FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Technical Advice => Topic started by: Olig7 on December 01, 2014, 12:35:50 PM
-
Hi all I wonder if any of you have any experience or advice to offer for my issue below. I am at the point of pulling my hair out with the BCO involved but maybe I am missing something!!
I am offering free advice on an issue for a relative who has applied for regularisation for changes he has made to his large 3rd floor ?open plan? flat of approx 190m2 19mx10m (former factory). These works have removed the alternative MOE (through the bathroom) which I assume was the basis for approval in 2005 by BC for the previous owner/developer. An extra bathroom and bedroom have been added as per the alterations plan attached.
The BCO has refused regularisation for non compliance in relation to MOE (inner rooms as bedrooms) and means of giving warning.
My relative cant bring himself to reinstating the alternative route and providing 30 minutes FR between living and sleeping so I have proposed a grade D LD1 alarm system and domestic sprinkler system to the open plan area as BS9991 offers this solution.
The BCO has accepted this in principal but asked me to confirm the apartment is under 16x12 and that the kitchen is enclosed. Surely early warning and suppression is enough?? I would hope that he wont quibble over the 19x10 but enclosing the kitchen kind of defeats the whole purpose of open plan living.
My relative has learnt the hard way that approval should be sought in advance, as this could have easily been avoided by better planning but I guess not all people are aware of this process.
I know I cant really argue with the black and white of the British standard but this all seems hugely onerous when they don't require SC's on fire doors in the protected entrance hall approach.
There is a tenant who lives there so we want to get it resolved quickly for their safety but the BCO isn't allowing anything but the textbook standard.
Any advice or similar experiences would be welcome.
-
Its not a great design is it. One of the most common cause of fire is cooking and if in the bedroom you have to more or less circle the kichen area to reach the exit from the living area and then pass though another room containing a utility area. Personally I am not a fan of the inner room sprinkler trade off but as you say it is permitted in that flawed document BS9991.
I dont usually have much sympathy with the BCOs in these situations but to be fair its the applicants job to convince the BCO that the design is equally as safe as a code compliant design.
I think the 19m vs 16m is a red herring - its being used as a screen, the positive variation from the standard he can nail you with - the issue is the position of the kitchen and the additional room at the main entrance.
Sorry not to be more positive, its frustrating when you know there are many far more unsatisfactory buildings out there- but they arent applying for regularisation......
-
I agree with kurnal. 9991 is a poor enough standard already (for this sort of layout), we shouldn't be accepting designs that don't meet even it.
-
I agree with "Ashes" agreement with Kurnal, who agreed with me on this point when it was made as a comment to those revising BS 9991, but I doubt that they will agree with my agreement with Ashes agreement with Big Al.
-
I agree with Colin's agreement with 'Ashes' who agreed with Kurnal's agreement with Colin on the point he made with the people revising BS9991, and I also agree on the lack of agreement of those people with Colin's agreeing with Ashes agreement with Big Al.
-
I agree with Colin's agreement with 'Ashes' who agreed with Kurnal's agreement with Colin on the point he made with the people revising BS9991, and I also agree on the lack of agreement of those people with Colin's agreeing with Ashes agreement with Big Al.
Agreed. But we cant be greedy about this.
-
I'm not so sure any more...
-
Colin, most eloquently put.
-
Scottish education system, Q Old boy, second to none. Watch Managers in the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service are more eloquent than chief officers in England.
-
Not exactly setting the bar high