Tom Sutton

I cannot give a definitive response and would need a lot more information but I can give some observations that may be useful. The use of accommodation staircases for means of escape is acceptable in small premises providing the bottom of the staircase is within 3 m of a final exit, also travel distances are limited. Because there is no compartmentation between the floors, both floors would have evacuated simultaneously and treated as one compartment. As you are considering risk assessment to justify accepting the number of occupants above the occupancy limit you would need to reduce the times in ASET to accommodate the extra numbers. Using automatic detectors and reducing fire load/ignition sources in unprotected area, you could reduce the ignition and detection of a fire. Level of management control in place plus the use of fire marshals could reduce the recognition and response time. The travel distance will be fixed so it is unlikely to be helpful in reducing ASET. The tenable limit would be helped by responsible management control in place and early detection. I think you have covered all the points and may be able to create a good argument but if it will convince the FRS is another matter.

Lee are you saying when does an unprotected route need to be a protected route. If so this is the principle of means of escape and I see it as three stages, stage one the unprotected area, stage two the protected route and stage three, ultimate safety. Stage one, you have to evacuate and the rules on travel distance provide a powerful control on the size of compartments, the distance to exits and the number of exits provided. Stair and exit widths dictate the maximum time required for physical evacuation to protected escape routes. Stage two is a protected, comparative safe route to outside the premises. Stage three is the route from outside the premises, away from the building to ultimate safety. As AB has said once in a protected route it must lead to a place of ultimate safety.

Emergency egress windows should not be used on floors above 4.5 m above the ground level. (ground and first floor only)

Further to AB posting check out “Main changes in the 2006 edition – Appendix B of Approved Document B (fire safety) volume 1: Dwellinghouses also page 30 diagram 10.

To add to AB advice there is an acoustic free swing door closer which may be suitable if you have a domestic smoke detector. http://www.safelincs.co.uk/door-closers/ or http://www.safelincs.co.uk/geofire-agrippa-acoustic-door-closer/

I cannot give a definitive reply without knowing much more but based on the information you provided, the wall is a 30 minute FR wall therefore any window would need to be fire resisting glazing, fix shut and located above 1.1 m above the floor level.

BS 7273-4:2015 says they are unacceptable to enforcing authorities which is debateable, I would check out your local Fire and Rescue Service and check out their stance on this situation, it is the CLG guides ( HM Governments Fire Risk Assessment - Large places of Assembly ) that is used as a benchmark by the FRS to audit premises. I will research this further for you and get back later.

The RR(FS)O art 14 states "emergency doors must not be so locked or fastened that they cannot be easily and immediately opened by any person who may require to use them in an emergency" therefore locking this door is in breach of those regulations. First you must establish who the RP or RP's are for the premises (art 3) for it is up to them, who have a duty to comply with articles 8 to 22 and see if they can resolve the problem. If they cannot then the next step is the enforcing authority (local Fire and Rescue Service) check out http://www.firesafe.org.uk/uk-fire-rescue-services-details/.

Your consumer unit does not need to be cooled, if it developes a fault and starts to overheat the RCB will operate and cut off your supply. Placing a consumer unit in a fire resistance compartment is to protect the area it is located in, not the unit itself, if it was located in a escape route you may be unable to escape from fire if the area was filled with smoke and fire.

Nowdays it is all about risk assessment, looking at this situation, the element is submerged in water and the electrics will be protected by an RCB, I would think the fire risk is low, with good management and is acceptable. If it was a microwave or toaster that would be a concern, even in the seventies a tea room in an escape corridor did not require a FD30 door and was acceptable providing there was no cooking facilities.

Approved document K has the recommended rise and going for stairs, which should apply to this situation. For stairs, 220mm is the maximum rise that people are expected to negotiate safely (BS5295-1:2000) https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/443181/BR_PDF_AD_K_2013.pdf

All doors used to escape from a fire, are fire exit doors and the last door that leads to the outside are final exit doors. All doors in normal day to day use, do not need to be signed but any door were there may be doubt, where it leads should be signed. Any final fire exit doors on the outside of the building should be signed with 'Fire Exit Keep Clear' if there is a chance it could be blocked by a parked car or something similar. I think they are being prescriptive and not as they should appling risk assessment principles.

