AnthonyB

I suggest checking direct with the manufacturer: https://www.phoenixsafe.co.uk/

Not necessarily - if you have an assembly area that has exit doors opening into corridors or stairs before reaching the final exits that may be used by over 60 persons then the interior fire doors separating these areas would also be expected to open outwards etc. Otherwise you will still get the fatal crush just deeper in the building.

Assuming that the distance from the back of the shop to the front door doesn't exceed around 18m and you aren't planning to have more than 60 people inside it isn't a problem.

The local authority enforce the Housing Act which covers all types of rented housing to varying degrees and has far more wide ranging powers (particularly powers of entry) than the fire safety legislation that principally covers the common parts. It's mostly for rented premises. Being a s257 HMO only covers if the premises can be covered, if the local authority wishes, by additional licensing, but even if a license isn't required the Housing Act applies as does the Fire Safety Order as amended by the Fire Safety Act as there are 2 or more dwellings in the building (regardless of if they are rented or not) The fault for all this lies with whoever did the illegal conversion but that doesn't change the current situation. If it's not considered to minimum safe standards both types of legislation allow remedies up to and including prohibition & prosecution. Fire doesn't care if the premises are owner occupied or not and if the structural standards are such that a proper alarm is required then it's either that or renovate so the right fire separation and smoke control associated with stay put is provided. If it was the case that a fire in one flat wasn't an immediate risk to the lives in the other flats then each occupier (if not rented) could make their own decision to live or not by providing local smoke alarms, but it's the fact (as far as the enforcers are concerned, I've not seen the premises) that it is which leads to the current situation.

Potentially yes - anyone using common sense would want to cover the electrical riser anyway, whereas there would be an argument to exclude the water riser as a variation if it only contains water pipes.

Without seeing the layout I can't be definitive, but a lot of the time they don't have to be although it can afford property protection benefits.

It depends on where these rooms are located in relation to escape routes - unless they open onto a stair it's quite possible that they are OK as they are and it would only be a non statutory property protection consideration to increase the fire resistance.

If you are happy to rest on your insurance then arguably not.

If the protected route correctly terminates in a final exit it's no different to leaving an office floor to enter the stair. Nothing wrong with adding an extra final exit from the car park if you want though.

You would expect to see a separate door unless the car park is so small the single exit via the protected stair to the offices above is sufficient. You can link the shutters, but the secondary supply is difficult and expensive to provide as often requires 240V or even 415v and rarely provided.

If it was considered critical to the prosecution & serious harm or death had resulted then they may go down with you, but if the safety of employees are involved there's no due diligence defence and the Responsible Person will always carry the can. It might be common practice, but is still lazy, of course in some cases it isn't filled in because they don't have the knowledge or data to do so, hence why fire alarms and emergency lighting are considered by some to be specialist trades rather than a general electrical trade area.

If you re-read carefully that's what I've said, just be cautious that civil liability isn't as straightforward.

Whilst they are in deed Regulations the current regime stems primarily from an intention to deregulate fire safety - this is one of the consequences. You just give your advice you feel comfortable with, it will be followed or not, it's the way of things it seems!

Depends on the nature of the construction of the cupboard, it's door and any underdrawing of the stairs (if wood), the use of the building, if the stair is the only one, etc - we need a bit more info.

Firstly - has a Fire Risk Assessment been carried out by a competent person? This (legal requirement) should answer the question (& many others) If it doesn't it's clearly not adequate. If your premises are purpose built flats (after 1991 & often those from after 1962 as well) there isn't usually a need for a common fire alarm at all, just smoke detectors linked to smoke vents as a stay put policy is appropriate. If your block does not have the correct compartmentation and/or smoke control provision to support stay put then a simultaneous evacuation policy is required which requires a common fire alarm that also extends into the flats with a heat detector & sounder in the hallway (certain very vulnerable very old buildings may need even more cover). Technically the audibility should be 75dB bedhead as communal flat systems are meant to fully meet the commercial premises installation standard, however it's often been accepted (& indeed is adopted in the current official guidance for simultaneous evacuation in flats) that the residential alarm standard requirement of 85dB at the bedroom door is sufficient so the hallway sounder is enough without adding more into bedrooms. This is of course general guidance, I'd need to visit and carry out an FRA to be specific.

You have to ask why they are linked in the first place - if it's inadequate fire separation then you can't separate them unless the required structural works are carried out to increase the physical fire resistance. However what you can do is change the cause and effect between the two systems - the linking is primarily to warn the flat of any fire in the commercial property below not vice versa so you could programme the commercial system to have an alert only at the control panel on receiving a signal from the flats detection or to have a suitable investigation delay. This would all need to be determined in your fire risk assessment & is relatively straightforward if a competent assessor is used.

