FireNet Community

FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Technical Advice => Topic started by: David Rooney 2 on October 19, 2022, 10:06:23 AM

Title: Commercial Unit + Flats - Fire Alarm System
Post by: David Rooney 2 on October 19, 2022, 10:06:23 AM
"Typical" shop unit ground/basement with 5 flats above - 1st to 3rd floors with their own staircase - the building is a converted bank premises.

From the RA

?The original building is being divided into two distinct demises, As such while there is no requirement for a linked alarm system, the L3 alarm in the commercial unit should be audible in the flats, in the event of a fire occurring when the shop is unoccupied. The original building is being divided into two distinct demises, As such while there is no requirement for a linked alarm system, the L3 alarm in the commercial unit should be audible in the flats, in the event of a fire occurring when the shop is unoccupied.?

There is a single staircase and an AOV.

We are being told the Flats will be Defend in Place so in my head, L3 standalone fire alarm system in the shop unit, AOV and detectors up the staircase to the flats with no need for communal alarm sounders.

However, as per the paragraph above, apparently there is a need to alert the flats .... does this make any sense ?????

Thanks
 
Title: Re: Commercial Unit + Flats - Fire Alarm System
Post by: Dinnertime Dave on October 19, 2022, 06:20:11 PM
When was it converted?
Title: Re: Commercial Unit + Flats - Fire Alarm System
Post by: AnthonyB on October 19, 2022, 09:18:20 PM
More importantly, to what standard of compartmentation was it converted to? Post 1991 does not mean a stay put conversion as a default.

Although from the info given it follows the rationale of a stay put strategy, so unless they skimped on the 60 minutes FR, they could be separate and not need alarms everywhere.

Because equally not every premises that is a residential conversion rather than a new build requires mixed alarms and evacuation.

Not having been there it's impossible to be sure, but it looks like consultant confusion again.