AnthonyB

You wouldn't normally design that in a building, but I have seen it done in existing buildings where historically it was the only and lowest risk way of adding a second exit.

That's for new builds or refurbs and where Approved Document B is not being used. BS9999 is NOT a risk assessment guide, is NOT a legal requirement and is NOT retrospective. The law is quite clear that all provisions are risk based. Far too many practitioners spend other peoples money by getting RP's to put stuff in that is not legally required as it's easier than actually assessing the risk and giving RP's an informed choice. Would it be nice if every lift was upgraded to include fire alarm interfacing? Yes Does it actually need to be done? No, not across the board for existing buildings. When was the last time in the UK when there was a fatality or even a near miss from someone using a lift in a fire? Never seen it done in 20 years of evacuation drills either, except where managed use of the lift was part of an evacuation plan.

Based on the draft revision to Building Regulations then yes: [Care Homes] Sprinkler systems 2.53 When a sprinkler system is provided in accordance with section 10, the following variations to the guidance given in paragraphs 2.42 to 2.52 are acceptable. a. Fire doorsets to bedrooms need not be fitted with self-closing devices. b. Protected areas may contain more than 10 beds. c. Bedrooms may contain more than one bed. If any of the variations are made, the management procedures should take account of the larger number of residents that may need assistance, and the need to manually close bedroom doors during sleeping hours. NOTE - this is only a DRAFT, however is likely to be accepted and come in during 2019.

The height of the premises is such that benchmark guidance would require them, the risk assessor is following the correct guidance for compliance with the law and not over reacting. The links Tom has posted will confirm this. The fitting is a lower priority than fire door or compartmentation issues which should be addressed first

All non domestic premises regardless of size must carry out a fire risk assessment and must implement suitable and sufficient preventative and protective measures as required from that assessment. The 5 employees bit only relates to the requirement to record the significant findings of the FRA: Where one of the following applies the FRA must be recorded: - The Responsible Person has 5 employees or more (be it one premises with 5 staff or three premises each of 2 staff) - There is a requirement to be licensed to carry out an undertaking regardless of if anyone is employed and how many - The Premises have been served an Alterations Notice by the Fire & Rescue Service Whether it need be recorded or not it must be carried out and precautions put in place

If it's there then yes (if it was built in the last 20-30 years it would have been put in as a Building Regulation requirement) and a 3 hour test on a small block of flats shouldn't be that expensive you should get other quotes. If it wasn't there because it was an old development then due to size it would be recommended (but a lower priority than fire door issues) as oppose to a high priority action. You have no option but to maintain it appropriately, it would be an offence not to do so.

It depends! Is there are party wall separating the adjacent neighbours thus providing compartmentation that negates the need to consider them or is it less substantial? If the shout (or air horn, whistle, rotary gong) can be heard throughout the barn readily you may not need a manual electrical system (call points, sounders, control panel). The other consideration would be if a fire could develop unseen and prejudice escape, for example if all the staff were in the mezzanine office. In which case automatic detection would be needed - if the barn is large enough to need an electrical manual system then you'd add the detectors to this, if not then a fire risk assessor may justify the use of mains powered interlinked domestic smoke alarms (BS5839-6 Grade D) with detectors to the risk areas and office (the latter to act more as an alarm sounder more than a detector) although technically only commercial alarm systems (BS5839-1) should be used.

No new legislation is on the cards at the moment other than the Approved Document for Fire Safety under Building Regulations is up for review - but this is only guidance and only affects new builds and alterations to existing. Well done for standing up to the misinformation that's flying around at the moment.

If it's a cupboard/store then you can omit closers and mark fire door keep locked shut. It would need to be FD30 (intumescent strips) unless protecting an escape route in which case it would need to be FD30S (strips and cold smoke seals). An existing notional fire door with no strips or seals and 25mm stops may be acceptable, but the FRA must indicate why this is so. This assumes that the location and contents of the room even need to be of fire resisting construction and doors in the first place, whilst desirable for property protection it's not always a legal necessity for life safety.

Why did you have it installed in the first place, is it a Section 257 standard of conversion or purpose built?

What signage? If you are talking fire door signs then they must be to fire door standard and not just normal doors if you are signing them this way. Your FRA, if carried out by a competent person, will detail which doors need to be fire doors, with closers or kept locked shut, and to what standard they need to be (notional, upgraded or current FD30/FD30S/FD60/FD60S standard)

I don't want to go into too much detail (as you'd need to pay me as I'd be doing your FRA!) but it looks like use of the hall for up to 100 would be acceptable with the two front exits - for the larger functions (and certainly over 60) I'd want to consider securing the outer oak doors in the open position whilst in use. Travel distance wise it looks like even the rear rooms don't need to use the stairs down and the exit signage would be best removed as the route is locked anyway. I'd want some protection of the alternative route from the rear via the vestibule by the doors from the hall being fire doors.

