonymous
Member - 28 posts

I assume it's going to remain a school. Sounds like a disaster to me. My school's stairs were go up first flight, from top step you turned and walked 3/4 paces along and then turned to go up the last flight. There was pushing and shoving at times. Can't remember any cases of people falling and hurting themselves though but there were many near misses..

Phil Waller
Member - 2 posts

Stephen, sounds like you could have a serious problem here which is difficult to change. The headroom would be dictated by the support steelwork & the architect has designed this to comply within minimum standards. Quite acceptable practice & they would have had cost restraints to keep within. To rectify will mean changes to the buildings structure - costly & disruptive.

Doesn't sound like grounds to reject handover as you have a compliant building, but if your risk assessment concludes this as an unacceptable risk then you cannot use the staircase. If it is part of an escape route then you cannot put pupils in the new building.

I am currently working in education managing new building projects & my initial advice would be to look at the risk assessment again. My experience with a similar situation has been that if the staircase doesn't look quite right to everyone it can easily snowball from not ideal to dangerous.

Was the individual who completed the assessment adequately experienced in this type of assessment? It is easy to cross the line from acceptable to not acceptable. Don't mean that to sound condescending it's just that my recent experience has taught me that in the education environment you have a lot of strong personalities to deal with, many of whom quickly decide something is wrong & this adds to the pressure to condemn via a risk assessment.

Spending money on an independent, professional assessment which would take in all the factors would be essential in my opinion. This would confirm whether the legally compliant staircase is fit for the use it is intended for, ie young people that may not always behave responsibly. If it isn't then this would form the basis of your fight to get it put right.

Good luck with this.

Colin England
Member - 55 posts

Make sure you cover yourself. Send copies of the Risk Assessment to all and sundry espcially to the Chief Health and Safety Officer of the Council you work for and send something in writing to your Boss and ask if a copy of the Report can be sent to the Chief Executive and Director of Education of the Council.

The problem of head height should have been looked at when plans were in process of being approved by the Council's education department officer.

Also the Building Control officer might not have given much thought to head heights when the pans were submitted for Building Control Approval - aftre all it was being designed by an Architect and the Council's Officer (at quite a high level) were involved.

If the building is insured (some Councils carry their own insurance risk) there might be problems - especially if a claim is made.

Marion Jeffels
Member - 12 posts

Who has to sign off a building before it can be passed?

Stephen Clyne
Member - 4 posts

I've learnt a lot since starting this dialogue. A domestic building would be signed off by Building Control, whilst apparently buildings designed and specified by a professional team although there is an inspector involved (Building Control or Approved Inspector) , is signed off by the Architect. Also involved is the CDM Co-ordinator who witnesses the design process.

Compliance with the Building Regulations is assured by the Architect, which can be by adherence to the guidance in the Approved Documents or otherwise.

In my case, now that everyone understands the issue, it appears to being resolved amicably with the contractor. The Architect's risk assessment reveals an 'unusual' risk which obviously is 'prima facie' that he has to do something about it.

The other party that has just emerged is the building insurer's risk assessor. The insurer not accepting the risk is a very useful weapon in the Client's armoury.

Colin England
Member - 55 posts

Hi Stephen

Not quite right. The local authority building control officer or approved inspector must still "approve" the plans and the work as actually done.

This case is complicated by the involvement of the education department and the contracted architect. On the one hand the Building Control Officer will be constrained by the internal presures of the education department and on the other hand the fact that an architect has drawn up the plans means that the Building Control Officer will not give quite so much detailed attention to the plans as he might otherwise have done - he will make the reasonable assumptuion that the architect will have done his work correctly and considered all aspects of the Building Regulations and other requirements.

John Maltby
Member - 7 posts

'AT LAST', a thread that meets the intentions of the site, good clear contributions by everyone. Its been a pleasure to read from start to finish. Any intending contributors please do not ruin it with fliipant or fracious remarks, lets keep this one honest. Stephen please keep us updated on your ultimate solution.

Stephen Clyne
Member - 4 posts

It has been very useful. For Colin, its an Academy so no Education Authority involvement.

Update, the architect is hiding behind his PI insurance and asserting that meeting the headroom requirements under any circumstances is compliance. The Contractor, with whom I sympathise says, the architect says.....

The most helpful response has been the Insurance Underwriter's Risk Assessor (who incidentally until approached by the underwriter has no obligation to the underwriter so a source of unbiased and honest advice - very useful piece of knowledge). His advice is that whether there is a risk or not, because the insured thinks there might be, there is an obligation to notify the insurance underwriter. As the liabilities in the event of an incident are financial (not criminal) it is the insurance underwriter who bears the brunt. We have therefore done so. If the underwriter is concerned, he will dispatch his/her risk assessor to advise the underwriter who will (a) accept the risk (b) reject the risk or (c) load the risk. If (a) we can all relax, if (b) we can raise the matter with the architect/contractor as a fact not conjecture, and if (c) again we have a matter of fact for the architect to remedy.

I thank everybody who has shared their experience - as a first time user I am well pleased. I will post a blog once the Insurer has settled the matter.