AnthonyB

If they are part of a linked system there would be a central control and monitoring panel or link to a BMS PC allowing you to check test results for any defective fittings. If just individual fittings with a self test function then you will have to check the information on the data plate on the side of the fitting or catch one that is faulty or in self test mode so you can see the different LED colour and flash combinations that show this. Whilst you don't have to test them monthly you still have to visually inspect them monthly to see if any are showing a fault code or are completely dead. More info: https://mountlighting.co.uk/technical/self-test-emergency-lighting-explained/

Oh dear, that's not right. If it needs to be linked it should be and why are there going to be false alarms - unless the system is poorly designed or poorly maintained or the shop operator is generally negligent in their work there shouldn't be any. The flats wouldn't false alarm the shops as the communal alarm system only needs a heat detector in the flats. The local domestic system in each flat, which would be liable to false alarming from the hallway smoke alarm if the kitchen or bathroom door is left open and there was lots of steam or burnt food, is local to the flat only and wouldn't affect the shop. Somebody has been very poorly advised - sadly there are a lot out there that really shouldn't be in the fire safety business e..g https://www.hantsfire.gov.uk/company-and-its-former-director-ordered-to-pay-more-than-100000-for-insufficient-fire-risk-assessment/

Hi - this links you to appropriate guidance https://www.fira.co.uk/technical-information/flammability/fire-safety-of-furniture-and-furnishings-in-the-contract-and-non-domestic-sectors

I actually answered you back then and we had a conversation. ---- The EL testing was OK, but the smoke ventilation was different. The smoke ventilation system needs to be tested annually by a competent person as per Article 17 of the fire safety order so it is maintained in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair. There is a lot more to this than just testing it operates and requires a specialist contractor (many electricians and fire alarm companies don't maintain them properly either, a smoke vent specialist is recommended)The same Article applies to the emergency lighting however as the annual duration test only differs in duration to the monthly you could argue that you are competent to do the basic test with other competent persons brought in for repairs. ---- Thank you very much for your reply, Anthony. This seems like good news as I can carry out the 3 hour test in the exact same way as the monthly on/off test, and I’m happy to bring experts in to carry out repairs. I’ve looked at the Fire Safety Order, Article 17, and I’m interested in how are you interpreted this document to provide your response, just so I can clearly explain this to my fellow residents... https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/1541/article/17/made Thanks, once again, Gary ---- If you mean not testing the smoke control yourself it's because you are unlikely to have the equipment and competency to ensure it is subject to asuitable system of maintenance and be maintained in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair based on the required maintenance regime in British Standards (which the Enforcers’ Guidance published by the National Fire Chiefs Council advises enforcement officers to use as a benchmark).With the Emergency Lighting you will be able to follow the BS and demonstrate competency as well as having the right equipment for the job.

