AnthonyB

I've just realised - this is a new build that's still on paper? You may benefit from designing to BS9999 and not Approved Document B - it is more generous and flexible in it's approach.

For an existing premises, yes - simple single action, no key required in direction of escape, can't be latched shut, no snib.

Whilst it wouldn't win a Plain English reward, it is indeed saying the 5mm/person rule is only for doors over 1050mm

It's up to whoever is responsible for the common areas. If they are taking a 'zero tolerance' approach to compliance then you would expect them to be removed. If they wish to implement and monitor a 'managed use' approach then framed pictures could be retained. It's discussed in here p55-61 https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/fire-safety-purpose-built-04b.pdf

They seem to be correctly applying the LACORS guidance now I have the detail as to why they are requiring these steps, the additional steps are due to the unusual layout. The fire alarm requirement is still domestic alarms, just the mains type as have been required for many years. As it's clear the premises are in the selective licensing area you are going to need to do the work.

Your local authorities Health Protection/Environmental Services/Environmental Health department (they all have different names in different councils these days!)

They are applying "strict rules of ADB" to paraphrase the film Goldfinger - which says that every flat should have rooms accessed off an internal protected lobby (the common area it opens off is immaterial) a principle that's been around for decades. Oddly they are ignoring the bedroom off the kitchen (unless they are counting an escape window in the bedroom as an alternate escape as it's ground floor). They are acting correctly - of course ADB is just a suggested method of complying with Building Regulations and if you can provide an alternative approach that provides at least equivalent safety then it is acceptable too. If you had a different AI who accepted a non ADB layout without compensatory measures then that was good fortune on your part in that case.

This is aimed at housing, particularly where vulnerable individuals who live in the community are concerned. https://www.nationalfirechiefs.org.uk/write/MediaUploads/NFCC Guidance publications/NFCC_Specialised_Housing_Guidance_-_Copy.pdf

You are straying into property law so need a specialist sector legal adviser, however the risk assessors are correct and there is no legal requirement for the system - your leases will determine what you are obliged to pay towards and if it is something not actually legally required you may have grounds for a legal challenge - there was a group action by leaseholders against having to bear the cost of new fire doors which, in the specific situation of their property, were not actually required, they won their case.

I've answered your duplicate post in the Fire Risk Assessment section - something isn't right somewhere!

This sounds like the Council is treating your premises as a HMO requiring licensing and with it more stringent fire safety requirements than a typical house. Your description is of a typical single household let which doesn't require mandatory licensing and does not require the additional precautions mentioned - also it isn't covered by the Fire Safety Order and doesn't require a Fire Risk Assessment. When did you personally (not any agent you may employ) last inspect the premises? It's not unknown for the original tenants to illegally sublet and thus bring the house under HMO & Fire Safety legislation - it's also not unknown for agents to do this either whilst letting their client think they have a single traditional tenant. If your property is in Bootle (in the areas in this map https://www.sefton.gov.uk/media/1329025/BootleSL_map.pdf and on this list https://www.sefton.gov.uk/media/1329022/SL-Designation_Final.pdf)then there is a Selective Licensing scheme where Sefton Council have acquired the rights to license ALL rental premises, even single household lets (usually because of a high percentage of rental properties found in deficient condition in the area) in which case you would need a license, but unless it's been turned into a HMO without your knowledge the fire safety requirements are minimal: Escape routes No requirement for full 30-minute protected route * but the escape route should have sound, conventional construction and should not pass through risk rooms No requirement for fire doors *, but sound, well constructed and close-fitting conventional doors are required Alternatively, provide suitable escape windows from bedrooms and living rooms Fire separation No requirement for additional fire resistance, but walls and floors should be of sound, conventional construction. If a basement/cellar is present, 30-minute separation between the cellar and the ground floor escape route is the ideal Fire detection and alarm system Grade D1, LD3 system • interlinked mains wired smoke alarms with integral tamperproof battery back-up located in the escape route at ground and first floor levels; and • additional interlinked smoke alarms with integral battery back-up located in any cellar Lighting of escape routes No requirement for emergency escape lighting, but conventional artificial lighting is required Fire fighting equipment It is recommended good practice to provide a fire blanket in the kitchen Fire safety signs No requirement Surface finishes & floor coverings No requirement Management and maintenance of fire safety It is recommended that all doors are kept closed at night * where construction standards are poor, travel distances are long or other higher risk factors are present, a 30-minute protected route may be required. https://www.cieh.org/media/1244/guidance-on-fire-safety-provisions-for-certain-types-of-existing-housing.pdf https://www.sefton.gov.uk/housing/private-housing/selective-licensing.aspx https://www.sefton.gov.uk/housing/private-housing/additional-(hmo)-licensing.aspx https://www.sefton.gov.uk/housing/private-housing/mandatory-hmo-licensing.aspx

With external access areas the usual rule of thumb is FD30 doors where they may need to be passed by other people to escape, assuming walkways do not exceed 2m so overhang doesn't trap smoke. This situation is a bit of a mix of external and internal factors, this is where the risk assessors expertise comes into play as you have to use your judgement. If the doors have to be passed by others then you are at FD30. If the layout allows smoke logging (such as the enclosed section) then that goes up to FD30s as if fully enclosed.

