Author Topic: Lacors v pt 6  (Read 6139 times)

Offline David Rooney

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 891
    • http://ctafire.co.uk
Lacors v pt 6
« on: February 10, 2012, 12:04:55 PM »
If I read it right Lacors requires a Grade D fire alarm system in the common parts of an HMO up to two stories high.

5839 pt 6 table 1 requires a Grade A system.

(My HMO is 40 odd flats over two floors)

What do I suggest to my Landlord ??

Thanks
CTA Fire - BAFE SP203 - F Gas Accredited - Wireless Fire Alarm System Specialists - Established 1985 - www.ctafire.co.uk
Natural Born Cynic

Offline AnthonyB

  • Firenet Extinguisher Expert
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2479
    • http://www.firewizard.co.uk
Re: Lacors v pt 6
« Reply #1 on: February 10, 2012, 09:51:59 PM »
Sounds like purpose built flats not an HMO, so the LGA guide is the most appropriate, not LACORS or BS5839-6 (in isolation)

The individual flats would have standalone Part 6 systems, the common parts nothing unless sub standard compartmentation (although detectors may form part of a smoke control system).

Why are you classing it as an HMO & how is it split & constructed?
Anthony Buck
Owner & Fire Safety Consultant at Fire Wizard


Extinguisher/Fire History Enthusiast

Fire Extinguisher Facebook Group:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=65...415&ref=ts
http://www.youtube.com/user/contactacb
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/anthony-buck-36

Offline David Rooney

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 891
    • http://ctafire.co.uk
Re: Lacors v pt 6
« Reply #2 on: February 13, 2012, 01:19:38 PM »
They were purpose built but as a residential care home around 15-20 years ago .... so there is doubt as to the compartmentation.

The developer is knocking walls out and doing all sorts of stuff to create bigger flats etc.

The building is over two floors, horse shoe shape, three staircases with common (ish) loft space.

Normally this building wouldn't require detection in the common parts but the landlord is going to rent these flats to all and sundry.

To be honest I'm more interested in this apparent conflict between pt 6 and Lacors .... if we put in a Grade D as advocated by Lacors what would happen if there was an incident and the RRFSO was brought out in court which advocates British Standards and a Grade A?  ???

CTA Fire - BAFE SP203 - F Gas Accredited - Wireless Fire Alarm System Specialists - Established 1985 - www.ctafire.co.uk
Natural Born Cynic

Offline Stinky

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 35
Re: Lacors v pt 6
« Reply #3 on: March 02, 2012, 10:13:40 PM »
Dave, If it is a residential / HMO, it would be best to have a system as per LACCORS.  Part 6 is obviously within the flats.

If you can be sure that compartmentation is adequate then just individual flats would need a Part 6 system.  Common areas would not need detection.  If purpose built it is reasonable to assume that compartmentation is adequate.

However, if you know compartmentation is not going to support a stay put system, then it would be best to give occupants earli warning, consisting of what is recommended in LACCORS. This should include heat detectors within flats, as just smoke detectors in common parts may not provide early enough warning.

Offline wee brian

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2424
Re: Lacors v pt 6
« Reply #4 on: March 06, 2012, 09:20:47 PM »
If you are converting a care home into self contained flats then its a material change of use under the building regs. they should comply with ADB

Offline Fishy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 777
Re: Lacors v pt 6
« Reply #5 on: March 07, 2012, 12:40:53 PM »
If you are converting a care home into self contained flats then its a material change of use under the building regs. they should comply with ADB

Agreed - sounds like it falls within the description of 'building works' to me.  Compartmentation would need to be either confirmed as adequate or upgraded, as part of the works (in my experience).