Obstruction is not the only issue - the stair should be free from combustibles and ignition sources. Two approaches exist: Zero tolerance: Nothing is permitted. Easy to manage, guarantees safety & compliance. Not very homely Managed use:This approach allows strictly defined use of common parts and limits the items allowed, to control fire load and ease of ignition. It includes strict conditions on where such items can be kept. For example, a ‘managed use’ policy might permit residents to: • place pot plants and door mats outside their front doors • have framed pictures and notice boards on walls • store bicycles, prams and mobility scooters in places that are out of the way and not likely to cause obstruction. This approach also has advantages and disadvantages. The benefits include: • by making the common areas ‘homely’, it fosters a sense of pride and value in the block, which can impact positively on anti-social behaviour • it benefits older and disabled people in particular, by allowing them to store mobility aids at the point of access • it allows the specific risk factors in the building to be taken into account. The disadvantages include: • it is more difficult to adopt as it requires a clearly defined policy with a list of ‘dos and don’ts’ • there is more scope for misunderstanding, requiring more education of, and communication with, residents • while it might be possible to minimise accidental fires with an appropriate ‘managed use’ policy, deliberate ignition may still be a significant concern • by allowing valuables to be left on view, it can encourage crime and subsequently increase the risk of deliberate ignition • it is more difficult for landlords to ‘police’, and for enforcing authorities and fire risk assessors to audit • it is likely to require more frequent inspections by landlords/TMC's • failure to adopt the policy effectively could result in liability for landlords/TMC's should a situation occur that places residents at risk of serious injury or death in the event of fire. When adopting a ‘managed use’ policy: • carry out a specific risk assessment taking into account the particular circumstances in the building • consider whether residents are disposed towards keeping ‘rules’, and avoid ‘managed use’ where this is not the case • ensure that there are clearly defined ‘do’s and don’ts’ that residents can easily follow • only apply it where there is a suitable standard of fire protection – particular care should be taken when applying it to situations such as single stairway buildings and ‘dead end’ corridors • limit it to buildings in which the main elements of structure are made of concrete, brick and other non-combustible materials • take notice of instances of anti-social behaviour and avoid ‘managed use’ where there is particular concern regarding the potential for deliberate ignition • generally only apply it to buildings which have effective security, eg access control • never allow storage of combustible material – where appropriate, make arrangements for residents to have communal facilities for storage • never allow items to be left awaiting disposal, not even in chute rooms – even short term presence poses a risk • only allow basic furniture and not upholstered seating • never allow motorcycles, mowers and other gardening equipment containing petrol and other fuels • never allow charging of mobility scooters, batteries or other electrical equipment in common parts – consider providing dedicated rooms for charging, suitably fire separated from the rest of the block • if storage cabinets are appropriate, only permit lockable metal cabinets to be used and never timber or plastic sheds or lockers • never allow residents to store hazardous chemicals, gas containers or flammable liquids in storage cabinets or dedicated storerooms and cupboards • only allow scooters, bicycles, prams and so forth, if there are suitable areas, that will not pose an obstruction, where they can be kept.

It's not adequate. A common area only system will not provide the required audibility to rouse sleeping occupiers without sounders (& a heat detector usually as well so a flat fire in a flat where the occupant is out is detected before it affects the common parts) in at least the flat internal hallway to achieve 85dB at the bedroom doors as a minimum (should be 75dB bedhead but the 85dB at the bedroom door is a commonly accepted variation to avoid the need to extended into the bedroom). This assumes the premises require a full evacuation strategy. Sounds like you need a new better FRA as well!

The LACORS guidance is useful, as is ADB as it is a single large dwelling - not flats and the relevant part for dwellings should apply..

If dealing with existing healthcare premises the MHCLG Healthcare Premises FRA guide goes into a lot more detail and is probably worth a look.

Yes, with some exceptions - see BS7273-4

At one point of time in history the only way glass could have the required integrity was by being wired - clear glazing simply didn't exist. Back in the day it made identifying fire resistant glazing straightforward - wired = FRG, clear = not! In existing premises where 30 minutes performance is required and has been provided in the past for this purpose (usually as part of fire certification) it's reasonable to accept it (although there are many queuing up to condemn it and supply new glazing). Really old fire glazing with very thin wire can have issued with relation to impact safety, but usually is OK for fire. A lot of fire door courses are black & white (not all)- today's standards or fail - but the real world (& much of the official government guidance) is far more pragmatic.

It was once considered acceptable to meet the FD20 requirement by installing an FD30 door blank & frame but omitting the intumescent and some doors used to be dual certified for this (FD30 with seals/FD20 without). The builders probably think this is still the case, but is no longer permitted, see these links for starters: https://www.nhbc.co.uk/binaries/content/assets/nhbc/tech-zone/nhbc-standards/tech-guidance/6.7/fd20-fire-doors-eng-wales.pdf https://www.jbkind.com/uploads/pdfs/JBK_Fact_Sheet_FD20_and_FD30.pdf

The guidance says no - any use in this situation would have to be mitigated with a rationale as to why it doesn't compromise safety in that specific situation. Ultimately a court or determination would decide if it was suitable to meet the legislation.

The beauty of the current legislation is that that is completely acceptable, not like the old days of more rigidity.

