Mike North

Basically, both doors are part of a single escape route. They must on a simple action locking mechanism i.e. a thumb turn or push bar. The presence of staff does not remove the requirement

Yes, although it won’t be easy! You can 1. Fit an approved liner to reduce the gaps. 2. Relpace the stops and add intumescent system 3. Pack the frame with hardwood and intumescent However, you can not reduce the opening by more than 12mm per-side

Your new FRA appears to be applying LACORS which is not intended for well separated purpose built or properly converted flats. What does the FRA say about compartmentation of the building? If it is silent, then there is no issue and an alarm is not required Go back to the assessor and ask 1. Which compartment has triggered the recommendation? 2. Which part of LACORS do they believe applies to a 3‑flat conversion with confirmed separation? 3. Why is BS 5839‑1 being referenced when no alarm is required under a stay‑put strategy? 4. What has changed since the 2015 FRA?

Approved Document B Volume 2 2010 states that doors on escape routes should be easy to operate, apparent operation, openable from the escape side and openable without a key. A thumb turn or a door handle is fine, but not together

It would not be the case if there was a Signiant hazard · Plant room opening · Fuel tanks · High risk workshop doors · Glass walls · Stored materials · Cars · Wheelie bins · Pallets The list is endless, you will need a risk assessment

Although certain manufacturers state in their instructions that no discharge test is required, BS 5306‑3:2017 sets the UK servicing standard. Table 2 (Enhanced Service – 5‑Year) explicitly lists water, water‑additive, foam, powder, wet chemical, and specific clean‑agent extinguishers as requiring a 5‑year discharge test involving discharge, internal inspection, and refill. Under BAFE SP101, service providers must follow BS 5306‑3 unless the manufacturer provides a BS‑aligned alternative maintenance schedule. Industry bodies including FIA, IFEDA, and UKAS‑accredited companies all recognise the 5‑year discharge test as mandatory for water and powder extinguishers.

Most likely, yes — a hole of that size in a separating wall is a fire‑risk. You should first confirm whether it was intentional, whether a service or duct has been removed, and whether it connects directly to another flat. You also need to check if any services still pass through it, because unsealed penetrations can seriously compromise compartmentation. Even if the wall is solid brick, a 15×15‑inch opening can allow smoke to spread, and smoke spread is often more dangerous than flame. For that reason alone, it should be treated as a significant defect. The wall needs to be properly repaired so that its fire‑resisting and smoke‑tight performance is restored.

Given the age of the doors, lack of certification, and no historical FRA paperwork, I’d personally commission a full independent FRA. While the Responsible Person can assess nominal doors in‑house if they have demonstrable competence , the judgement involved here — thickness, gaps, glazing, ironmongery, smoke control, and the absence of test evidence — is exactly the kind of thing that could be challenged later . An external assessor gives you a defensible baseline and removes any doubt about competence under Article 18 .

No, the act is generally only concerned with the areas external to the flat. The duties placed on the AP focuses on the common parts and the extremal structure of the building

Because the bear garden roof has permanent railings around the edge, permanent lighting, is designed for public occupation, has been risk assessed and is supervised by staff or is a safe managed space, it is allowable to use it as an escape route. For an atypical roof this is not the case.

In my view, you have very little control over the two groups that are explicitly prohibited. Would you really want members of the public to have access to a roof?

Because the second-floor room is accessed directly from the stairs, it should still be considered an inner room. The access is still dependant on the lounge, however the fact that there is ASD and visibility will make it an acceptable risk

If the footpath is ≥2m wide then it would be considered acceptable in most case ≥1.2m and the external wall is non-combustible then it would be considered acceptable in most case < 1.2m then it would be considered unacceptable in most case

What does the fire strategy say? Is the fire stopping intact? What size are the cupboards?

Having a single lodger is not an issue as the home would not be classified as an HMO. You must Check your smoke alarms: Test the alarms on every floor right away to confirm they work perfectly. Inspect furniture labels: Look for fire safety labels on any mattress, bed base, or sofa you are providing in the lodger's room. Brief your lodger: Show them the main exit routes, explain how to unlock the front door in an emergency, and point out where the door keys are kept.