AnthonyB

"In some situations 'glazed vision panels' or 'glazed apertures' are required to be added to the door to allow for additional light or vision of the other side of the door. Non-glazed apertures may be required in the case of louvre panels or air transfer grilles. The addition of ANY apertures will seriously affect the performance of the door unless it is undertaken ONLY by companies that are licensed and approved to carry out this type of work to agreed procedures. Cutting and glazing apertures must NEVER be undertaken on site and will negate the door's test certificate." Source: http://www.bwfcertifire.org.uk/knowledge-centre/installation

Unless it's a very big yard it's not a place of safety, especially if the fire spreads, and would necessitate fire service rescue which is contrary to the principle that means of escape should be designed such that all occupiers can safety self evacuate without external assistance. A locked yard would need some way of opening from the inside without a key or code.

The stair lift could narrow the stair below the minimum 800mm (750mm in certain situations) and also you would need to ensure that there was sufficient battery capacity to allow the lift to evacuate someone if the fire took out the power supply. Also if the stair is not a protected route the time to evacuate could be too long - also does the first floor have a protected refuge area for the stair lift user whilst the other persons upstairs leave (to prevent bottlenecks caused by the lift user going first.) A lot of building stock in this country was not built with accessibility in mind and a fair proportion of that cannot be reasonably made accessible at all or in a way that would be safe in a fire and care needs to be taken when choosing premises.

Best practice says to use the signs, but this we have a risk based provision regulatory system so if you can justify not signing you should be OK - if the routes have no realistic likelihood of obstruction due to lack of realising the exit is for emergency use what benefit does the signage bring?

Depends on the exit widths required for the likely occupancy. In some cases sufficient width for the numbers present would remain, in others it would be insufficient leading to extended evacuation times, bunching & possible crushing. You should consult the competent person responsible for your fire risk assessments for detailed advice

Staged alarms have been used in some schools for some time, the investigative stage in my school was a continuous bell with an intermittent bell for evacuate (the opposite of what it should be in standards, but this was a very old system!) You could have a staff alarm using the methods as Tom suggests, other places will have a staff alarm at the panel (if situated near a suitably constantly staffed reception) others use intermittent sounders. Silencing the alarm to investigate would not be acceptable and there have been prosecutions in serious fires where this has been done. In conventional (non addressable) systems (& depending on the programming settings even with some addressable systems) if you silence a zone you have no redundancy as the call points and detectors on that zone will not cause the system to re-alarm if there is a fire that spreads (or someone sees it and breaks another call point) and you are purely reliant on the investigation team going back to the main panel (or communicating if you use radios). You would need to get a staged alarm programmed in the panel and the FRA and Fire Procedure amended in consultation with the appropriate authorities.

Smoke seals must be fitted to fire doors protecting escape routes. Smoke seals are important to enable occupiers to escape down the protected route without being subjected to smoke which can be toxic, impede breathing and affect vision. Cool smoke, often given off by smouldering furnishings and electrical equipment, is exceptionally toxic and tends not to rise and thus will not operate smoke detectors on escape routes, therefore smoke seals on fire doors are essential. This phenomenon, plus the fire gases passing through the cracks around doors (back when doors fire doors just had rebates or early intumescent seals with no smoke brushes) can produce smoke sufficiently dense and cool for a corridor to become smokelogged before adequate warning can be given by detectors in the corridor itself - this is why in the 1980's guidance on the provision of detection for hotels was updated to require detectors in rooms and Categories of system were born with L3 being the minimum detection category (rooms opening onto escape route and the escape route). So with no smoke control to the doors you risk the escape route becoming untenable (or logged enough to put users off going through it) without a single detector activating. With smoke brushes you hold back most by products with the first leakage being hot smoke at the upper edge that will trigger a corridor head before the door fails.

If you are purely a damp proofing firm then you shouldn't be messing with fire doors as the trades are not related. If you don't have competent trained staff with the correct tools and consumables then there is a big chance that you will not do it correctly and everyone looses in the long run. I've seen work by joiners that is abysmal and non compliant or using completely outdated techniques that go back to the 60's & 70's door standards and would want work to be done by an accredited specialist. Stick to what you are good at.

These are all ABC Powder!

Extinguishers are not provided for means of escape, that's an old myth, but to mitigate the effects of fire and if one fails you get out. The risk of failure is minimal if you have a suitable system of maintenance and buy decent quality kit.

Because some people follow common sense (& risk assessment) and do not rigidly follow the recommendations of BS5306-8 which has been ruined by the trade representatives on the Committee to sell extinguishers. If it's a floor area under 400 sq.m. then in some circumstances the potential 4 extinguishers per floor (if you use separate CO2 for electrical risks) is just plain overkill, especially in premises small enough for a single exit.

Which would potentially still be wrong, just not under fire legislation!

