This scenario is not to current building regs guidance. Some people may (& some will) argue that since the compartmentation is good, people are safer in their flat so no alarm should be given, but if you want to work to current guidance then you are left with the need for a fire alarm system in the common areas.
Like you said, some may disagree, so i dont want to disappoint!
The idea of the RR(FS)O isn't to bring every building up to current standards. If the building was converted with enough separation to satisfy the building regs at the time and it was deemed safe to stay in a flat, why isn't it now if the flats still meet those conditions? If there is any doubt, then of course, an alarm should be fitted.
Technology and experience in fire safety have improved considerably over the years but where do we draw the line?
This is where risk assessment comes into play Smokescreen.
It isn't about debating if something was designed to a certain standard years ago and whether it should or shouldnt be uprgaded to current standards. Your fire risk assessment should tell you what is required, and as we are aware the assessment looks at reducing risk to ALARP (resonably practicable being the operative words).
And i agree with you that risk assessment is what comes into play. The point i was trying to make though (although not very well i admit) was that the requirements to have a stay put policy haven't changed over the years, we still need each flat (compartment) to be within fire resisting construction there by leaving the communal areas safe for that period so that upon arrival from the FRS they evacute as necessary.
Changes in guidance that have occured in the last 15-20 years for example , front entrance doors now need to be 30 minutes fire rated and have intumescent strips and smoke seals to qualify as a suitable door for a stay put. If the door in place satisfies the previous requirements in being 30 minute door but is without intu strips and smoke seals, has larger door stops to compensate etc and is not damaged and still a good fit then why would you change it?
The example we were previously given were for a house converted flats in the 1970's.
IF it was converted to CP3 part IV and met those guidelines in compartmentation. Provided there are no new issues that would jeopordise a stay put policy then surely the reasonable approach would be just to note on the FRA that the flat entrance doors are not up to current specs and should be replaced in the course of building maintenance or upon damage beyond repair.
Of course, in the conversions i have seen, this is unlikely to be the case and they a communal fire alarm fitted to cover this.
