AnthonyB

Opening onto escape routes would potentially indicate a need for smoke seals as well as intumescent. As a new installation they should be to current standards so seals would usually be expected

I'm sure for the appropriate fee and seeing the premises a competent person will advise. Whilst on paper this may not sound a bad number the layout of the routes and their proximity to each other could change which are considered the largest & must be discounted, worst case is there are two exits not 4 based on location and separation. I assume they all open in the direction of escape and where not in normal use have panic fastenings

You won't get much in guidance beyond "Rooms and cupboards containing electrical intake or electrical distribution equipment should have fire-resisting doors that are either kept locked or are self-closing" as it leaves the detail up to the Responsible Person and any external competent advisor - this could be anything from changing boards to metal, using a metal over sleeve, uprating existing construction with intumescent materials or lining boards up to complete new stud and board walls and new fire doors

Your fire risk assessor should have really covered this for you - the guidance for these blocks only require one protected stair & final exit so the exit near the external exit is not required to be a means of escape - as such the external flat front door would not need to be passed in order to escape, therefore it need not be a fire door. Also in a 70's low rise block there is a fair chance you don't need to replace internal fire doors if original & in good order, beyond possibly new self closers, they ay be possible to retain or repair - again the FRA should have addressed this. The Government recognises too many management companies are feeling pressured into and leaseholders made to pay for excessive fire safety work (sometimes at the expense of needed measures overlooked in poor FRAs) and their guidance shows that a pragmatic approach is legally compliant - no wholesale replacements unless genuinely required

The size and layout may be such you need both exits in which case the ramp should be repaired - after all escape windows can't be used. Also you would be making access to the premises less compliant than when first built or altered which is usually not accepted.

Strictly speaking yes, but if at no point in the riser there are no meters, DNO fuses or distribution boards or anything liable to be an ignition source then you could make a case for tolerating it. Is it an open shaft or just with holes punched through floorboards or pipes & cables?

Other than the flat front door you are no longer required to have self closers on any door so they can all be removed leaving just the one on the front door. Unless your bathroom contains an unusual fire hazard like a boiler it doesn't even need a fire door so a lighter weight door can be fitted.

CLEAPS has some guidance to help you form a policy: https://dt.cleapss.org.uk/Resources/All/?search=lithium Safe storage & containment whilst charging is key with several companies providing suitable cabinets - https://www.lapsafe.com/storage-and-charging Do not be conned into spending substantial amounts of money on specialist lithium ion battery fire extinguishers, it is far too hazardous to tackle these fires without protective clothing and breathing apparatus as the vented gas (that you get even before ignition as well as during) includes highly toxic and corrosive gases far worse than a typical fire, including HF Acid which even in small amounts can cause life changing injury. Also flammable & explosive gases are produced meaning there is an explosion risk whilst tacking these fires.

If they are separate premises they should have separate FRAs, but if 1 premises is subdivided into separate wings/cores (e.g. own entrances & stairs) then they can be under a single FRA. Ultimately it's down to the Courts - some RP's try to save money by lumping entire estates into single assessments despite being unlikely to be unsuitable as they are too vague & general - however if that's the only issue and there are no other serious physical or management fire safety deficiencies even if technically wrong it's unlikely to score enough points in a fire service audit to trigger enforcement action

Usually unless the Building was converted in line with post 1991 Building Regulations Guidance it is unlikely (but not impossible) to meet the required standard for stay put - however in small conversions like this with minimal common space if there is at least 30 minutes notional fire separation between flats there is potential for not requiring a common system - I have dealt with cases like this. If you did have a common system it would have to be Grade D (mains with battery back up)even if wirelessly linked. Grade F these days is only really for individual existing single dwellings provision by householders or landlords where not part of a rewire upgrade.

No distribution boards, meters or other equipment, just cables?

You wouldn't want to use a roof as an exit as you would then be trapped with fire & smoke of course liking to rise (look at the Joelma Building Fire) A single protected stair is an acceptable escape route in many situations

It's unlikely to significantly enhance the fire resistance as it's not thick enough or anywhere near the tested specification (https://files.mutualcdn.com/medite-smartply/files/TEUSG0429-Rev01-Medite-Prem-FR-Euroclass-C-30-minute-FR-Partition-Wall.pdf) Euroclass ratings are for a wall or ceiling linings reaction to fire not their ability to hold back fire. Plasterboard or Gypsum board is more common for use to increase fire resistance of walls & doors https://files.mutualcdn.com/medite-smartply/files/Specification-Guide-to-Flame-Retardant-Wood-Panels-Part-1-REV0.pdf https://files.mutualcdn.com/medite-smartply/files/Specification-Guide-to-Flame-Retardant-Wood-Panels-Part-2-REV0.pdf https://files.mutualcdn.com/medite-smartply/files/Specification-Guide-to-Flame-Retardant-Wood-Panels-Part-3-REV0.pdf

That may well be a potentially suitable upgrade - some premises go down an alternative route, especially where there isn't much room for a bulky cupboard: https://envirograf.com/product/ecu-fire-protection-system/

When were they built - Building Regulations are not retrospective, but fire safety regulations allow for technical progress in assessing risk meaning in some situations corrective work is required. Government fire risk assessment guidance expects an existing block of flats to have a divided roof space if retaining a stay put policy, but on the other hand doesn't require new flat front doors if the original flat doors are fire doors to the standard of the time of build and are still in good condition. It's risk assessment driven - ask for the Fire Risk Assessment carried out for the block as the management company is now legally obliged to provide you with details of the risks and protective measures in the building as well as the identity of the fire risk assessor.