Most UK extinguishers contain ABC (General or All Purpose) Powder based on mono-ammonium phosphate & sulphate - usually yellow (but with far east imports you can get blue, green, orange/pink). It is slightly acidic and fuses into a sticky flux when hot (which is how it is effective on Class A solid fires by coating embers) This powder as a result has a high secondary damage potential to delicate items, electronics & machinery. It is non toxic, but mildly irritant. A small number of aerosol and small automotive extinguishers contain BC (Standard Powder) which is Sodium Hydrogen Carbonate and usually white. It is slightly alkaline (hence it's use in kitchens before the development of wet chemical as it had a slight saponific effect on cooking oils). It does not flux and has less damage potential, is easier to clean and less irritant. It is not effective on deep seated Class A fires as it does not flux around embers. Specialist BC powders exist for high risk environments (Potassium Bicarbonate "Purple K" and Potassium Allophonate/Potassium Bircarbonate/Urea Complex "Monnex") but these are not found in general use due to cost. BC & ABC Powders main extinguishing effect is by chemically interrupting the chain of combustion with little appreciable cooling or smothering effect so there is a risk of re-ignition after use and with a Class B fire if you don't extinguish it all in one go the fire can instantly re-flash to it's original size. Class D fires (flammable metals) have specialist powders, choice dependant on the metal involved - these use Sodium Chloride, Graphite or Copper to absorb heat and flux over the metal allowing it too cool. Where US terminology is used instead of UK then ABC & BC extinguishers are called Dry Chemical with the term Dry Powder being used only for Class D agents.

If it's a means of escape Building Regulations doesn't usually allow electro-mechanical locks such as electronic keeps, but prefers electromagnetic locks. If however there is an internal means of unlatching the door without operating the keep/strike (tumbturn operated deadlock latch or a night latch [Yale lock]) then it's OK as releasing the door does not rely on the electromechanical part of the access system.

Your fire risk assessment would have to justify why deviating from the benchmark of weekly testing would not lower the standard of life safety of the relevant persons. It's possible, that's the point of risk assessment, but you need to back it up as enforcers will initially look for weekly tests unless you convince them why monthly is OK

Traditionally the maintenance standards required you to leave the relevant service history of the extinguisher from a previous provider visible, but currently you have the option of covering it if you transfer ALL relevant service history over (commissioning, weight, date for OH/ES etc)

Some care homes (particularly those where dementia & other mental disorder service users reside) have the local overrides and no fire alarm interface to facilitate controlled evacuation as if all the doors (including final exits) fail open at the same time there is a real risk of service users wandering off out and coming to harm. Building Regulations requires the trinity of failsafes on mag locks - power failure, fire alarm interface, local double pole break glass override & the DCLG risk assessment guides list them also. Risk assessment can potentially dispense with some of these, but must justify why this is acceptable and not an increased risk.

The age of the property (and the age of construction of the garage if not an original feature) will determine whether there is no fire door, a notional fire door (rebated no strips) or a current FD30S door. Most minor domestic building work won't go through Building Control even though it should, so it sounds like your extract was put in under the radar using random components

By residential do you mean care home or a former private house used akin to a HMO? More opinions would be gained from asking this on Firenet: https://www.crisis-response.com/forum/

It's not just the door that needs to be a fire door - if the stair is wooden it needs underdrawing with a suitable layer of fire boarding (usually plasterboard of at least 12.5mm or glass reinforced gyspum sheeting of at least 10mm) suitably secured to a metal or wooden stud with edges sealed with fire mastic

"Doesn't look nice" isn't enough justification. The other location would allow escape without passing a call point and so the system could not be certified as compliant with BS5839-1:2013 unless the location was agreed and recorded as a variation, but it would need to be agreed with all relevant parties - fire alarm engineer, risk assessor, client and Building Control (as it sounds like 'building work' under the Building Regulations has been carried out)

Grade 4? No such thing unless you mean L4 3 wire with call points sounds like an old system in a commercial building, either 240 v or 24v off a separate charger and battery box, either with a separate indicator panel, just a diversion relay, or nothing other than the mains switch. It could have been partly updated by adding a 'modern' style control panel which may by itself now be getting in age. You can still get 3 wire compatible replacement panels and if you need detection you can run a new two wire zone for the detector heads. All new cabling will need to be fire resistant. You can't remove call points, the base system required for premises is a manual system of call points, detection is an extra where required by the premises layout, risk and usage (e.g. sleeping risk) You can add pictures on this forum so images of what you have (cable, call points, panel, etc) that would help.

Fire drills are not normally considered appropriate in residential sleeping risk such as HMO's and flats, even when a fire alarm system is fitted. The main requirement is that the evacuation strategy (evacuate or stay put) is clearly communicated to and understood by all residents.

This is the benchmark guidance for flats - as you will see there is some leeway for smaller older blocks: http://www.local.gov.uk/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=1138bf70-2e50-400c-bf81-9a3c4dbd6575

1l Water mist or a 2l P50 foam or a 3l ABF rated wet chem all sound better alternatives to powder. An obsolete 9 litre water jet and a CO2 would be not advisable either