Do Fire risk assessment recommendations have to be implemented?

[Guest Tim Peters]

We have received a Fire risk assessment for an apartment block that says the building is compliant, however the fire officer has added a set of recommendations, would all of these need to be implemented?

An example mentions the service cupboards opening onto the protected area have a breach to a ceiling void and need to be fire stopped.

[AnthonyB]

It depends on who did the report. Whilst many fire safety consultants will clearly show which actions, in their opinion, are considered necessary for compliance with your duties under the order and which are 'value added' optional good practice, others will phrase everything as a recommendation because you, the Responsible Person, decide what to do, not them.

This means it's possible, with some reports, to not do something on the basis it's a 'recommendation' yet leave persons at risk from fire and be liable to prosecution. Compartmentation is critical in blocks of flats so it's very rare for an issue with it not to be necessary for compliance.

 

[Micky.D]

Hi, i have a similar issue... a recent FRA recommended a Fire Alarm be installed in our Block - 4 Storey Conversion / 6 Flats. No idea when it was converted, no secondary means of escape, just a single stairwell. All Flat Front doors open directly onto the stairwell, doors are also mismatched, so no idea who, if anyone has a Fire Door.

The system they have recommended is...

Grade A, LD2 coverage in the common areas and a heat detector in each flat in the room/lobby opening onto the escape route (interlinked)

Grade D, LD3 coverage in each flat (non-interlinked smoke alarm in the room/lobby opening onto the escape route) to protect the sleeping occupants of the flat.

Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks.

 

 

[AnthonyB]

That sounds correct for a block where it has been determined that a full evacuation strategy is necessary due to other defects in a legacy building. It's often easier and cheaper than bringing up everything else to a minimum acceptable specification

[Guest martin nash]

AnthonyB. Isn’t the service riser cupboard a ‘protected shaft’? So allowing cables etc to pass vertically through the building without fire stopping every floor?

[AnthonyB]

9 hours ago, Guest martin nash said:

AnthonyB. Isn’t the service riser cupboard a ‘protected shaft’? So allowing cables etc to pass vertically through the building without fire stopping every floor?

Depends on the block, layout, fire resistance of the walls, fire strategy etc.

Often service risers are indeed protected shafts with 60 minute walls and either 30 or 60 minute doors and don't need stopping at each floor (& sadly some RP's have spent substantial amounts on stopping after being erroneously advised it was required), sometimes the design is to continue a compartment floor so as to have service cupboards, you do see both approaches.

[Lyledunn]

On 27/10/2022 at 22:32, Guest Tim Peters said:

We have received a Fire risk assessment for an apartment block that says the building is compliant, however the fire officer has added a set of recommendations, would all of these need to be implemented?

An example mentions the service cupboards opening onto the protected area have a breach to a ceiling void and need to be fire stopped.

It would be a tad bit easier if fire risk assessments were just a simple audit for compliance. But they are not, and by their very nature, they are subjective and that inevitably leads to disagreements between the various parties, which in turn, can boil over into acerbic discord. 
It is not always necessary for a building to be fully compliant, whatever that means, to have a tolerable risk to persons from fire. 
However, there are some fundamental considerations such as compartmentation, fire stopping, means of escape, means of giving warning that, whilst also subjective, should be close to current expectations of compliance. Where deviations are encountered in these areas, it is my view that the assessor should set out a detailed justification for any proposed course of action or indeed inaction.
It is also inevitable that even diligent professionals will miss something obvious. At the end of the day it should be acknowledged that we should all work together, assessor, client, FRS, et al, to arrive at an optimum level of fire safety, even if some individual’s nose ends up severely out of joint.

If I were you, I think I would be back on to my assessor and ask him or her to have a chat with the fire officer. If you decide not to follow the fire officers recommendations, you would be well advised to set out a comprehensive justification for not doing so.