AnthonyB

Yes, generally to the standard of the day, which can be 20 minute fire check to selected doors, through all doors other than bathrooms being FD20 no intumescent seals and ending in FD30 doors with seals (sometimes standing in for a FD20 door)

- No reason unless it's damaged (internally or externally) or due it's 5 year extended service but of an obsolete make with no parts available. At 5 years the extinguisher should be discharge tested, internally examined and refilled. Many companies servicing extinguishers these days don't have the training or equipment to refill so just replace stuff I was at a site where one year old extinguisher was replaced with a new one by the servicing company just because it had been used and needed refilling. As they hadn't even bothered to take the used one away I did and then refilled it at my workshop for a fraction of the new price. - Best practice is to mount an extinguisher on a wall bracket, shelf, stand, etc but it is not a legal requirement or enforceable: just look in any branch of M&S

You aren't subject to any fire safety legislation beyond the basic Housing Act requirements for renting single family dwellings so as long as you have smoke alarms that are checked at the start of each tenancy (& carbon monoxide ones for any solid fuel appliances) and haven't removed doors, changed windows for non escape windows, or changed layout since built (unless you have gone through Building Control to approve these changes) then that's it. No fire risk assessment, fire certificates or anything. You would be of course be expected to have a valid EICR with a 'satisfactory' report and valid Gas Safe certificate in any case. Of course if you are unlucky enough to be in the Bootle selective licensing area then the Council seem to have enough resources to manage the requirement in this area for virtually every types of rented property to be licensed (normally only HMO's and certain houses converted to flats) and so you will need to go through this process too.

Not quite true - the Fire Service are not obliged to state in enforcement action what system to put in and where they do it's just a suggested remedy based on the guidance. The law is clear that it is solely the Responsible Person's job to determine through a FRA (supported by other competent persons if they need assistance) what fire detection & warning is needed. As risk based legislation centred on broad functional requirements not prescriptive instructions there is no fixed approach and on many occasions I've used solutions different to those suggested by the fire service which, because they still met the functional requirements of the legislation, they accepted.

Not normally. Hundreds of thousands of houses in the UK have enclosed rear yards or gardens.

Depends if the store is of fire resisting material or not. Your local Fire Service are the enforcers and can advise if you are at risk and take action if required.

It's been a legal requirement in new care homes in Scotland for many years and has been in UK wide guidance for healthcare premises and care homes for many years also, all as a result of the multi fatality Rose Park Care Home fire in 2004. One of the many failings that contributed directly to the deaths was a 25 minute delay in calling the fire service after the first detector triggered whilst staff were investigating and doing other things. Relying on the human factor in this sector is no longer considered adequate and whilst it is not intended to replace staff 999 calls it is there to act as a failsafe and also a timesaver - every minute saved is critical.

In certain circumstances key operated call points are permitted, your appointed fire risk assessor should be able to come up with a set of options. Does the premises have extensive smoke detection?

Based on that number then in theory just one - however this would restrict considerably the size of the premises, so based on size & layout (& resulting travel distances) you would be looking at at least 2.

Do you mean it goes from being unlit other than the green LED to fully illuminated?

If the conversion is to a standard that would have met Building Regulations then just because it's pre-1991 doesn't mean it needs full alarms and evac policy. However it's more likely it doesn't (e.g. no smoke control even if structure is good) and so the LACORS recommendations would remain approopriate.

Whilst rising butt hinges are no longer approved for fire doors on their own due to reliability issues, if you are pairing them with an EN 1154 closer and they are CE marked and of a suitable metal for use in fire doors then I can't see an issue.

Absolutely not and it didn't comply at the time of installation either and is exceedingly dangerous in a care home where evacuation is progressive and the integrity of the alarm system is critical. The sounders should have been in FP as a minimum and the panel set to SC=F. If you are upgrading the system should be to current standards with full FP wiring. A way to avoid disruption is to use wireless fire alarm technology https://www.safelincs.co.uk/wireless-fire-alarm-systems/

Older single chain perko's don't usually meet current or even contemporary standards (it's not impossible though, compliant versions do exist and have done for a while). In existing premises it's usually only rising butt hinges or no closer at all that is a high priority non conformity, as your build was during the period after the introduction of the 'modern' building guidance of Approved Document B then as a compliant fitting at the time, with a compliant door leaf and layout of the building being post 1991, it would usually be acceptable whilst still in full working order.

Single dwellinghouse - no self closer or signs needed

It depends where it is an what it's covering. If it's in a non industrial indoor environment then usually yes as it can be deleterious to escape, health and the materials/equipment in the room. If it's in a building where the public are present, or healthcare premises or if on an escape route I will normally ask for immediate replacement, if elsewhere then it can wait until the 5 year extended service is due - if it's covering a risk where no extinguisher is required in it's place (e.g. gas/boilers) then it can go there and then!

No, it doesn't replace the requirement for extinguishers, a fire will still grow to a reasonable size in a room before the heads go. It can allow a reduction in scales, but there should still be extinguishers provided as per BB100 the Government design guide for fire safety in schools, concentrating on risk areas, e.g. CO2 & fire blanket to labs and food tech, Wet Chemical to main kitchens etc

Is this a house or commercial? If a house you don't need the signs or the self closer. If it's commercial, it's a different matter.

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.