Jump to content

AnthonyB

Power Member
  • Content Count

    778
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Fire Safety

Recent Profile Visitors

6,494 profile views
  1. Simple answer usually yes (unless the manufacturer of the doorset states that frame and door combination can tolerate a larger gap and still perform correctly). Are they closing in a rebate and do they have intumescent seals?
  2. Which country - Scotland, England or Wales? Do you occupy the flat or let it out? Do they want the systems in each flat linked to each other or not? This will assist in replying. Whilst there are no communal areas and the Fire Safety Order does not apply the Housing Act does and this does include the ability to require fire safety improvements inside a flat.
  3. As a joint freeholder I would suspect you are liable for your share of costs - the applicability of the Fire Safety Order to your flat isn't the issue, it's more a property law issue vis a vis the liabilities as a joint freeholder - the freeholder is responsible for the managmeent of the communal space and associated costs be it fire safety or any more general maintenance and as you are one of them (& possibly as a result a director of the TMC if there is one??) you could be liable for your share of the cost.
  4. No internal communal space by the sounds of it so no.
  5. A lot of lazy or under-trained fire risk assessors will just take a yes/no approach to if there is a fire alarm system, despite the mere presence of one not ensuring it is suitable or sufficient. If the layout of a system meets a category it should be described as such, however some existing systems expanded piecemeal over the years don't meet any (although many fall in between two categories a common one being L4 plus specified additional detector heads) in which case guessing or pushing it into a category is wrong and a simple summary of areas covered is more appropriate. Plenty of guidance out there on minimum categories for various types of premises, BS5839-1 itself gives a good summary, it's often less than people expect with many places still only requiring manual call points
  6. Unless it is so small a shout, hand bell or similar can be heard clearly throughout the premises it should have an electrical manual fire alarm system of 'break glass' manual call points and alarm sounders.This has been a requirement of schools design for over 60 years. Schools used only during the school day and not for extra curricular uses and that aren't of the CLASP construction (a cheap modular construction type popular for local authority buildings in the 50's - 70's that allows for rapid fire spread through voids) don't usually require much if any detection but must have the call points. Usually the fire alarm and class change bell system were combined. Ask to see the Fire Risk Assessment for the school and how it gets around the question of adequate means of fire detection & warning
  7. This is the guide that you should use to determine what you need https://www.rla.org.uk/docs/LACORSFSguideApril62009.PDF
  8. Can't see why doing that would be a problem.
  9. Not necessarily, they should be marked 'fire door keep locked shut' and of course locked. Cupboards don't always need a closer.
  10. If you've underdrawn the stair but not enclosed the area it's almost pointless as fire effluent and heat can still render the escape route untenable quickly, way before the burning of the stair would be an issue. Quite a proportion of house fires, including fatal fires, start in white goods like these so it's no surprise they are taking the approach they are.
  11. No you should clear the exits!
  12. All in here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/422175/9449_Offices_and_Shops_v2.pdf
  13. There is no statutory bar unlike with the old Fire Precautions Act - if the risk requires modernisation of precautions so adequately control it so be it (conversely if the old standard of precautions can be demonstrated to still give tolerable protection then it needn't automatically be modernised). British Standards are not law, in theory (& practice) you can deviate but you fully accept the onus for demonstrating why it doesn't compromise safety.
  14. Life or property? Water mist has the advantages of easier to meet water supply requirements than traditional sprinklers - where are you putting the tanks for a traditional system? It seems it's preferred in the hotel sector too: http://www.watermist.com/en/case-studies/hotels-dorsett-regency/
  15. Sounds reasonable if no staff, the monitoring would be key possibly for life safety too as you can't ensure the fire service would be called or people would evacuate or stay evacuated, contact with the FRS regarding their AFA policy would be advisable too.
×
×
  • Create New...