AnthonyB

Absolutely - they are accepted by the fire service (& indeed get specific mention in London Fire Brigades guidance) and fully comply with the extinguisher manufacturing, performance & safety standard BS EN3. Because they reduce the number and type of extinguishers required, thus simplifying training and saving money as well as be inspected in house, saving money, the fire extinguisher industry has written it's voluntary guidance (BS5306) to try and stop them and will spin all sorts of yarns to ty to stop you using them - just remember you must carry out the annual user inspection to comply with Article 17 of the Fire Safety Order - they aren't fit and forget.

1 lux to the centre line (BS5266). When designing the lighting for an emergency escape route it is advised that achieving even distribution of illuminance throughout the escape route with 1 lux as a minimum level on the centre of line.

Only to the extent of what parts of the premises are a workplace for the staff. However the Fire Safety Order is not the only legislation that requires an assessment of risk (including fire) depending on the status of the care given - it's not clear cut and is better explained in this https://nfcc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/NFCC_Specialised_Housing_Guidance_-_Copy.pdf

The door blanks are only ever labelled as FD30/60/90/120 and it's the completed door set, including the seals used, that determine if the 'S' suffix is applicable. The manufacturer's data should state which seals are OK for use in an 'S' scenario in line with the test data & certification.

As Stuart has linked, the way the legislation has been worded would pull your block into requiring an FRA for the external structure - although many believe this was never intended it's the way it stands in law. It's pretty low risk in the grand scale of things, but is something expected by lenders and conveyancers

If the conversion, usually due to the age/layout/listing, cannot meet the guidance in Approved Document B with respect to compartmentation and smoke control it cannot operate a 'stay put' policy and needs to evacuate as a whole in the event of fire. It is vital in such vulnerable properties to raise the alarm before the fire breaks out of the flat and affects the common parts thus endangering everyone else in the building. To this end the communal fire alarm requires a heat detector & sounder in each flat to raise the alarm whilst the fire is still in the flat and for the common alarm to be loud enough to wake everyone even if asleep. It's not there to save the life of the person in the flat where the fire starts as it uses a heat detector (so if you burn toast or leave the bathroom door open with a particularly steamy shower you won't tip out the whole block) hence why you still have your own local smoke alarm - it's there to save everyone else's lives. Fire safety legislation is functional with broad general requirements supported by guidance that has legal standing and which the FRA should be based on. Unless they can demonstrate how safety can be still maintained then by not following the guidance (which from your information the FRA has followed) that tends to prove that the legislation has not been complied with and this would be presented in court. So the alarm is likely to be required to meet the function requirements of the law - with the increased use of wireless technology it's not a disruptive or messy thing to install.

If there is just the electric meter and access can be restricted to stop any storage then local enclosure of the meter is an option if an existing HMO, although if it's going through Building Regs you may find they will insist on following the guidance in Approved Document B

Fire Risk Assessments have no expiry date in law if the premises have not changed - as this should address the external wall (either to say it is low risk or that it needs an FRAEW) it should suffice. An FRAEW can run into four figures or more to obtain and in a small traditional build like this would be disproportionate, however some lenders and solicitors are out of touch from reality in the current climate.

Depends on the results of the Fire Risk Assessment. Having done a few like this the usual outcome is that upgraded heritage doors are acceptable along with the lack of smoke control as part of a simultaneous evacuation strategy supported by an adequate common fire detection & warning system that extends into the flats. If the doors were not part of any listing then usually the expectation would have been to replace them at the time of conversion.

Then Mike is reflecting the current situation in English Building Regs guidance

Traditionally no, but as it's flats the Government's response to the Emergency Evacuation Information Sharing Plus (EEIS+) consultation and Residential PEEPs policy does appear to allow fire service rescue as an option from common areas as long as the PEEP is sufficient to enable independent evacuation from the flats where the fire is.

That's an unusual way around! That would be one of the steps to mitigate the solution, yes.

