AnthonyB

As all the other balconies and external wall are from your description not combustible there is no risk of spread of fire along the exterior of the building, however if by 12m you mean the height if the floor to the top storey is over 11m (not to highest point of roof) then it wouldn't meet current Building Regulations and shouldn't have been approved.

You are required by law to carry out a fire risk assessment which will determine your fire warning system requirements. Due to the size of the premises it would require an electrical fire alarm system to BS5839-1 comprising manual call points at each exit from the premises and each landing, alarm sounders and a control panel. The risk assessment would determine if smoke & heat detectors were required as part of the system - usually this would be to escape routes. https://www.safelincs.co.uk/fire-alarm-panels-and-fire-alarm-systems/ Domestic smoke alarms would not suit.

From Building Regulations Direction of opening 5.11 The door of any doorway or exit should be hung to open in the direction of escape whenever reasonably practicable. It should always be hung to open in the direction of escape if either of the following conditions applies. a. More than 60 people might be expected to use it during a fire. b. There is a very high risk of fire with potential for rapid fire growth, such as with some industrial activities.

I've only usually seen this required where a heating boiler is in the bathroom, not a simple hot water cylinder.

No. You are changing from Purpose Group 1 to Purpose Group 2 and come under Volume 2 of ADB where paragraphs 2.33 - 2.46 take precedence.

Yes. It's too big a building to come under the relaxed small premises guides. As legally the premises require a fire risk assessment you should get one carried out to determine your specific requirements.

If it's to access a second stair and the requisite fire protection is in place it can be.

It depends what type of fire alarm system is in the common areas - if it's a Grade A system (i.e. looks like the ones you see in offices, shops, etc with a central control panel & manual call points, detectors, sounders) then it should be tested weekly. If it's a Grade D system where there are just domestic detectors like you have in your flat then the testing requirement is only monthly. In either case the tests are 'user' tests that can readily be done by anyone with simple instruction - particularly Grade D where you just push the test buttons (just like you should do with your own!)

Very possibly, I don't think my insurers would let me call that low risk by itself!

I'd treat it like any shaft in a building and depending on the layout of the building and design of the shaft be looking at suggesting stopping up as required.

If this went through a Building Control body and was accepted as is then it's deemed compliant for fire service facilities - these are provided by the Building Regulations process and not fire safety legislation so no additional measures can be enforced purely for fire service use.

If ever in doubt when your CO alarm goes off ring the National Gas Emergency Service (Cadent) for advice on 0800 111 999

They probably expect a 1m x 1m paving slab raised on an appropriate brick & concrete base to form an intermediate step, it's quite a common solution to this situation.

Not as a matter of course, building regulations guidance, fire safety guidance and the appropriate British Standard (BS7273-4) all deprecate such an arrangement. There is scope to deviate from the usual requirements, such as in places of detention, but there needs to be a risk assessment that can demonstrate why a deviation still gives adequate safety. Recent changes to the law mean if you follow official guidance you are presumed to comply with the law so a prosecution will likely fail, but if you don't you are presumed to have failed to comply unless you can provide a robust defence as to why you do. This doesn't mean you can't deviate from guidance - there are lots of situations where this is done and can be justified (I do this for clients in some situations) , but you need to make sure you can back it up and are aware of the liabilities of such a route

From a purely fire point of view as long as the replacement door, frame and ironmongery form an FD30S certified doorset with a suitable EN door closer it can be whatever you want and legal for fire purposes. However from a property law point of view I'd check your lease as there can sometimes be binding requirements on the appearance of doors in a scheme and/or a requirement to get freeholders consent for the proposed door.

It's their responsibility to have checked it, not yours so you shouldn't be liable by telling them

The window isn't an issue if the bottom of the frame is 1100mm or more from the ground as the regulations assume you can duck down and crawl past it, which you can't do with a doorway

Independence from remedial works is always useful from experience as is using a firm whose inspectors have done more than a 1 day 'zero to hero' inspection course where everything is either pass/fail and requiring new doors and frames for any defect.... These people or anyone who has done their (far longer and more comprehensive) training is worth trying as you will get a true risk based appraisal https://www.firedoorscomplete.com/

If escape is only in one direction in open deck housing then front doors would still need to be fire doors. If there are two stairs so you wouldn't need to pass the flat on fire they generally don't

If you are owner occupying and not renting it out it's up to you what & how many locks are fitted as long as they don't affect the integrity of the door. The door is your responsibility to remediate if not to spec. I'll let the forum's fire door specialist answer your other questions

The management company on behalf of the OMC, who have the legal responsibility and liability. Even with a building less than 11m they are responsible for assessing the suitability of flat front doors, the only difference for higher buildings is there is a set inspection frequency as oppose to a risk based one.

You would need to ask your local authority Building Control department. The biggest issue would be you would removing the 'protected' hallway (a 30 minute fire resistant area) and making the other rooms 'inner rooms' requiring escape through an access room, which as a kitchen is a higher risk. Being ground floor you do have the option of escape windows to bedrooms, but: This also affects the safety of the other flats as the protection of the common stair usually relies on 60 minute fire resistant walls with only 30 minute fire rated flat front doors on the assumption the 30 minute protected hallway and inner fire doors will add to the protection. If the block is stay put this is more significant than if it's full evacuate. It's not impossible to do, open plan flats do exist, but you may be expected to carry out compensatory measures which could include just additional smoke detection or potentially a domestic sprinkler system.

No - it depends on the size and layout of the block. If it is deemed necessary as a result of the FRA that looks at these factors then it would be, but not as routine.

They need an annual full rated duration test before the question of certification even crops up, monthly function testing is not sufficient. The Responsible Person needs to be able to prove they have a suitable system of maintenance - some may feel a log book entry for the annual test will suffice, many would expect a certificate (especially if using a third party) for which model examples are available in BS5266 and template certificates available for use from the main electrical trade associations

Depending on the nature of the building & occupancy it may be necessary to prohibit the use of part or all of it. In other situations, waking watches, temporary systems, hand lamps, etc may be options.