kandgmitchell Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 I would agree that another window in the flank would be ideal (if not obstructed by the abutting roof line). If not then you have a potential issue for your staircase approach. Paragraph 2.10 sets out the parameters for escape windows. It states that the level of the window should be no more than 1.1m off the floor. This is where your building control body may have an issue or may not - it'll be down to their interpretation whether your landing constitutes a floor. They may or they may not. If they do then that landing should be at least the width of the narrowest part of the stair and have a length again equal or more to the narrowest part of the stair. So arguably a 600mm wide stair with a 600mm x 600mm landing would be ok, although they may then query the headroom. As to the height of the rooflight above the outside ground you will see that para 2.10 doesn't mention that. All this is assuming the bedroom floor is not more than 4.5m above ground level. In all I'd be discussing this asap with building control, explain the listed building status issues and perhaps offer an enhanced fire detection system above and beyond the normal requirement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ETC Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 Make the roof light in Bedroom 2 a compliant EEW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blooda Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 (edited) Just one observation, on the drawings, you have 2x "Bedroom 2" s - even though they are on different floors, this may will cause confusion in the build / fit out. Edited January 30 by Blooda 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ETC Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 ...............................also - have you been asked for EEWs from the Study and Bedroom 1 on the GF? You should also: Change the SAA in the Laundry to a HAA. Put an SAA in the Boot Room (circulation space). Put another HAA in the Kitchen/Family (a HAA has an effective radius of 5.3m). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickeych Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 5 hours ago, ETC said: ...............................also - have you been asked for EEWs from the Study and Bedroom 1 on the GF? You should also: Change the SAA in the Laundry to a HAA. Put an SAA in the Boot Room (circulation space). Put another HAA in the Kitchen/Family (a HAA has an effective radius of 5.3m). unfortunately I posted the wrong plans as these don't show the correct sizes for the GF bedroom windows both of which are existing openings of 1.4x1.4m so these should work as EEW's I think I follow on the Laundry and Boot room etc, sorry for the dum question but the abreviations HAA and SAA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ETC Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 SAA=smoke alarm. HAA=heat alarm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickeych Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 Just now, ETC said: SAA=smoke alarm. HAA=heat alarm. Dohhh - Thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevilDamo Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 Although normally known as an SA or HA 😉 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ETC Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 22 minutes ago, DevilDamo said: Although normally known as an SA or HA 😉 Christ on a bike! Tomato tomato. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickeych Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 SE has recommended we look at a fire suppression system as the best alternative. (So I'll probably have to beef up my SA's and HA's 🙃) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kandgmitchell Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 Be aware that many LA's and Approved Inspectors will require such a divergence from the Approved Document to be designed and argued for by a qualified Fire Engineer. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 (edited) On 27/01/2024 at 19:08, Temp said: Yes that's because a bungalow loft conversion normally results in a two storey house where as most loft conversions result in a three story house. So the rules for a bungalow loft conversion are similar to that of a two storey house without loft conversion. They typically only requires interlinked alarms. It's actually the height that matters not the number of floors but the effect is the same. has anyone resolved this? Can linked alarms solve this on their own ? the bottom of my velux’s are 4.4 m above ground level and the first floor is 2.7m above ground level Edited March 13 by Nic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 Anyone know if it’s acceptable to have a ladder to reach base of escape Velux if it’s at 1.7m instead of the 1.1m on first floor ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markc Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 8 hours ago, Nic said: Anyone know if it’s acceptable to have a ladder to reach base of escape Velux if it’s at 1.7m instead of the 1.1m on first floor ? Do you mean a fixed ladder on the inside? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 4 hours ago, markc said: Do you mean a fixed ladder on the inside? Yes, possibly like a loft hatch to reveal a short ladder to get up to the 1.7m fill of the roof light ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markc Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 1 hour ago, Nic said: Yes, possibly like a loft hatch to reveal a short ladder to get up to the 1.7m fill of the roof light ?? The question/sticking points here would be, would a rung of a ladder be classed or accepted as floor and escape windows must be at eye level. Again could this be on a ladder? Probably no to both, but what if there was a small platform or landing? I’m going to say no, you won’t get away with it, even though the likelihood of needing it is relatively low. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kandgmitchell Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 You know the only way to resolve this is to ask your BC provider. It's them that are going to have to sign this off. This what the flexibility of the Approved Document approach was supposed to do - allow for unique design features to be assessed against the basic requirement of providing adequate means of escape in case of fire. The pre- 1985 regulations were prescriptive and any diversion had to be dealt with by a formal relaxation application. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevilDamo Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 38 minutes ago, kandgmitchell said: ask your BC provider But due to the change in BR’s, options would need to be presented to BC as opposed to BC saying what would pass. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kandgmitchell Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 That's not a change in regulations, that's a change in attitude. I agree you can get the "I can't design it for you approach" but equally the OP has a suggested solution - a short fixed ladder. That should be sufficient to open a sensible discussion with BC as to compliance. If you don't ask you'll never know. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevilDamo Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 @kandgmitchell It isn't dis-similar to a current BCO picking me up on a wording on a drawing. It related to the depth of foundations and that the depth is subject to BCO inspection and approval. The BCO asked me to change the note, otherwise he wouldn't approve it. His comments stated... Following the October 2023 changes to the Regulations and subsequent guidance issued to BCBs around “design advice”, we are not approving jobs with this wording. I can approve if a foundation design can be provided from a suitably qualified structural engineer, who has considered the site conditions. Alternatively I can conditionally approve, subject to such a design being provided. Our job on site is checking the contractor is following the design, rather than participating in the design on site. I understand this seems a subtle difference, but I won’t approve these plans with the phrase “agreed on site with building inspector”. So asking them what "they" would accept is no more and it's down to the client/contractor/designer to present a suitable deign for approval. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kandgmitchell Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 I would agree to some extent. I see many architects drawings with a phrase such as " drainage layout to be agreed between builder and building inspector" and your example regarding foundations. That is unfairly using BC as a cheap design service and some designers/builders do take the p...s. However, BC has to agree matters on site when a building notice is used and I would hate to see things degenerate to a point where professional common sense could not be exercised on site. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now