It sounds like the flats are ancillary to the use of the event space and if the stair is lobbied does have a situation that is detailed as acceptable if using Approved Document B. Building control are getting more strict on designs that don't fully reflect Approved Document B and increasingly will only consider these if justified in a full fire strategy by a Fire Engineer

If the doors won't perform as intended due to wear & tear or poor original install then remedial work is required to remain compliant with the law and more importantly to keep residents safe especially where the premises are not fully evacuated as is the case with healthcare and care premises. As this involves capital work it may be wise to use an independent specialist (who would not be doing the repair/replacement work) to give a detailed assessment, also indicating where repair is possible as oppose to replacement. The inspector and risk assessor should work together to determine the benchmark standard to which the doors must meet as minimum (although being post 1992 it would likely be current standard FD30/FD60/FD30S/FD60S doors)

Which country are you in - this has an impact as Scotland (& to a lesser extent Wales) do have different standards that may affect the validity of replies you get on here

Of course you can have wireless linked mains powered detectors these days - in fact they almost all are these days and few places manufacture wire linked domestic alarms these days. Just install the wireless stuff & get a certificate off the electrician saying it's a Grade D2 LD1/2/3 (depending on where the detectors are) system, issue it to the BCO and they have to accept it as it matches the requirements in Approved Document B which most BCO follow as the standard

Potentially yes - as FRAs are indicated for dwellings in this situation it could be interpreted as applying to the flat - which is a dwelling. Just because it's in a block of flats and isn't a standalone bungalow doesn't alter anything.

Not if simultaneous evacuation is in place - one of the reasons for needing simultaneous evacuation is lack of smoke control as well as the usual compartmentation & layout. reasons.

Yes - whilst in smaller blocks the original notional doors can be accepted as tolerable in a Fire Risk Assessment that is only if they are still in original good working order. If they are defective and beyond reasonable repair then replacement is the only option at which point I'd upgrade to the current spec

Current installation standards are not retrospective and as long as the sounder circuits are FR it may be tolerable for an existing legacy system based on risk, detection present and as long as the panel is in 'short circuit = fire' mode and not 'short circuit = fault'. The deficiency from current standards should be noted, but as to whether is needs immediate replacement is a matter for the risk assessment

For which doors? There are limits on the use of indirect hold open devices depending on building use & layout and which doors are to be held detailed in BS7273-4 which whilst not law would be used as a benchmark in any legal action - use outside of this would need justification as to how it still afforded suitable safety

It's in the spirit of the guidance, although if the access room will still have a smoke detector in it then not quite necessary - you can have the vision panel (or no door) or access room detection or finish the partition 500mm below the ceiling.

Ofsted are not the enforcing body for fire safety and their inspectors are not trained fire safety experts so they will not pick up fire safety issues unless so overwhelmingly bad a lay person would consider it a exceedingly risk often wouldn't realise there is a problem and refer it to a partner agency (fire service). As the premises must have a written Fire Risk Assessment this should look at required exits and the competent person who completed it be able to advise. The number and location of exits plus likely maximum occupancy of the hall are all factors and depending on these then it could be found to be acceptable or unacceptable, it's not possible to advise remotely although I would lean towards it being unacceptable unless a written suitable & sufficient FRA covering their use has taken all the factors into account and said it's OK, which there is a possibility it might as I would suspect they don't even have 100 people present.

If it's an existing older building there is unlikely to be any realistic solution and your competent fire risk assessor should take an holistic approach based on numbers and type of occupants, other provisions such as early detection & protection of escape routes allowing more time for people to filter through and exit, risks present, etc. Small numbers of people familiar with the premises can usually be accommodated in narrower exits, in the worst cases numbers can need to be fixed at 5 but you may well be OK, but it will limit numbers to some extent. Do a fire drill when the floor is full and see how long it takes to exit - if still in the 2.5-3 minute window you should be fine.

They certainly should be told what to do if an alarm sounds. With drills there are opposing schools of thought, both with their own pros and cons, that you either pre-warn everyone or pre-warn no one or only selected key personnel, it depends what the outcomes you want are - to test compliance and existing knowledge of what to do or to educate and inform by rehearsing it as a pre planned and notified event. Best practice is 6 monthly, the minimum is usually annual (but intervals are not prescribed anywhere unlike with older legislation) and for 24/7 premises, particularly where staffing to manage an evacuation will differ at night a night drill (or simulation with key staff if an actual full drill would be too disruptive) is also usually expected as well