If it doesnt cause an obstruction then I see no problems.

For specific technical questions this is not the best forum you would be better asking it on http://firealarmengineers.com/forum/.

A stay put policy would not be acceptable for a school but a two stage fire alarm could be. The first stage is a warning to staff, to prepare for evacution and after a prescribe time, the full evacuation is triggered. During the first stage, a search would take place, to establish if it is a false alarm, if it is, then the full evacuation can be cancelled, if not then a full evacution triggered. The first stage warning can be a coded word over the tannoy or a special record played or a coded set of lights which can be seen by everybody the solutions are many. This delay has to be electronically controlled by the fire alarm equipment and would be no more than 3 to 5 minutes, the cancellation would be manual. You must also consult with the local fire and rescue service to check it is acceptable to them.

If these hinges are floor hinges and not single axis door hinges then they may be acceptable because they meet the required standard. BS EN 1634-1:2014 is for Fire resistance and smoke control tests for door and shutter assemblies, openable windows and elements of building hardware. Fire resistance test for door and shutter assemblies and openable windows, and nothing to do with self closers. BS EN 1935 is for hinges and BS EN 1154 is for self closers, it looks like the door is a fire door to a 30 minute standard but may require a self closer if they are single axis hinges, because the sprung hinges are not acceptable.

Depends on the type of stile, is it rebated, how many intumescent strips required to meet the FR standard and they must be offset so as not to expand against each other. Download http://www.asdma.com/pdf/BPG.pdf and all the information you need you will find in chapter 13 & 14.

It depends on the separation between your shop and the apartment above, if it achieves 60 minutes or more, then a link to the apartment is not necessary if it is less than 60 minutes then a link should be fitted to warn the tenant above. If you wish to err on the side of caution you could install a sounder in the flat, with a means of silencing the sounder located in the flat without affecting the remainder of the system the problem is getting access to the sounder for maintenance. I would also inform the occupier of the flat they should install a BS 5839 part 6 system depending on the layout of the flat.

You must understand the weekly test is to test the whole system is working and everybody can hear the fire alarm, no defective sounders, in addition it tests the manual call boxes as well, so both system needs testing weekly.

There Are Three Main Types Of Dry Powder Extinguishers ABC rated or multi-purpose powder, which contain ammonium phosphate BC rated extinguishers, containing potassium bicarbonate or sodium bicarbonate (otherwise known as bicarbonate of soda or baking soda!) Some BC rated powder fire extinguishers contain Monnex. The pressurising gas is usually nitrogen A and D rated graphite powder fire extinguishers are usually used only in Class D fires Check out http://www.fireextinguisherguide.co.uk/types-of-fire-extinguishers/dry-powder-extinguishers/

The need for satisfactory means of escape still applies, the smoke alarm is to wake you up and warn you as soon as possible, so you can effect a safe escape.

It will not be compliant with The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 and I though security was about persons getting in not about getting out.

For fire door assemblies which will require self closing devices, BS EN 1154 makes recommendations as to the closing forces considered necessary for devices fitted to fire doors. a) The door closer when installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s installation instructions shall be capable of closing the test door from any angle to which it may be opened. The smallest angle - ie when the latch rests against the strike plate is unlikely to meet the status shown in bold. The smallest angle is going to be when somebody intends going through the door, then changes his/her mind which I guess would be after opening at least 5 degrees and I have found a guide that recommends 5 degrees. Check out http://www.merton.gov.uk/fire_doors_-_basic_guidance___checklist-_june_2013.pdf page 3.

If it is an inner room situation then I would agree with you, but other doors it is more likely to be an health & safety issue to prevent people either side of the door trying to open the door at the same time and smashing into each other, like kitchen doors in a restaurant.

I agree with AB and if building control prefers electromagnetic locks then you need to consider BS 7273-4.