Yes, you decided to change the kitchen so you pay for it - your lease will place obligations on you for various aspects and this probably counts - I assume the existing kitchen was suitable under housing legislation. Is it a flat or self contained house? The rules they are applying should come from here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/832631/Approved_Document_B__fire_safety__volume_1_-_2019_edition.pdf

Is the central stair the only one with refuge space? Ideally each stair should have provision as it's healthcare and evac matresses are usually preferred as most chairs don't suit the service users.

Just surf the web on fire safety key words and you will see the mass of information promoting the use of TPC contractors!

Are you going to be the occupier? If so and you are not altering the layout you aren't required to change anything - it's a private dwelling and not subject to specific regulations unless you make a change that causes Building Regulations to kick in or you are going to rent it out. If you are just changing the doors then you mustn't make the situation any more worse than it originally was so need to maintain the existing standard of door or better. You would, if using current standards, need a 20 minute fire door (FD20/E20). These aren't usually manufactured anymore so common practice is to use a FD30 door and frame and ironmongery (hinges, handles, etc) but without intumescent strips. A closer isn't required.

Yes, if the council is using the zero tolerance approach to these areas instead of managed use. The whole point of the areas being concrete and sterile is to prevent a fire starting in the common areas as the design of flats and the stay put policy is these areas are sterile. In the past serious fires have occurred and firefighters hampered by items in common parts, often as a result of arson. Tyres and seats burn, plastic melts and burns and whilst not immediately ignitable these items all include materials which will burn and produce thick black toxic smoke if exposed to a pilot fire using accelerant. There is scope for use of common areas for certain storage and items, but it requires ongoing management, regular inspections and 100% buy in and compliance from all residents and so most landlords take the easier option of zero tolerance.

BS EN 13322-1:2003+A1:2006 - Transportable gas cylinders. Refillable welded steel gas cylinders. Design and construction. Carbon steel

You don't (currently although this could change) need it - but you may find in the future it severely limits the amount & type of work you may get in future as the fallout from Grenfell kickstarts the move towards customers only using third party certified suppliers.

Thanks! He's not wrong about the industry either!

Depending on the location of the exit door and the number and type of people expected to use them there are a variety of different escape fastenings that are acceptable, not just a panic bolt. Also whilst it is desirable to open in the direction of escape this only becomes more of a requirement where over 60 people may be likely to use it. What isn't allowed is the need to use a key, code, fob or similar to open the door - as a minimum the patio door lock would need to be changed to an escape deadlock with a thumbturn like this one: https://www.homesecureshop.co.uk/products/yale-thumb-turn-euro-cylinder-door-lock-as-platinum-ts007-3-star?variant=34894066516136&currency=GBP&utm_medium=product_sync&utm_source=google&utm_content=sag_organic&utm_campaign=sag_organic&gclid=CjwKCAjwydP5BRBREiwA-qrCGtg_VeuIjPDYHval1VqFUywdlHgnLHlIwjhOn4eFIBHBmPyNoiX8pxoCrcUQAvD_BwE

Whilst it is bizarrely not mentioned much in UK guidance it is true that in the US and the many countries that follow US guidance that the use of ABC Powder where it can come to rest on the superstructure and in the engines of aircraft is not permitted or not recommended as the acidic ammonium phosphate & sulphate has been shown to cause fatigue in aluminium so to avoid structural integrity risks (& at the very least a 5 or 6 figure cost full stripdown and clean) only alkaline Sodium or Potassium Bicarbonate BC Powder should be used. Now in the US this isn't a big issue as all manufacturers still make various types of BC Powder extinguisher in all sizes but in the UK you are rather limited as nearly everything is ABC. Some manufacturers do a 8kg extinguisher filled with Monnex BC Powder (the most powerful extinguishing powder in the world due to it's Potassium base and ability to decrepitate in flame to increase it's surface area) which is very expensive. Only one manufacturer supplying the UK (also one of the few remaining companies to make extinguishers here rather than China or Poland.) has a variety of different sizes of BC Powder & Monnex extinguisher, including large capacity trolley and skid mounted units, this is Britannia Fire. Amerex UK (an American company) also has 9kg BC Powder and Purple K models ex stock, but because it's a US firm can import any of it's wide range of other BC models if required. I'd have 9kg BC Powder for rapid knockdown with 9 litre Foam (type of foam & delivery may differ depending on risks) for post extinction security. The nature of the risks & any CAA or Insurance requirements may also mandate larger trolley extinguishers etc

You need a competent person to carry out a Fire Risk Assessment - this will answer all these questions. The FRA is a legal requirement. There's too many possible variables without seeing the place as all your three questions could easily have a yes or a no answer, although with respect to the last one the retail unit should be considering the fire resistance of their ceiling in their FRA as the flat occupiers are 'relevant persons' for consideration under the regulations even though the interior of the flats themselves isn't. If the fire separation isn't adequate then they should ideally upgrade it, otherwise they would need a fire detection and alarm system set up to warn the flats (usually involving sounders in the flats)

If your desired access across adjoining land is not protected in deeds, easement or license then you are in trouble, I had a commercial client where an informal access arrangement was revoked on change of ownership of the adjoining property and it caused all sorts of issues as it remove their alternate escape route - however the resulting fire safety compliance issues were solely those of the client. There are some precedents for informal arrangements being protected if they have existed long enough, but this is definitely an area where you need the advice of a good property lawyer.

Only if the compartmentation between the restaurant and flat is inadequate, i.e. less than 60 minutes.