AnthonyB

Probably coincidence. There has been no change in legislation or risk assessment guidance (other than specific guidance for premises with cladding issues). What has happened is that many housing providers have urgently reviewed their fire safety management and risk assessments and issues that crop up as a result are being addressed. It may be that your evacuation procedure has been changed as a result of your FRA so the full width is required to accommodate the evacuation of all flats as once rather than just the flat of fire origin initially, or that they deem the equipment an unacceptable ignition risk in what should be a fire/ignition sterile area.

As Tom says. If the Government Guides lead to an untenable situation then Fire Engineering is sometimes an option as is the correct use of BS9999 (in whole not cherry picking sections) - but the later does't always work out. I used BS9999 to try and design out installing a third stair in a conversion of a mill into offices due to excess travel distances, but the upgrading in floor fire resistance, shafts and provision of fire service rising mains associated with a BS9999 design ended up making the traditional benchmark approach easier and cheaper!

BS8214:2008 has been withdrawn, sadly councils are often poor at keeping up with standards even where responsible for fire safety enforcement and BS8214:2016 is the current edition. A fire door is only as good as it's frame and surrounding construction - the whole doorset must be compliant. Go to the BWF website to find a certified installer of fire doors/doorsets so you will be assured it's OK. We use Ventro for all our fire door work- http://www.ventrogroup.com/

If it isn't a fire escape route I don't see any reason from a fire point of view

A dead end is simply a corridor (or similar) where you can only go in one direction, if you go down the other end you end up against a brick wall. Either it is protected by fire doors and walls to the rooms off it or the whole area is protected by automatic fire detection

As Tom says BS9999 cautions against using it in FRAs in the first place (unless the property was designed and built to it) and against cherry picking which is not accepted. If the premises can meet the whole document in terms of it's design, build and management it's OK to use. You have to go by the narrowest point as if you over occupy based on the higher widths elsewhere you will get a potentially fatal pinch point (as was the case in the layout of the Station Nightclub where many of the 100 dead got stuck in a crush)

The 1 hour/3 hour requirements are a bit of a throwback to the early days of emergency lighting when both types of fitting were available (both self contained and central battery) and technology was such that central battery systems were more common as they were the easiest way of getting 3 hours duration, self contained fittings technology was such that 1 hour was what you could easily manufacture using the technology. Therefore most applications in single stage evacuation premises would be 1 hour and the standards only asked for this as it was considered sufficient for the occupancy and risk. Technological advances soon meant that fittings could be produced with 3 hours duration that were the same size and almost same price as the old 1 hour fittings and to avoid duplication in manufacture 1 hour fittings were dropped by the majority of manufacturers several decades ago (you can still get them if you search hard). The standards however have not been updated to reflect the change in technologies available. As such virtually all fittings installed are of 3 hours duration, regardless of the minimum duration required for different Purpose Groups. BS 5266-1: 2016 has the following PPM regime: Functional operation should be checked at least every month. Testing for full rated duration should be performed on each luminaire at least annually. As the full rated duration of emergency lighting fittings is now almost universally 3 hours, as it is so long since 1 hour units were widely available and used, then it is correct to expect full duration tests. The 6 monthly partial duration test was removed in part due to the deleterious effect on NiCad battery cell life as most systems use this technology compared to back in the late 20th century when there were a lot of lead acid battery central systems and other battery technologies and full discharge cycling is recommended for this battery type. (With Lithium Ion batteries as used in phones the opposite is actually the case) The point over loss of service during recharge times is correct, hence on weekday operation premises it's best to schedule tests for Fridays. In premises with wider hours of operation then testing should be either at times of minimal risk (low occupancy, summer, etc) or alternate testing of units should be carried out. Testing a 3 hour system for 1 hour falls outside of BS recommendations and will have a deleterious effect on fittings (eventually the safety factor will be lost as they will eventually last for less and less than 3 hours down to 1 hour) and would not normally be accepted although it can be considered on a case by case basis

Up to risk assessment - some places with similar issues use magnetic locks linked to the fire alarm in addition to the push bars. If the exit is serving less than 60 persons and there is suitable staffing to manage the fact that there would be two actions instead of one to open the door then it's not impossible to justify. Consideration should be given to whether the risk to the absconder from their ease of escape is greater than the risk from the exit no longer being panic proof and that in any case the risk from the latter is not itself intolerable.

CO2 doesn't decay and of all the types of extinguisher they are the type most likely to still work if left sitting in a corner unchecked and unused for years. They can leak, usually from a cracked neck or defective neck or valve seat O rings, but this is rarer than in once was (it was an issue with early aluminium cylinders in the 60's, 70's and early 80's)

This exact same question has been asked (& answered)on Firenet

No problem, saves me typing it out again! The environment, occupancy/persons at risk and fire risks all are part of the factors to consider - most places I deal with they are removed/not installed, but there are exceptions. Powder is often installed in general commercial premises for Class C (gas) risks, overlooking completely the fact that tackling a class C fire other than by simply shutting off the gas supply is a specialist and potentially hazardous job and that the staff in these premises are not trained or equipped to do so (all 'general' fire safety training including extinguisher courses trains staff not to extinguish a gas jet fire) - the BS acknowledges this and so boiler rooms and gas intakes etc don't really need powder at all...

