AnthonyB

If it requires a code to get in, but not to get out it's OK. If a code is required to escape it isn't

See https://www.gov.scot/publications/building-standards-technical-handbook-2019-domestic/2-fire/2-0-introduction/ Standards change over time - depending on the age of the flat a different specification would apply and be acceptable as building standards aren't retrospective if not carrying out work that comes under them.

LACORS is quite old and any modern conversion that went through the correct Building Control process should have equal or greater standards in place in any case (& as part of the Building Regulation 38 requirements include a fire strategy plan). If it doesn't meet even LACORS standards then I'd wonder about whether the original conversion was into 4 bed single family flats with a further change to HMO use added later.

In theory yes, but of course there is the risk of hours changing in future - if there is enough width to include a passenger gate in the sections of fence either side this would future proof the work.

I've done a few like this for a Local Authority. Depending on how they are let each flat is either an individual HMO or a shared house (the latter usually only applies with students unless the same family happens to let one). LACORS applies. The common parts, if converted in accordance with Building Regulations, could in theory fall under the LGA Guide although these blocks are usually full evacuate rather than stay put so arguably you could use the Sleeping Risk guide. In this scenario it's not one big HMO/flat/shared house, more 4 distinct units with a common access.

Definitely not adequate then!

This is subject to Building Regulations and the plans will need LABC approval - they will set conditions. It is likely that a fire door and fire resisting construction would be needed and possible additions to the fire detection system. There are a variety of ways of protecting structural elements like joists - boarding, protective pains/varnishes, Envirograf have some of the coating based solutions.

I think COVID is being used as a tenuous excuse to do it for other reasons they'd rather not disclose. If you don't need a key to open the door in the direction of escape and it's just a simple single action mechanism to be used by less than 60 persons then it can be held as compliant.

If the doors are fire doors, the surrounding walls and floors are suitably fire resistant (e.g. brick or block) and all penetration (e.g. the pipes) are correctly fire-stopped then it's perfectly fine to store inside them - presumably that's why they were included in the build in the first place.

If it's a designated fire exit then yes it's not best, nor are the extinguishers. The law states: Emergency routes and exits 14.—(1) Where necessary in order to safeguard the safety of relevant persons, the responsible person must ensure that routes to emergency exits from premises and the exits themselves are kept clear at all times. (2) The following requirements must be complied with in respect of premises where necessary (whether due to the features of the premises, the activity carried on there, any hazard present or any other relevant circumstances) in order to safeguard the safety of relevant persons— (a)emergency routes and exits must lead as directly as possible to a place of safety; (b)in the event of danger, it must be possible for persons to evacuate the premises as quickly and as safely as possible; (c)the number, distribution and dimensions of emergency routes and exits must be adequate having regard to the use, equipment and dimensions of the premises and the maximum number of persons who may be present there at any one time; (d)emergency doors must open in the direction of escape; (e)sliding or revolving doors must not be used for exits specifically intended as emergency exits; (f)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; (g)emergency routes and exits must be indicated by signs; and (h)emergency routes and exits requiring illumination must be provided with emergency lighting of adequate intensity in the case of failure of their normal lighting.

There may be possibilities, assuming the play area is outside, but without seeing it I can't go much beyond that. It's not an absolute no although beware of housing associations, councils and landlords who will quote 'fire regs' as an excuse not to try and find a solution.

The kitchen is still separate and not part of the open plan so that's one possible issue put to one side. The flat looks like it just meets the 9m travel distance from the furthest part of habitable rooms to the front door which would have been a problem to overcome too. Putting the doorway back in would actually not make the flat any more compliant as it would not solve the bedroom being an inner room so it's daft of them to suggest it (it makes it worse really). The bedroom inner room has two solutions available: - Separate Means of Escape: The bedroom needs an alternative exit, which means this can only be used for the ground and first floor by having escape windows (which if it's been reglazed by a proper windows company in the last 30 years should already be present) as upper floor windows are only suitable for rescue windows due to the drop stopping self escape (portable escape ladders aren't accepted under Building Regulations); or - Protecting the whole flat with a residential sprinkler system and a Grade D LD1 fire detection system (interlinked mains powered residential smoke and heat alarms to all rooms other than the bathroom) Based on your information it seems you actually meet Building Regs for this situation already other than improving the smoke alarm provision. You can't use semantics either - it's a flat. It may well have been a dwelling once, but was converted to flats, so that's what they are now - be thankful it's not been classed as a HMO as the requirements would be far more onerous than for flats.

