Decking Stairs - how wrong is this?

[Charlie]

So I had a chance to look at the stairs the chippy had installed on my deck ing this evening.

It was meant to look like this:

But it looks like this at the moment:

Apart from the landing (at the top) the treads are:

510mm, 285mm, 205mm, 215mm, 205mm!!!

Am I right that this is very bad and does not conform to building regs? The risers seem OK at 200mm

Is there a good reason why the stringers are not made of the same material as the decking? Or is he going to clad the stringers with balau (as per the decking).

Also, is there any reason that the landing at the top requires the borders the chippy has put to the rear and the left? I made no mention of them in a ny of agreed plans/diagrams. I wanted the landing/stairs to be flush with t he brickwork. I realise I might not have appreciated how to design stairs so would welcome any feedback.

Charlie

[nobody]

I'd say you're getting away lightly! Looks like he's made a much better job than that "pre-school" sketch.

Give a professional a proper design and he'll follow it. Give him something drawn by a 2 year old and he'll turn it into something that works.

Just saying.

[John Rumm]

Well if you are going to have a variation, having it in tread width is far preferable to rise height - especially if he sticks the nosings on each tread in the right place.

The angle looks to be slightly steeper than the permitted building regs

42 degrees, but then again is probably still quite climbable.

The top step can be wider anyway if its a landing. Although I am not sure why he went for in effect two landings.

He probably wanted something thicker to take the load, although I can't see from the photo if he has housed the tread and riser ends into rebates in the stringers, or if they are just planted on.

Well the only reason I can think of for needing to do that, was if he was attempting to ensure that the base of the stairs fell into the footprint of the outside edge of the deck. Then he would not have been able to get enough rise in so few steps without the drop in level of landings to help. It looks rather like the fall from the deck level to the top tread is actually similar to the rest of the risings. If that is the case, there is no real need for the extra intermediate level in the deck.

Myself I would have made a longer set of stringers and placed them at a shallower angle. Then designed the top edge of the end of the strings to come out just a bit above the deck floor level so that the final step was the finished deck level.

(normally the strings kind of "hang off" the edge of the top landing - best picture I could find was:

Alas not that clear what is going on, but the stringer on the wall has an L shaped end. The bottom of it lines up roughly with the bottom of the landing floor joist, and the top hangs over the top. There is a rebate cut into the top to take a nosing that will extend the landing floor out a little so that it matches the tread line of the stairs).

[Charlie]

I also have him this non-pre school diagram as well :-)

[Nightjar]

For that rise, the going should be between 223mm and 300mm. It is also conventional to make all the goings the same, although the building regs don't actually seem to specify that.

Colin Bignell

[Charlie]

Yeah, I saw some old building regs from 1998 it was really clear about this at the start of the section regarding stairs.

However in the latest Building Regs it says:

"For All Buildings

1.5 Have level treads Rise (150mm - 220mm) Going (220mm - 300mm)

So it looks like they do have to be the same, or as it says "consistent".

[meow2222]

Rise & going should always be consistent where possible. A lot of people are injured in stair falls, and inconsistent spacings greatly increase trip risk. If such a job were done here I really dont think I'd be ok with paying.

NT

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

'Grief. I made a blindingly better set of stairs for my first ever effort.

[polygonum]

It makes my eyes go squiffy trying to following that photo.

[Charlie]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry now. I asked him not to touch the stairs until we had spoken face to face. Came home to see this

He's removed the nosing so the tread doesn't even cover the riser. Surely this can't be right? Looks a mess.

[Rick Hughes]

nothing at that link ? says file been deleted

[Rick Hughes]

There are complex rules as to rise & going, and max No of treads based on with .... but key thing is they must remain constant over a flight, or serious chance of falling. People don't often look at stairs when walking, if going or rise changes definite trip hazard.