It depends which country you are in as different parts of the UK have subtly different requirements. If your loft conversion into a flat was done legitimately after 1991 then as part of the Building Regulations process it should have had to install the required provision, which is usually Grade D (mains) unless a very old 90's conversion. If there was nothing at all, then as a landlord in England there would need to be a smoke alarm on each landing/hallway which could (currently) be Grade F (battery only)

Fire legislation states: Maintenance 17.—(1) Where necessary in order to safeguard the safety of relevant persons the responsible person must ensure that the premises and any facilities, equipment and devices provided in respect of the premises under this Order or, subject to paragraph (6), under any other enactment, including any enactment repealed or revoked by this Order, are subject to a suitable system of maintenance and are maintained in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair. If it's argued the EL isn't necessary you could argue the maintenance requirement isn't. However that's only Fire Safety Criminal Law - there may be a civil liability if it doesn't work, the borrowed light is poor and someone has an accident - they could use it as the grounds of a claim (which may not succeed, but would have to be defended)

I see far more failed blades/fins than brushes, they just don't seem to last and are easily ragged, ripped, chewed, stripped, perished etc. My personal preference is brush seals

It would be yours as being an employer who also has control of the premises in order to carry out a business you are the primary Responsible Person under the fire safety legislation for risk assessment and compliance. You describe an 'inner room' situation where anyone in the kitchen needs to pass through an access room (the main salon) to escape. This means a fire in the access room could trap someone in the inner room if they aren't aware of it. Three solutions can be used A smoke (not heat) detector/alarm in the access room to give early warning to anyone in the inner room; or The wall/partition dividing the inner and access room stops 500mm below the ceiling so smoke passes over and is smelt/seen; or A suitable sized vision panel (window) is fitted in the door or wall between the inner and access rooms so a fire can be seen early enough to escape 1 is out as you are having false alarms and heat detectors are no use as they are far too slow to activate (you'd be trapped before it went off) 2 is impractical as the wall is already there not something you are planning to add 3 is the remaining solution - fitting a vision panel (or not having a door, or just a saloon style door) Small businesses with premises as small as yours aren't required to have electrical fire alarm systems for life safety/legal compliance purposes as human senses would react quicker than a detector and a shout of fire would be clearly heard throughout, the first trigger for provision is the layout creating an inner room for which your existing smoke alarm solution is usually acceptable, the second is where there are flats above with inadequate fire separation when something more substantial is needed.

Yes as fire & smoke behaviour doesn't change regardless of if it's doors in an internal wall or ones in an external wall.

If it's licensed (& it sounds like it is a section 257 HMO* at least at the time of licensing) you need to go to the Local Authority EHO as regardless of what anyone on here says it's totally up to them - currently different Councils have different standards and interpretations of current guidance. If it's fallen out of s257, which is likely as it's now all owner occupied, then it shouldn't be under the license anymore and your best source of advice is Local Authority Building Control as you are effectively making the premises more open plan which affects means of escape within the flat even if the common space is kept protected by the change in door. *a building that is declared an HMO by the local authority. a converted block of flats where the standard of the conversion does not meet the relevant building standards and fewer than two-thirds of the flats are owner-occupied

If they want to pay for it let them go ahead, if not, what proof of the installation date do you have and are there any certification stickers on the top of the door? It sounds OK and yet another case of a Council gold plating requirements when it's not them footing the bill. What size is the block? There is published and draft to be published official Government Guidance allowing lesser standards in smaller blocks where the risk is less.

That would be based on your fire risk assessment which would consider: Persons at risk - able bodied, quick to evacuate, numbers involved, etc Provision of automatic detection & warning - to minimum requirements or exceeding Areas being protected by the doors (protected route, cross corridor, area of special fire risk) & do they even need to be fire doors Overall means of escape provision & layout, including travel distances Any listing requirements that may affect alteration or replacement of the doors Good close fitting doors will still provide a degree of fire resistance and the assessment will determine if this is enough or certified doorsets are required. Lack of cold smoke seals are the first issue, followed by intumescent strips, but there are retrofit solutions for both of these.

I'd agree with Mike, lot's of 'kitchens' these days are little more than tea points, especially in offices, it's a long time since I routinely saw offices with actual kitchens with a cooker or hobs in (it was quite common back in the day) and the associated 30min FR enclosure and fire door, fire blanket and 5lb Powder extinguisher is hardly necessary. Similar principles apply to other premises, like shops.