My query relates to a small, landlocked pub in a city centre location. Bar on ground with occupancy of 60, sitting area on first for 30 and toilets and kitchen on second. The footprint is tiny but the travel distance from the second floor to the only exit at the front of the premises is around 38m with the route via the first floor lounge, accommodation stair and ground floor bar. Sprinklers were fitted and along with a L2 fire alarm and a fire engineers report BC accepted the solution. We have now acquired the premises next door and knocked through at first floor level. This provides us with an alternative escape route for the first and second floor. The route from second still passes through the tiny first floor lounge but we can get access to a protected stair within required travel distance. A fresh look at the new setup would definitely not require sprinkler provision. However, BC are saying that the sprinklers must remain as any new works should not diminish existing fire safety provision. In fact, debate is taking place as to whether the sprinkler provision should be extended to the additional area.
The fire engineer agrees with BC for the same reason. A similar alteration just completed in the same block has been been passed by the same BC officer but they didn?t have a sprinkler system to begin with.