Hi, a) I'd need to see the layout, measure exit widths, travel distances etc as part of a Fire Risk Assessment to give a definitive answer - it's not perfect, but could be worse and there are workable solutions b) No as they only have a single power source and aren't interlinked. The point of detection is to give early warning to allow an escape before exit routes are blocked where a fire could start undiscovered. With a single station detector if you are at the other end of the building you won't hear it and if you are near enough you may end up detecting the fire yourself way before it activates. Your FRA will determine requirements, but for this size of building you only need a manual alarm system and possibly dependant on layout some detection on top (all systems start as manual and then add detection as the risk requires). Detection and call points should be on the same system, which as not a dwelling should be a proper Part 1 system with a control panel and not Part 6 domestic smoke alarms, although a risk assessor might be able to mitigate the use of Part 6 equipment (for which you can actually get compatible call points. c) Old 240V 3-wire systems without panels were very common even in large buildings back in the last century as the only minimum requirement then (& now for many premises) is a manual means of fire warning, some had a diversion relay which was a box with a button on the front that would silence the alarms for a period to give you chance to replace the broken glass in the activated call point. These are also now illegal due to having only one power source - fire alarms are required to have two power sources under the Health & Safety (Safety Signs & Signals) Regulations. d) Many competent fire alarm contractor would shy from this due to the age of cable (assuming it's fire resistant MICC otherwise it has to come out regardless if not fire resistant) although it is possible to reuse 3-wire system zones on a new conventional panel as most can be set up to be able to operate a 3-wire zone - as you are changing from 240V to 24V you would need new sounders and call points though (still cheaper than rewiring). Any detection you need should be part of this and can be wired into new soft skin fire resistant cabled zones. Unfortunately premises like yours have a lot of catching up to do as until the Fire Safety Order came in they were not covered by fire safety law unlike workplaces, so you are having to jump from the 1960's to 2018 in one go rather than over decades. The only reason there are any existing older fire precautions at all in places like these is because they will, in part or whole, have required a local authority license (often entertainment and dance) and the old licensing legislation allowed councils to require certain fire safety provisions as conditions of granting a license. The premises must have a Fire Risk Assessment, which normally if not used by someone employing over 5 persons would not need to be written, however as the premises are no doubt being used for licensed activity (even if it's lapsed, something else to look into as you may need a new license) then the FRA must be written even if it had no employees (e.g. just volunteers, self employed, etc)

If it's a notice of deficiencies it's not formal enforcement - does the covering letter say they are coming back to check (often they don't). Without seeing the premises I can't say for sure, you need a competent fire risk assessment to determine this and prove to the fire service it's OK. Assuming the director has consulted the LGA Guide I linked to and read it correctly then if the doors are the original notional fire doors and the flats are under the relevant numbers of floors, etc as per the guide then replacing the closer and upgrading with intumescent strips and cold smoke seals may well suffice and as long as this is all recorded in the FRA the FRS should accept it (or risk a determination that they may loose)

6 monthly test hasn't existed since 2004 and just wears out the battery packs sooner, it's only used by those who are out of date or after a quick buck!

Depends on the existing doors specification and the size and layout of the block of flats - based on this the guidance risk assessors and enforcers should follow will state if: - Existing contemporary doors in good order can remain - Existing contemporary doors in good order can remain, but with upgrade (such as new door closers and the addition of intumescent strips and cold smoke seals) - Complete new FD30S doorset required Unless the latter is required door replacement is optional, however if it is flat owners have to comply or they can be compelled under the Housing Act (easier to use tool than the Fire Safety Order) to do so. Link to guidance: https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/fire-safety-purpose-built-04b.pdf

Don't bother with powder extinguishers, it's dangerous for non specialists to tackle a gas fire by means other than cutting off the gas supply, just stick a CO2 in for the electrical gear.

It is possible to have managed use of the areas, but most flats follow the zero tolerance approach which is easier to police and so there should be nothing there. There are also possible H&S and liability issues too if stuff on a hand rail or shoes in the way causes a fall.

Do you not have access to a competent advisor? That's a massive undertaking without having been told what, where and how to do it. The risk is in the flats and sprinkler provision is to each flat in order to protect the common areas, adjoining flats & to some extent the occupants. Each flat usually has a system installed to BS 9251: 2005 – Sprinkler Systems for Residential and Domestic Occupancies, although this standard covers up to 20m fire engineers can usually mitigate use at higher heights and common supply sprinkler booster pumps are often installed to support this. For retrofitting a lot of mist based systems are available that are cheap,easy to install, have less issues with water supplies and the need for booster pumps and are still BS compliant Common circulation areas don't need cover, it's not uncommon to cover certain ancillary accommodation like bin stores though.

The last management company that forced new doors on residents and expected them to pay the bill when they weren't needed nor in poor repair lost at tribunal and had the foot the not unsubstantial bill themselves. Sounds like the management company has had poor advice, the FRA should have been more specific as to whether new or upgraded doors would suffice and why in relation to the tables in the LGA Guide and the risk.

Sounds like it's OK as travel distances in a single direction to a protected stair are adequate, assuming that you won't have more than 60 persons. In any case this should go past Building Control so they will no doubt have input.

No, they are private dwellings, some brigades have tried to enforce this on landlords, but as the expert testimony on the legislative regime at the Grenfell inquest points out this is not actually enforceable. Would the residents want to have to pay hundreds or even thousands of pounds a year in service charge so the freeholder could employ people to be on site doing nothing except waiting for a fire so they can implement the PEEPs? The private individual retains some responsibility for their own safety, if they become so infirm that they cannot safely evacuate then they should assess where they live, it's unrealistic to expect freeholders to be responsible. That's why we have sheltered housing, care homes, bungalows, ground floor flats, etc

If they are built in 1989 and the original doors they are likely to be to FD30 standard and may even have intumescent seals. Also current Government guidance doesn't require retrospective replacement across the board, there are circumstances where no change is needed, or where upgrading existing will suffice. You should have a specialist inspect the door and also ask for the FRA that said it was required

As a minimum you would expect to see them to protect the stairway. Many halls fell outside fire safety legislation other than some minor conditions for the main hall if licensed for dance etc, so many are having to catch up on 60 years of legislation now coming under the Fire Safety Order. A Fire Risk Assessment is needed to determine requirements such as fire doors, escape routes, fire alarms, etc, etc as there may be several issues requiring attention.

Your interpretation matches that of the LACORS guidance for HMOs and flats from converted houses and would be what I would expect to see, a mixed system