Jump to content

AnthonyB

Power Member
  • Content Count

    1,375
  • Joined

  • Last visited

4 Followers

About AnthonyB

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Fire Safety

Recent Profile Visitors

9,637 profile views
  1. Possibly, especially if the bolts for the catch plate go straight through the door and out the other side - the door manufacturer should be consulted as to what they will permit.
  2. Hi, You will need a property lawyers advice for this - it is not unprecedented for needed escape routes into neighbouring premises to be removed where the appropriate legal agreements for access were not in place or expired. On the other hand cases of continuous and uninterrupted use with no legal agreement have been upheld too!
  3. If the pipework penetrates through a fire stopped floor then it should indeed be correctly firestopped.
  4. The diagram does look like it implies window height - but all the text points otherwise as Approved Document B uses the following phrase in relation to the point for where Means of Escape requirements become more stringent: "upper storeys a maximum of 4.5m above ground level" Appendix D states that a storey is measured from the upper floor surface of the floor in question to ground level and has nothing to do with the escape height (which is actually 5.6m as where escape windows are provided in flats up to 4.5m from ground they can have their lowest point up to 1100mm from the floor lev
  5. I'd need to see plans however in any case the works will be subject to the Building Regulations and you will need prior approval of your proposed changes from Local Authority Building Control or an Approved Inspector. If these are just pedestrian doors between the garage and the open air there shouldn't be fire issues, if internal to common space there would be some requirements to make it compliant.
  6. As a wall lining it would be subject to Building Regulations and Fire Regulations and depending on location and area to be covered would have to conform to certain requirements regarding flammability and surface spread of flame, so it's a moot point as to whether the furniture regulations apply or not.
  7. Not unless the correct product is chosen and applied in the correct way, it's not a magic substance. You will find suitable products and a source of specific advice here: https://envirograf.com/
  8. Unless your lease says you have to I wouldn't have thought so. Do you pay service charge (as there may be external common parts and block insurance as well as the internal common parts you don't use)- it may be the case that the wording is vague enough to make you have to pay. You would need to consult a property law specialist. I wouldn't contribute to extinguishers even if living off the common areas as Government fire safety guidance has said for 10 years (& still does) they are not required and should be removed!
  9. It's the 3rd storey that does it, smaller conversions can use the Grade D stuff you suggested.
  10. Note - if someone else other than the Responsible Person does the work and it's not good enough they can't take the blame off the RP, at worst they would join them in the dock, so it pays to choose with care.
  11. As said - it depends on the works and the competence of who is doing it. Certain work needs specialists, other is more straightforward.
  12. No as it is asking for a Grade A system in the common areas, which is one using commercial equipment (control panel, break glass points, etc) not Grade D domestic smoke/heat alarms. The requirement reflects current benchmarks for this type of premises (LACORS guide and BS5839-6)
  13. It depends - if the block was constructed correctly for stay put and is still in good condition with no breaches of construction it would be OK - there are many things that could affect this though, the Fire Risk Assessment for the block should have checked this. To be correct the individual smoke alarm systems in each flat should be linked to the Telecare (e.g. Tunstall) system to raise the alarm if a flat has an activation.
  14. Yes if you message me with an email address I have something of use
  15. The responsible person can be a corporate entity. A multi occupied premises may have multiple RP's. The RP is the person or entity at the top of the tree - employer/person having control/owner. Whilst others may have day to day responsibilities towards a premises they are not the RP as set out in law, merely persons with responsibilities - whilst they may be directly responsible for an offence and can (& have been) individually prosecuted, it's usually not instead of the actual 'tree top' RP but as well as.
×
×
  • Create New...