AnthonyB

Are these separate flats or sleeping accommodation ancillary to the pub for the manager or licensee? Makes a difference!

Technically one central test switch meets the relevant standard (BS5266-1) as all it says is: "8.3.3 Test facility Each emergency lighting system should have an appropriate means for simulating failure of the normal supply for test purposes (e.g. manual isolatingbdevice or automatic testing). The test facility should be able to be used for both monthly short tests and annual full duration tests. The test facility should be protected from unauthorized operation. The test device should not interrupt power to any other electrical equipment that could cause a hazard." However for convenience and to avoid the monthly function test duration going on too long (with consequential longer recharge times and greater risk of battery damage) it's common in better installations to have multiple test points, sometimes one for each floor, sometimes one for each room & section of corridor!

No, it's been a key principle in guidance since 2011 that the self closers are fitted. Many deaths at Grenfell were attributed to missing or non working self closers allowing the internal escape stair (not directly affected by the cladding) to become impassable as it quickly filled with smoke from all the open doors. The guidance when it comes to residential is increasingly more than just a suggestion as it now has special legal status: (1A) Where in any proceedings it is alleged that a person has contravened a provision of articles 8 to 22 or of regulations made under article 24 in relation to a relevant building (or part of the building)— (a)proof of a failure to comply with any applicable risk based guidance may be relied on as tending to establish that there was such a contravention, and (b)proof of compliance with any applicable risk based guidance may be relied on as tending to establish that there was no such contravention. If you don't follow the guide you have proven your guilt! The guidance is quite generous in smaller blocks allowing older fire doors to be retained but will not move on self closers - too many deaths associated with open doors (even before Grenfell) There are lots of options to make a self closer less burdensome - delayed action closers, swing free closers, etc

Unless they are very old and predate the CE marking requirement, yes

It's not the total number in the building that dictates fastenings and direction of opening but the number realistically likely to need to use them. Unless things get really bad in education it's unlikely a classroom direct exit will be used by more than 60 persons and evacuation will be staff led so an EN179 push pad exit device would be accepted.

It require a commercial system does unless it is so small that a fire would be readily discovered and the alarm spread throughout by shouts. Building Regulations and every bit of fire legislation guidance from the 60's to the current day requires a layered approach to fire warning where the minimum system to comply with legislation (if not very small) is a Category M BS5839-1 system of manual call points & sounders. Only if required would you then add detection.

LACORS only applies where a conversion isn't to post 1991 Building Regulations. A 1996 conversion & AOV suggests to ADB and stay put, however there are lots of other factors you mention which are not! The fire strategy from the conversion would help (unless lost) as it would explain the rationale. Smoke control is also to benefit the fire service as well as escape and it's likely it was introduced as such under Building Regs so you can't negate it as there is an absolute duty to maintain it. Not straightforward and certainly not possible to be definitive on here.

Not a question or a fire safety forum sadly - more a landlord/tenant/property law issue, Citizens Advice are a useful free initial source of advice.

The detailed guidance is in here http://www.smoke-vent.co.uk/documents/SCA Guidance notes rev 3 (Jan 2020).pdf You don't want a stair vent opening on it's own so other than some configurations of small single stair buildings you don't want or need stair detection

That would be sensible and in line with the holistic 'whole building' safety approach the BSA amendments aim to introduce.

Hi, Yes I do - I can see a Chubb PSK 5 5 kilo ABC Powder extinguisher from the 70's next to it as well! Equally collectible. Here's about 10% of the total collection I have:

Because it dated back to old battery technology (such as when wet lead acid central battery systems were common) and gives no benefit. Current battery types are actually damaged by part duration testing and it was found that by hour testing cells soon developed a memory effect and would prematurely fail 3 hour tests - a nice earner for test and install company's but a unnecessary large cost to end users

Sounds like you are in an area with selective/additional licensing so virtually every rented property falls under their remit. I think Rahel meant to link to this which is similar in cost to a Dorgard - https://www.safelincs.co.uk/geofire-agrippa-acoustic-door-holder/

Retrospective fire strategies are a nice extra money earner for consultancies and in existing complex premises are indeed important to establish the fire safety intent of the original design and how it works going forward. They aren't a legal requirement in themselves though and are usually part of the Building Regulations process. Simpler premises like described may simply require a record of fire safety arrangements (which is a legal requirement) that can more easily be compiled by the duty holder or their competent person and not costs anything like a retro fire strategy. Also a lot of retro fire strategies are very generic, contain little more info than is already in the FRA and don't include plans but cost a lot of money so if you do go ahead you need to check carefully what you are getting.

