AnthonyB

That is a matter of personal interpretation, you will hear different opinions of both A & D, plus if the premises are a conversion that comes under selective licensing the council will have their view as well. I've seen Grade A more often than not in this situation. Another factor that could influence matters is the separation between the shop & flats - if inadequate thus requiring linked systems you are looking definitely more like a Grade A system.

Any current type of simple fastening not requiring a key would suit, BS EN 1125 panic fastenings would only be needed if over 60 persons would be using the route or would be unfamiliar with it - BS EN 179 exit devices may suffice.

The normal expectation is an assembly point to keep staff safely together, allow further checking that people are out, etc. Depending on the geography of the site and number of persons involved there may be multiple assembly points for different floors, etc but it's expected there should be defined locations not just people randomly wandering off in all directions.

What floor the flat is on? Sounds like an individual flat assessment template than a building wide FRA.

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 a suitable 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.

If the occupiers of other flats have to pass your front door to get to the escape stair it has to be a fire door, always has been a requirement. If you are the last flat on the row, not as big an issue.

If it still complies with current regulations you are not making it detrimental, merely different. Shouldn't be an issue.

Are these in windows on an external wall? It's more of an issue with internal smoke shafts, where incorrect C&E on the system has led to rapid spread of smoke through all floors.

They do exist as a legacy measure in older buildings though, the usual guidance is a maximum of 5 staff only to resort to such. You can't use them in anything new of course.

If only, for the majority of buildings the Reg 38 info is long gone or the building pre dated the requirement. If the building's Golden Thread is intact and the info is available it is, of course an easy way to verify the items.

And you should have a Fire Risk Assessment in any case and a significant change, such as altering the standard of fire protection, requires a review. Building Regulations and Fire Regulations are totally separate entities.

You should avoid letting tenant's reset the system, however unless there is a rapid key holder response to reset it there is a risk they could damage the system trying to silence it. You can't stop them ignoring an alarm - they do retain responsibility for their actions (Or lack of) They should evacuate (& contact a keyholder who can reset). If the system has been correctly designed and installed for a HMO then false alarms other than malicious call point use should be rare - there are purpose made systems for HMO's designed to reduce the disruption from alarms raised within units as oppose to common parts.

Using this would be simpler https://envirograf.com/product/electrical-consumer-unit-and-distribution-board-fire-protection-system/

You could treat it on the inside with intumescent paint or use the purpose made metal electrical distribution board enclosures. both from https://envirograf.com/ These solutions will be far cheaper.

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.

A Refuge isn't a door - those are floor area measurements!

It's Building Work involving a material alteration so needs approval under Building Regulations. Whilst it's not a full communal escape it should be borne in mind that the interior layout of some flats can be such that an alternative exit is required (& will have been for a long time) and that may be why the 9 particular flats have the stair access - this should also be checked as otherwise the flats could be in a difficult position (especially on sale or re-mortgage). Other than that as it's full evacuation and presumably the internal stair has been assessed as having the width for all occupiers to leave at the same time it may be possible to remove.

As it is in the common parts, it would be the fire service who enforce any perceived sub standard fire safety works that leave a risk to relevant persons.

There isn't specifically, the International Residential Code specifies that the primary (front) door in the home must be at least 80 inches tall (2.03m) and this is recommended in other situations, generally you see doors no less than 1.9m, but there's far less detail than on widths.

Note the reply was in the same year as Grenfell, a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since!

A lot will depend on where the door is and who would be using it, doors that are of a height that make them more of a hatch (often present as a legacy measure in older buildings as the only way to provide an alternative route) can be accepted in certain limited situations.

Be aware that cutting down a fire door outside the parameters allowed by the manufacturer will invalidate the doors certification and more importantly lead to premature failure.

There is a newer version of the standard, but they don't usually apply retrospectively unless there was a serious flaw in the earlier standard that gives undue risk.

They aren't illegal and he could be the one who ends up in legal trouble if he puts that about widely! Good luck in the summer!

Glass blocks do exist that would satisfy the fire performance requirements, but proving if existing ones are is quite difficult. In theory they should be, but even if the site has been signed off that doesn't actually mean they are, building control completion certificates have little relevance to workmanship & correct use of materials from a fire safety point of view.