Usually you's see it, but it's not always been the case. Even now fire lifts can open into the corridor as long as they are within 7.5m of the stair door The shaft will generally always be protected in relation to the walls, often being brick & block, the vulnerability being the doors , which whilst some will give 30 minutes fire resistance are poor at stopping smoke. In some buildings in the past it was common to fit a self closing fire door in front of the lift opening to overcome this, particularly with concertina and open lift car doors, but it's less common in flats as they weren't covered by fire safety legislation until 2005

Some resources: https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/fire-resistance-historic-timber-panel-doors/ http://planning.islington.gov.uk/aniteim.websearch/(S(oi0ozvrsrr24fx45pongzcze))/Download.aspx?ID=243092 https://envirograf.com/product-category/fire-doors/fire-door-upgrades/

Blue 60 is for frames not glazing, so that's out - it ideally needs to be a solution designed & tested for glazing such as Envirograf Products 79 & 109. If the doors are third party certified blanks with the glazing being added later on site then in most cases that's the certification gone out of the window (excuse the pun!) as most manufacturers only allow glazing to be added by the manufacturer themselves during production or by accredited installers at their workshops to a defined spec. Depends on the remit of the consultant - if just risk assessing, then solutions would potentially be out of their scope (& training), if specifically carrying out fire door inspections then you would be more entitled to expect a detailed action plan - although the training of some door inspectors seems to be so brief that 'replace everything' seems to be their only answer to all problems!

There isn't an N at the moment. Different parts will include reference to glazing in different contexts, e.g. Part B for fire, Part L for energy performance/insulation, etc https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/approved-documents

Yes as the door will be used by less than 60

You can make it as difficult as you want to get in as long as you can readily escape outwards. Having two fastenings isn't ideal as it complicates escape and renders the push bar pointless as the exit is no longer panic proof (i.e. pressure of people against the door/bar opens it without having to carry out any positive action) although the numbers expected to use the exit are likely to be under the typical benchmark where it needs to be panic proof as most sheltered housing is "stay put unless in communal space" on hearing an alarm

It should always in theory have been an up arrow, but confusion set in with the example pictograms used in the UK implementation of the EU Safety Signs Directive in 1996 (The Health and Safety Regulations 1996). Rather than continue the use of our existing BS 5499-1:1990 pictogram & arrows it copied the example European signs from the Directive and we ended up with the man/arrow/door symbol and three arrow variants - Left, Right, Down. Things went full circle in 2013 with the EC Directive sign being supplanted by the BS EN ISO 7010 exit signage (very similar to the old BS5499 system) which went back to the 8 directional arrows including up for straight on.

Answered your PM

Firstly define 'kitchen'. Does it have a cooker, or is it just a tea/break out point with kettle, microwave, toaster (which can be totally open plan)? Secondly do the offices and staff room either side both have their own exits or would you create inner and possibly even inner inner rooms by adding doors? Absolutely no need for FD60 and possibly not even FD30 either (a door would probably be wedged anyway).

Where necessary is a reflection that specific provisions are determined by Fire Risk Assessment. Exit doors don't (& never have) had to open in the direction of escape unless likely to be used by 60 or more persons - this has formed a part of fire safety guidance for a very long time. Call point signage, like some other fire safety signage, isn't explicit in the Order, however some slack in the specific detail is filled by the Health & Safety (Safety Signs & Signals) Regulations 1996 which also covers fire safety signs, but even this isn't definitive on these signs. Strictly speaking they are not required as a matter of course based on the way the law is drafted because the actual call point is required to be red with a pictorial symbol under EN54 the fire alarm component construction standard so in effect signs itself - in theory only if obstructed or hidden or requiring location in a large open area would it need additional signage to ensure the fire alarm is readily usable. It's likely this is poor drafting of the legislation (it's full of poor writing) as in other EU countries (who adopted similar legislation as the Fire Safety Order continues the UK's earlier implementation of an EU directive for worker fire safety via the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations) mostly routinely sign their call points. What is more common here is to place Fire Action Notices next to call points as a continuation of the practice that used to be a legal requirement under Fire Certification via the Fire Precautions Act, although even this technically isn't mandatory.

It depends on who did the report. Whilst many fire safety consultants will clearly show which actions, in their opinion, are considered necessary for compliance with your duties under the order and which are 'value added' optional good practice, others will phrase everything as a recommendation because you, the Responsible Person, decide what to do, not them. This means it's possible, with some reports, to not do something on the basis it's a 'recommendation' yet leave persons at risk from fire and be liable to prosecution. Compartmentation is critical in blocks of flats so it's very rare for an issue with it not to be necessary for compliance.

External stair? Difficult without photos, possibly not.