Utter rubbish to get more work - the 6 monthly 1 hour test requirement was removed in 2004!

Is this a flat or a HMO? Self closing fire doors haven't been required in flats for a very long time. Bear in mind that a kitchen usually has a heat detector and the use of hold open devices is deprecated in these situations as there is a risk of delayed action until after the escape route is compromised.

It meets the sprit of 3.9 as there is separation between each landing and the stair which makes a stair OV acceptable - if the stairs were open to the landing they would need an AOV.

Certain information must, by law, now be shared or made available to residents and in relevant premises under the Building Safety Act residents are legally entitled to request access to a whole range of info including current and previous risk assessments, etc All premises (on occupancy and annually} "Responsible persons need to provide residents with instructions on: how to report a fire a reminder of what the evacuation strategy is for that building any other instruction that tells residents what they must do once a fire has occurred, based on the building’s evacuation strategy"

Worst case is communal L1 so all areas of the flats are covered (with suitable false alarm management designed in) as part of the main system - it's an option in the Purpose Built Flats guide for the worst cases that can never be upgraded with resort to compartmentation & smoke control. This sort of solution is expected for a Tudor age building and shouldn't be required for a 1985 build as there were regulations back then (although the 1985 Building Regs MoE requirements just pointed to the 70's version of CP3) so something must have really gone wrong with the build! I'm guessing the original plans and fire safety strategy (as far as one existed back then) are long gone. Retrofitting sprinklers and mist systems isn't impossible, but isn't easy either - remember you aren't expected to be to the latest new build standards in a building of this height & age, just a reasonable compromise to give an adequate level of safety. Flat internal layout is partly outside the scope of the FSO too. It's not one I can be definitive about without seeing it myself

It's not unheard of in PRU's & similar to have a variation in place to have key operated manual call points and all staff having keys backed up by L1 detection, higher staff ratios, CCTV monitoring and sprinklers to mitigate the call points being changed.

That's certainly the fire services view and I can see their point with it saying 'full extent'. Would using the higher than minimum level of detection relaxation in place of the high ceiling relaxation give you the same reduction in width? If so, it may be worth sounding out the fire service to see if they would be comfortable with that if you had a new fire/amended fire strategy to back it up. If they would be happy then the expense of the new paperwork is worth it, if not then you don't do it and think again as to your options (probably a determination).

As Neil says the BS isn't explicitly a legal requirement, but would probably be cited by prosecution & used by the Magistrate as reference to a standard that would meet the requirements of the legislation - you would need to show why not following this still provided adequate protection & thus no risk of serious injury or death to relevant persons Very few things in detail are explicit in the actual legislation, which sets broad functional aims, however many are implicit requirements, the onus being on the Duty Holder to show that an alternative approach would still equate to a suitable standard of safety.

Fire service case is based on this paragraph in BS9999 which is part of the list of conditions for applying variations to travel distance, exit & stair widths based on ceiling height. "b) the entire escape route, with the exception of corridors and lobbies, has a high ceiling;" Unfortunately a lot of things in buildings aren't picked up by Building Control and a completion certificate issued only for the premises to be subject to later enforcement (& sometimes successful prosecution) as their role is compliance with Building Regulations only and sometimes the certs are footnoted that they are not a guarantee that the premises fully meets other legislation nor every aspect of the build is up to spec hence a lot of buildings facing action for poor fire stopping and other issues. You have the option of a Secretary of State determination where there is a disagreement over the technical solutions to meeting Fire Safety Legislation or an appeal at Magistrates Court if you feel an Enforcement Notice is not warranted by the situation, but this will involve expense and experts to build & present your case.

The legislation as written does not consider fire fighters in the course of operational fire fighting duties to be relevant persons so in essence - no!

If the stair is a protected route then it should be free from obstruction & clear of combustibles (your fire risk assessment and if the building is modern enough the fire strategy will determine this). Non combustible items could be tolerated but require careful management and monitoring as when people see some stuff stored there they tend to assume they can add to it and combustibles can start to creep in! In the old days of the Fire Certificate combustibles in a protected stair would be a breach of the certificate and thus an offence.