Whilst you still may opt to do four 25% services a year it's not been required for a long time. Currently you need to cover 100% of the system within twelve months over a minimum of two visits not exceeding 6 months. Many sites now only have two 50% visits a year

Simple answer - no!

Nope, you are getting mixed up with BS5306-3 for extinguishers which has a +/- 1 month for basic & extended services. BS5839-1 states service visit intervals should not exceed 6 months or the system will be deemed to be non compliant. Quarterly servicing hasn't been a minimum requirement for a very long time now.

It's certainly written in BS5306-3:2017 for portable extinguishers, whereas in standards for other systems it's not so lenient - fire alarms are "not exceeding six months" allowing early, but not late, servicing

Certain environments will require specific training and a standard online course may be unsuitable - e.g. Care Homes where the fire risks, evacuation strategies and staff duties are far different from those in normal premises. You need to check the contents of the course against the procedures, roles and responsibilities in your premises. Some organisations offer sector specific versions of their courses (e.g. https://www.i2comply.com/firesafetyschooltraining.aspx?gclid=Cj0KCQiAlpDQBRDmARIsAAW6-DOGEoE6febQAlNY1d_mjDNs9kUlP1OZgOztu-fYPRVYu5B71YI08F0aAkE-EALw_wcB & http://www.healthandcare.co.uk/online-health-and-safety-training-courses/fire-safety-for-schools-online-health-and-safety-training-with-certification.html) However you may find you could use a general course supplemented by information on local procedures, although sector specific is obviously preferred.

Usually no, but as the legislation is risk based if it can be demonstrated to not be a risk in theory it's possible, e.g. no ignition sources nearby, presence of automatic detection &/or suppression, suitable fire resistance to the cupboard, etc.

And if it's a commercial leasehold property the same applies except the standard is BS5839-1:2017 where again the whole system needs to have been tested each year over a minimum of 2 service visits.

The stairwell is required to be what is a protected route, which should have at least 30 minutes fire resistance from a fire on any of the floors and itself be fire sterile so a fire does not start within it. This is why there are thousands of buildings in the UK, including new builds, with only one stair and all safe and legal. The FRA should check that this situation is OK - as well as limits on travel distance and required exit widths there are limits on occupancy on a particular floor - as you are using the area as offices you require 6sq.m. per person and you could be overloading the floor

In a building of the size you are in there should be no reason to not be able to add the detector to your existing panel (unless it's something very weird and obsolete with no spares made), you are unlikely to have exceeded your zone device limits or loop loadings, this wasn't accompanied by a quote to put in a whole new system to achieve this by any chance? If the detection is only required to give a local warning (e.g. an inner room situation) then you could use BS5839 Part 6 Grade D (mains & battery back up) domestic smoke alarms with radio link bases, although strictly speaking you should be extending the BS5839 Part 1 commercial system. If a more wider warning is needed then you have no option but to extend the commercial system. By across the escape route do you mean you have to pass through the room to exit? IT room detection is usually recommended for property protection only and not statutory life safety compliance unless the building overall needs a high level of cover (note that normal offices don't require detection at all unless multioccupied and then usually only to limited areas)

However the windows may require to be openable for smoke control purposes so shouldn't be locked or restricted, depends on the layout

If, as it sounds, the site is an old single company site with multiple separated buildings then there is usually not an automatic requirement to retain the central system, especially as these systems are often either completely obsolete or at least using legacy products and subject to faults or the need for expensive upgrades/replacements. Individual buildings, unless very small would still need their own electrical fire alarm systems - although the cost of installing these will add up a lot up front you can then leave responsibility for weekly testing, 6 monthly servicing and evacuation drills up to your tenants, instead of having to arrange it yourself and recover through the service charge. Where a larger building on site is split up it will require a single common system unless split into distinct units with 60 minute fire walls - easy with a warehouse being split, but an office block cannot be suitably broken up this way so would need a common system covering the common parts and office suits. You could do with a decent FRA and fire alarm spec to help you with this, it's something I've done many times as your scenario is quite common in the property sector which I work in.

Final exit doors do not have to be fire resistant doors nor self closing unless required to protect an external escape route such as an external steel escape stair - no stair nearby, no requirement:

This is why having sufficient fire wardens to sweep the building whilst leaving is essential as roll calls can take to long and the staff lists can be incomplete

In a black & white world it would be no, never. In the real world a risk based approach is more sensible. If the room is large enough, lockable metal cabinets are used for potential combustibles and a separation gap from the installation, then as long as it is well managed and nothing very hazardous is introduced then I see no reason not to if no viable alternative is available. Usually these rooms are also fire rated rooms/cupboards with fire doors where I would accept it - the firestopping would need to be up to date too. Smoke detection would be desirable, but not always essential Care needs to be taken as mixed use of such areas has led to tragedy - the 14 fatality Rosepark Care Home fire in 2004 started in an electrical cupboard also used for storage: