Mike North

Its only an issue over 11m

All depends on the size of the room, the location in the building, is it on a dead-end, what is the process. But you could start by looking at inner rooms.

But it can be used as the basis of an argument

The attached may be of interest Determination_on_the_suitability_and_sufficiency_of_a_fire_risk_assessment_in_a_hotel....pdf

I would agree that the design meets 2.1 and 2.2. I would look at 4.2 b, that may be a problem

Where is the kitchen extracting to? What suppression does the cooking use? The travel distance of 18m is extremely fortuitous, but what about furniture? The note about travel distance A to D is next to C, I’d move the note to avoid confusion. The private area could be considered a dead end. To avoid ambiguity, I would draw the effective angle with a leader line and angle dimension. Are both stairs protected with fire doors? Is the occupancy the same for both floors?

Did you have the circuit tested prior to the start of the works, if there was a fault who would be responsible? If the works were just to replace the fittings, what do you need a test certificate for? Would you expect the system to be certified if you changed a single fitting? As for the discharge test, I would just continue this as normal.

Yes

The doors were approved by certifire, they must have a copy of the original test evidence. Leaderflush-Shapland-Laidlaw_EnduraCor_Technical_PDS.pdf (specifiedby.com)

Technically no. But the insurance company may ask about your competency to conduct a fire risk assessment before they payout any claim.

The fact that you have a second floor would seem to preclude the use of small premises. Approved Document B Vol 2 2019 Amendment 2020 4.2 Small premises should meet all of the following general conditions. a. i. It should be single occupancy. ii. It should not comprise more than a basement storey, ground storey and first storey. iii. No storey should have a floor area more than 280m2. b. Any kitchen or other open cooking arrangements should be at the extremity of any dead end remote from the exits. c. For a bar or restaurant, the seating or standing accommodation (Table D1) should be planned for a maximum of 30 people per storey. The seating or standing accommodation for the ground storey may be planned for 100 people if it has a final exit independent of the stair.

As Neil says, I would love to have a copy if the report

Basically, think of an imaginary corridor the width of the door extending into the room that you shouldn’t encroach on

So yes they can be used

Considering the legislation came into force in 1998 I would say that either the furniture complies, its doing extremely well, or its knock off

If I was conducting the FRA I would bring it to the landlords attention that the ceiling were not up to the current standards, it is then the landlords responsibility as to what he does with this information. If I didn’t then I carry the risk, its called pass the buck!

You may be able to provide some form of compensatory alternative approaches such as a fire suppression system, but it will be a lot more expensive that fire doors. Its always best to seek the advice of building control before you make a material alteration to a property.

Same answer as for the push pads, all depends on the number of people and their familiarity with the route

all of them

Current regulations

I think that the question is are the 30 minute doors complaint in the location, if they are not then that also calls into question the serving shutters

Unfortunately, I have 6 buildings built to the same design, 2 (the first and last) have FD30S the others have FD60S in the same positions, so the strategy is of no help. The designers have ceased trading, so they won’t help, and the buildings were constructed by Carillion so not help there. The FRA is not concerned about strategy of the building as long as there is one in place, and who would spot the doors are a different rating without reviewing them side by side. Neil, I cannot use a place of special fire hazard (kitchen is not in the definition) , or ancillary because of the size approx. 30%

I am looking at a large dining facility with a large kitchen included. The kitchen is separated from the eating and service area by block-work walls. All frying has its own Ansul suppression facilities. At the moment there is a difference of opinion as to the rating if the fire doors. 1. The kitchen is ancillary and therefore should be separated from the dining area as a compartment and have 60-minute doors, complies with ADB. 2. BS 9999, Table 29, allows for separation of a dining area from the associated from a kitchen by 30-minute wall with 30 min doors. The question is which one is right and why

You should have a fire strategy for the building, however if the premisses are simple there is no need for an approved one. A competent assessor should be able to surmise were the fire walls are in a simple building