AnthonyB

Yes, as that requirement was in existence at the time of build and unless you have insurance and building control approval for the effective removal of the system you are in sticky water before even considering the Fire Safety Order! If you split it into compartments that are below the threshold you may be OK - this is common in former large open single occupancy warehouses that are subsequently sub divided for multi occupancy - as the building work creates compartments below the threshold Building Control does not require the sprinklers and the insurers usually likewise. It sounds like the system has been neglected previously!

That diagram reflects the actual text far better!

It's not an automatic requirement for existing buildings and depends on the individual circumstances - many account for the lack of a system in their PEEPs and allocation of individual buddies to be with them & help them evacuate when the main flow has passed.

https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/technical-advice/emergency-and-fire/fire-advice/ https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/technical-advice/emergency-and-fire/ https://www.aschb.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/ASCHB-SteveEmery-FireSlides-red.pdf https://www.derbys-fire.gov.uk/application/files/8916/0250/5448/Heritage_Fire_Safety_Guidance_v2.pdf

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.

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!

If the pipework penetrates through a fire stopped floor then it should indeed be correctly firestopped.

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 level). The specification for windows only details dimensions and not total height. It's not the most clear!

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.

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.

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/

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!

It's the 3rd storey that does it, smaller conversions can use the Grade D stuff you suggested.

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.

As said - it depends on the works and the competence of who is doing it. Certain work needs specialists, other is more straightforward.

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)

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.

Yes if you message me with an email address I have something of use

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.

Smoke seals would protect the escape route and a well sealed cupboard will have limited growth in this situation as there would be limited oxygen (& limited materials) to cause spread - better to contain it - it may even go out. Depending on the design category of the system & the strategy there may be detection in the riser shaft or cupboards, a typical stay put wouldn't always have them for the shafts/cupboards just the main room, but there are no hard and fast rules, you see it done differently all the time and as long as the minimum expectations are met it's OK The revised LGA Guide will hopefully deal with this and as it is planned to have special status (failure to follow it would be evidence in it's own right of an offence whereas at the moment it's just a benchmark to judge against) will be the one to follow closely.

I've seen plenty of services cupboards with normal locks and internal thumbturns on modern builds all over the country - it's rare to see FB locks and Building Regulations doesn't require them. So it seems OK to change them - if there was a fire the fire service would use thermal image cameras to check it's the right door an use their entry tools to force it.

Check out the manual - it might help you and if not has manufacturer contact details to ask them direct. http://www.detaelectrical.co.uk/images/downloads/products/safety_alarms/Instructions/INS_0066_V1.1_-_Smoke_Heat_Alarm_Instructions.pdf

The Approved Documents to the Building Regulations state step height limits - what floor would this loft be equivalent to (1st, 2nd or 3rd floor) this will determine if it's an escape window (you lower yourself out) or a rescue window (fire service have to put a ladder or aerial appliance up to pull you out)

Can you still open the door 90 degrees + to give the full unobstructed width and then move away to safety along a route that is also 1m? (Even if you have to immediately turn left or right because of the barrier) Who would be using the route?

For any door protecting an escape route the benchmark is an FD30s door (intumescent seals and cold smoke brush/fin) - this is also in the guidance for existing premises. For a door only enclosing an area of special fire risk the benchmark is FD30 or in some cases FD60 (seals but no smoke brush/fin). The letting some smoke through is a bit of an outdated principle only remaining in the LACORS housing guidance (which is being reviewed as it's shockingly outdated) A building from the 60's/70's will have required fire doors in order to get a Means of Escape Certificate under the Offices, Shops & Railway Premises Act 1963 (later a fire certificate under the Fire Precautions Act 1971) but back then the technology of intumescent seals didn't exist and so to prevent leakage the doors had to close fit in a frame fitted with a 1" (25mm) rebate. It didn't work that well (but was an improvement on what went before) and created other issues (the door edges would char and produce a heavy tarry smoke that wouldn't reach ceiling height in the adjacent area and so miss smoke detectors for a period of time (this is why the provision of detection in rooms opening onto escape routes was introduced in the 80's to solve the issue of fires in hotel bedrooms that did not activate detection in the corridor, which was all that was usually present if at all). Proper risk assessment, in line with the accepted methodology PAS79-1 & 2 does not reject legacy provisions out of hand and simply examines the differences between old and new and if that difference creates an intolerable risk. In an office with legacy rebate only 30 minute fire door, where there is no sleeping risk, no delayed evacuation, occupiers familiar with the premises, ideally 2 exit routes and a higher than normal fire protection package (essentially any meaningful detection provision as the minimum for offices is still call points only) it is not unreasonable to accept the doors, noting that upon damage, replacement or a building refurb they should then be replaced.