Do we need this handrail

[Chris H]

We have a handrail running along the main gangway through our auditorium, which we're planning to remove for a temporary reconfiguration of the space next spring. The existing handrail isn't designed to come out and go back again, so before commissioning a new one I'm trying to work out if it actually needs to be there?

 

The drop to the next row of seats is about 250mm, and the handrail doesn't extend across the steps either side. It just runs parallel to the gangway along the back of the seating bank below it.

 

I have a current yellow book which lists lots of situations where handrails are required and gives specifications for them, but I'm struggling to see any that apply here? Does that mean I can just remove this handrail and not replace it, or have I missed something important?

 

http://www.chrishowcroft.co.uk/graphics/handrail.jpg

[ImagineerTom]

It's a primary fire exit route, if the rail wasn't there people would fall/be pushed down and/or would get feet caught in the gap between the backs of the chairs and the gangway; it's therefore required and rather advisable.

[ontoprigger]

Also be aware that if you replace it then it will need to replaced with something that conforms to the latest building regulations and you may find you need to put in something that is higher and has more structure in it to comply.

 

You may need to talk to someone in your local building control department.......

[chelgrian]

We have a handrail running along the main gangway through our auditorium, which we're planning to remove for a temporary reconfiguration of the space next spring. The existing handrail isn't designed to come out and go back again, so before commissioning a new one I'm trying to work out if it actually needs to be there?

 

The actual things you are trying to conform to are the Building Regulations 2010 and the The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. Both of these are intentionally rather woolly and are far more about the process and leave exactly what constitutes conformance with the requirements up to the competent authority, that is to say the local building control and fire officer.

 

That said there are a set of Approved Documents which contain guidelines that in the secretary of state's opinion fulfil the regulations. The one in question being

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/441669/BR_PDF_AD_B2_2013.pdf

 

There's a 172 pages of useful stuff in there but exactly one mention of rowed seating and nothing about rakes. So exactly what is required is going to depend on what the competent authority (so the local council control or an authorised commercial alternative) have to say on the matter.

[kerry davies]

In principle Chelgrian is correct and these things are, in some ways, a matter of interpretation. However this rail was designed in as a safety feature by an architect, accepted as part of the design by planners and is now an existing feature. It would take quite some justification to remove it and I doubt whether any "authority" would be prepared to sign off that removal.

 

If you tell us what exactly the "temporary reconfiguration" is all about then we may be able to suggest stuff but I don't think anyone here would go to bat for you to remove a permanent feature of your auditorium which forms one "wall" of what appears to be your primary evacuation route.

[Albatross]

**I'm in another part of the world so my advice bears no legal standing**

 

Our venue has a similar aisle. The only difference I can see that *may* be why there's a rail, is the physical gap between the back of the seats and the walkway level.

This gap *may* be a trip/fall hazard which is why the railing was built.

 

Our venue doesn't have a railing, but the seat backs are closer to the walkway.

 

http://www.wyncc.com.au/venue_hire/venue_photos

 

 

Cheers,

Ric

[Chris H]

Thank you everybody for your input so far,

 

The 'temporary reconfiguration' is a plan to remove all of the seats between this gangway and the stage and extend the stage out to meet the gangway. So during that period there will just be a flat floor from the gangway with nothing to fall down or trip over and we're planning to remove the handrail temporarily.

 

It's what happens when we go back to the normal seating arrangement that worries me. The existing handrail won't survive being removed so if it's essential then we need to have a new one made. In which case it would be nice to consider changing the design a bit visually so we'd need to know what the required specification for the handrail is. Which I think is something we need to discuss with the council, as suggested below.

 

On reflection, I think what I actually need is a concise reason for the rail to be there that I can explain quickly when people suggest we just don't replace it. Which I think Tom's observation that the gangway is a primary route and therefore needs something more than the individual seatways covers nicely.

[ImagineerTom]

It really shouldn't be too difficult to remove that handrail in a way that any half decent fabricator couldn't weld back together in an hour when you re-instate it afterwards - as others have mentioned if you discard and replace something then the replacement must meet current rules which could force you to install a rail which knocks-out half your sightlines.

 

You should also be looking carefully at your fire exit routes during the stage-extension phase; at the moment there's a clearly defined (by a big metal barrier) route out of the auditorium to the nearest exit - even in near black-out panic circumstances people will be able to find their way to the nearest exit. Once you extend the stage and remove this rail then people will be more likely to walk on to the stage itself (when exiting in an emergency people don't instinctively turn corners and tend to walk towards open space) which means your stage construction may have to change to meet fire-exit-route building regulations and you may need to install extra emergency signs and lights on stage because this would now be a primary exit route for hundreds of people.

 

It's a can of worms

[chelgrian]

In principle Chelgrian is correct and these things are, in some ways, a matter of interpretation. However this rail was designed in as a safety feature by an architect, accepted as part of the design by planners and is now an existing feature. It would take quite some justification to remove it and I doubt whether any "authority" would be prepared to sign off that removal.

 

If you tell us what exactly the "temporary reconfiguration" is all about then we may be able to suggest stuff but I don't think anyone here would go to bat for you to remove a permanent feature of your auditorium which forms one "wall" of what appears to be your primary evacuation route.

 

To be clear I was envisaging that when the OP reinstalled the rail it would be removable so the next time they wanted to extend the stage out to be thrust it just cost time and a few hefty people rather than loads of money on steel work and concrete.

 

At this point you'd end up having to design something new rather than just reinstall as is so you end up having to start pretty much from scratch with building control with this specific feature hence you'd want to workout exactly what is required in terms of height, solidity etc.

[Jivemaster]

That handrail looks big and heavy. IMO it's beyond "two burly men" to move it, then where are you going to put it for safe keeping. If you do remove it will putting it back in place satisfy the licensing authority, IMO barrier hight standards have changed to 1050mm in the last ten years, what will your sightlines be like if you have to raise the fence to 1050 or more.

[Junior8]

You shouldn't be asking here. Leaving aside all the documents mentioned the only people who matter are the Licensing Authority or other responsible body. Given the conformation of the seating and the siting of the exits shown in the pic it has every reason to be there IMO and I expect them to insist it be replaced. It is as solid as it looks for a good reason if you think about it.

[McIvy]

Yes ! Absolutely you need it.

 

It's otherwise a significant trip or topple hazard for the vulnerable along a curved principal thoroughfare and fire exit route.

 

Imagine walking along it, perhaps unsteady on your pins or partially sighted and maybe being nudgedby others heading for the exit............or standing with your back to it and taking a step back.

 

Building Regs no doubt. Removing it opens yourselves up to serious potential grief.

 

Could there not be a way of adapting the existing very solid and undoubtedly expensive barrier to make it removable, for your purposes? Perhaps dividing into sections with extended posts into sunken floor sockets?

 

 

 

[ImagineerTom]

If the OP substantially modified the handrail (by converting it to a socket system for example) then it would be classed as a new design and would have to meet latest building codes which means it would have to be taller and more solid.

 

Cutting the old handrail in to 3 or 4 sections, sending it away to be re-painted or "serviced" and then re-installing it using the same system of bolts/fixings (perhaps with bolts that are slightly easier to undo in future) could be argued to fall under maintenance and thus enable the OP to keep using the historic exemption they have.

[Chris H]

Thank you all for your input. It doesn't look like this project will happen when I thought it would, possibly not at all (for reasons that have nothing to do with the handrail or removal of it). We will of course discuss any future removal of the handrail with the appropriate authorities. It's nice to be able to do so with some forewarning of what the issues might be.

 

Thanks all.