AnthonyB

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.

If you are a tenant the landlord is responsible for all this. If the boundary is the responsibility of the other party it's up to them if they want a gate or not. There is no legal requirement for such a provision.

No, all completely down to the tenant. It's similar with typical small buildings with a retail unit on ground and a floor or two of offices above with a single lease each for the whole of the office (including its stair) and a single lease for the unit. Often the whole building fire alarm is in one demise off it's board and some agents assume that because there is one system 'common' to the premises they need to maintain it (even when the lease assigns no such responsibility to the landlord/freeholder) and carry out an FRA and then when actions are required (as these systems are often quite old) complain as there is no service charge to pay for it and the client has to stump the cost - precisely because the system isn't common at all! In these cases the tenant who has the panel & it's power supply is responsible for it through the whole building and they and the other leaseholder have to work together to manage fire safety as per Article 22 of the Fire Safety Order

Nothing in Building Regulations or fire safety guidance for your situation requires FD60 doors, FD30 would suffice.

Not really - if you were directly into the street you wouldn't expect it. The only slight possibility is if the only route of escape passes your door and you can't be more than a meter from it but that normally applies to balcony access on the upper floors of larger blocks. I'd ask for full details on where this comes from.....

Building Regulations aren't - they still have the statutory bar. The Fire Safety Order removed the statutory bar from fire safety post build. If the shortfall in protection from the old standard and the new is significant enough to be a risk to safety then it is no longer acceptable - this is the cornerstone of risk assessment in determining this. I do agree that an older specification of doorset can remain acceptable. The door checker should provide enough detail on the deficiencies to allow the risk assessor to determine which need resolution and which can be progressive in the future. Sadly loads of firms that have done the course and jumped on the fire door inspection bandwagon will inspect every door they see (even if not required to be a fire door) fail them if anything at all is wrong, and then put a 5 or 6 figure quote in to remediate it all. The better ones will actual grade defects allowing a sensible assessment and action plan to be drawn up only doing immediate work where really needed.

There is no hard and fast answer, it's a case by case thing. All being on one alarm system leans towards one report, but it could equally be done as three. Really massive multiple building sites need splitting but in smaller cases it's on the merits of each case.

I've done several for a Council and the DCLG Sleeping Risk guide with relevant input from the NFCC Specialised Housing ended up being the most appropriate as they weren't care or nursing homes nor private dwellings or HMO's The consensus along with the enforcing authority was the risk profile of the occupiers, even with staff on site, warranted the more robust basic measures in the DCLG guide with further influence from the results of person centred FRAs (as per NFCC) as indicated. Arson, damage and self harm are sometimes considerations requiring anti barricade doors that are also FD30s doors and anti ligature (expensive but achievable). Deprivation of Liberty authorisations and the sometimes higher risk to the service user from being able to abscond creates interesting considerations when it comes to escape fastenings on final exits!

If travel distances are short enough a mezzanine floor then they don't always need a protected stair however they shouldn't really pass through an area of high fire risk and some form of enclosure or separation might be advisable

You would need to for the part of your premises that was the workplace as oppose to the private dwelling but it would not need to be written unless a licensed activity. You need nothing more complex than what's in this basic guide for the smallest type of business: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/14879/making-your-premises-safe-short-guide.pdf