Go with the fire strategy, the risk assessor is in a fantasy land. All that would happen with that alarm even if such an attack pccurred would be the residents would be drawn from the 1 hour + safety of their flat into a blazing hall. A few years ago a pregnant women was killed by leaving the safety of their one hour compartment flat into a hallway that had been set ablaze with petrol purely because they heard an (unnecessary) common fire alarm go off. If there was no alarm and they had stayed put they would have lived. I'd question the FRA in it's entirety if that's the level of it's content.

Ideally yes so the residents are all in one place to identify which flat they are from and pass info to the fire service and to stop them congregating in the entrance and getting in the fire services way although they may well ignore it!

If it's a stay put block then other than making fire fighter's access difficult the reduction in width wouldn't be a big issue, however the fact it has to be plugged in and have batteries on charge would introduce a fire risk in the stair itself (which there shouldn't be) although whilst it would fill the stair with smoke shouldn't spread if it's all concrete. Ask them to detail why exactly the fire safety would be excessively compromised - often the excuse of 'health & safety' is used when the real reason is they don't want to do it (especially if expense is involved) I'm afraid some people will say move to a ground level flat or a block with a lift if you cannot any longer live independently in your current flat.

If on battery 3 hours, if on mains then permanently if connected for 'maintained ' operation, if 'non maintained' then only on power failure.

If you own it and you are going above legal requirement's with extra fire doors then it shouldn't be a problem. Technically it should go through Local Authority Building Control as it would be termed building work although I'm sure many owner/occupiers don't (which can catch them out when it comes to sell in future)

If it's still the layout it was built with then it will comply with the Building Regulations in place at the time of build which means if not using for a licensable purpose mean there are no retrospective fire safety requirements in law beyond those relating to automatic fire detection and things like the Gas Safe and Electrical Installation Condition Report requirements. If you change any windows (e.g. original wood to uPVC) this comes under Building Regulations and a reputable company would, as part of the installer self certification scheme for certain types of building work, ensure the appropriate escape & rescue windows are supplied. Any other structural changes would also come under Building Regs and it is at that point that current ADB requirements may be imposed depending on the nature of the work. Best practice would have you add a heat alarm to the kitchen, interlinked to the existing ones

You've established you may not need EL for escape purposes - the other reason is for safety. Could someone be doing work on or around the equipment such that a sudden loss of light could result in accident/injury? If so you need EL to avoid injury and safely shut down the plant if required.

Firstly the fire extinguishers should not have been put in - Government Guidance for flats says they should not be provided and where present should be removed - once you have escaped from your flat into the safety of the common area you shouldn't be going back in with an extinguisher, also the extinguishers often placed in common areas are traditionally unsuitable or even dangerous if used on many of the causes of domestic fires. Users aren't trained and also may struggle with the weight. The tamper tag is meant to be fitted and does break by hand (especially if you twist the pin to break it rather than just pulling). They should also be identified by signs and best practice is to wall mount them or place them on stands. I would be concerned that the Fire Risk Assessment carried out by your landlord/agent is not suitable & sufficient (if carried out at all) as your site is missing key requirements whilst adding others that for nearly 10 years have been debunked as not appropriate. Usually the main entrance lock would be changed to one of these: https://www.screwfix.com/c/security-ironmongery/cylinder-locks/cat810288?cylinderproducttype=thumbturn&cylinderprofiletype=euro

Exits do not automatically require a panic bolt, only in certain situations. A lot of required exits have other simple fastenings, the important point being they must not require a key or code. An exit that is signed but requires a key or code may actually be needed - removing the sign isn't automatically the answer as changing the exit fastening may be required. All fastenings should be signed as to their operation. Unless you have the training & competence to carry out Fire Risk Assessments and the required calculations regarding occupier capacity, travel distances, exit widths, door furniture etc it's easier to just stick to testing the fittings and reporting on their function.

No, it's not a legal requirement. As it's not always practical to stick to a defined time a test window on the designated day isn't that uncommon. Even where a specific time is used staff should know to evacuate if the alarm continues to sound longer than normal.

Sounds like the battery packs have failed as from your description the bulbs are OK and the mains into the charger is OK too. You can buy replacement battery packs which is easier than replacing the whole fitting

It's a legal requirement. The flat front door's have required to be fire doors in law since the 1960's. If you are putting new doorsets in they should be FD30S and in all cases must have self closers fitted.

It's a legal requirement. The flat front door's have required to be fire doors in law since the 1960's. If you are putting new doorsets in they should be FD30S and in all cases must have self closers fitted.