Block of Flats/Dwellings??

[AnthonyB]

A development of blocks, including a high rise, use a floor layout of a number of en-suite bedrooms around a central kitchen/dining room, used by students and potentially short term occupancy for conference guests.

They have been classed as dwellings for the purpose of fire safety design in the build and the high rise has a single stair. Extended corridor lengths are used with an engineered smoke control solution for these TD's only. Risk room kitchen is nearest the exit, engineered solution relies on the FD to this room being shut and not wedged. No sprinklers

Some areas require pass doors between bedrooms of different clusters of bedrooms to access alternate stairs (where there is a stair).

Risk assessor refuses to accept them as dwellings and the long list of non compliances with ADB (as well as more basic stuff) not all mitigated by engineering. BCO/AI, Engineers, etc say they are and are OK. The classification as dwellings seems to have been used for design convenience and doesn't excuse some of the non conformities to ADB

They don't meet the existing definition of a dwelling, do meet the definition of a HMO (& in some respects are laid out like a Premier Inn, except they have more stairs and the restaurant fully separate from the sleeping bit).

Should it all go wrong and get to court would the judge be guided by the current written definitions of dwellings and HMO's?

[Phoenix]

Courts will always use established principles where they can.  

The whole thing sounds bad.  One anomaly that jumps out is the adoption of by-pass doors from some bedrooms.  By-passes can only work where there is control over the escape route beyond the by-pass door.  For example, in a hotel the managers can ensure that the route is always kept clear.  If these buildings are to be accepted as dwellings then it also has to be accepted that the occupants will place furniture wherever they want to (within their private homes) and they are perfectly at liberty to put a wardrobe in front of the by-pass doors.

If they want to use by-passes then these buildings cannot be private dwellings.  If they're private dwellings then they cannot have by-passes.  The two are mutually exclusive.

[kurnal]

Anthony from your post are you saying the bedrooms are inner rooms off the central kitchen / diner? If so we are plumbing new depths of poor design.

There is case Law on this topic  - heres a link to a previous thread, the Victoria Halls vs West Midlands Fire Service case in which the Judge ruled that student flats are indeed private dwellings. Lower down in the thread there is another link to an important House of Lords ruling over 100 years old.

http://www.crisis-response.com/forum/index.php?topic=4260.0

It does not make it right though. Sorry to get on my soap box again but the fundamental problem is that there are too many Approved Inspectors who are completely in the pockets of the developers and the same people acting as designers, engineers and building control through a network of different company names. The student accommodation sector is rife with this.

In this case all the fire risk assessor can do is walk away from the job. I walked away from one in Stratford, London and another in Hertfordshire last year without payment or with reduced payment under similar circumstances but made sure the accommodation provider had a letter outlining my concerns.  

I would just unusually like to question Phoenix's comment. Many flats converted in the 1930s had kick out panels and hatches between flats, and the old CP3 chapter 4 part 1 1963 and 1971 allowed for linking balconies. They were still private dwellings. I agree that current building codes do not allow for such arrangements but it sounds like the designer has breached most other basic rules in addition.  

The layout of the flats in question is also interesting. A good design places the kitchen at the most remote end of the cluster corridor so persons do not have to pass the highest risk room in order to make their escape. Almost universally in new builds developers are placing them closest to the entrance door and I can guarantee the door will always be found wedged open.  One developer who is building similar premises all over the country told me that the choice was deliberate and that siting the kitchen near the flat entrance door  promotes social interaction and reduces isolation, a factor that is considered more important than fire safety considerations. And then they put 7 bedrooms in the cluster and have extended travel distances up to 15m in th eflat entrance corridor etc etc.  

[Golden]

I fully agree with Kurnal on all aspects - the AI issue appears to be getting out of control as per my previous posts on another topic especially when the allegedly independent fire engineer indicates that they are satisfied with the design. It's not always the way though-I've come across many new schools over the past few years where the local authority have approved the plans and many of these do not conform to current guidance and some with dangerous conditions in my opinion - it appears to be fashionable at the moment to pass single direction escape routes through the head of a staircase for instance. However it's not so easy to walk away when the client has another 40 premises that you look after!!

[Tom Sutton]

Risk assessor refuses to accept them as dwellings and the long list of non compliances with ADB (as well as more basic stuff) not all mitigated by engineering. BCO/AI, Engineers, etc say they are and are OK. The classification as dwellings seems to have been used for design convenience and doesn't excuse some of the non conformities to ADB

Is part of the problem, they can use ADB or BS 9999 or BS 7974 or none providing it meets the functional requirements, what ever that is.

[Golden]

Tom whatever guide they use they have to conform to the functional requirements of ADB unfortunately many don't want to conform but to build and maximise profit knowing that the risk of fire is minimal - and that they will probably be long retired before any issues arise.

[Tom Sutton]

Golden I thought functional requirement was as detailed in schedule 1 of the Building Regulations 2012 and ADB/BS9999/BS7974 were possible ways of achieving it. I stand corrected.

PART B FIRE SAFETY
Means of warning and escape

B1. The building shall be designed and constructed so that there are appropriate provisions for the early warning of fire, and appropriate means of escape in case of fire from the building to a place of safety outside the building capable of being safely and effectively used at all material times.

Requirements B1 does not apply to any prison provided under section 33 of the Prison Act 1952(a) (power to provide prisons etc.).
1952 c52 section 33 was amended by section 100 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c33) and by S.I.

[Mike Buckley]

I agree with you Tom, the Approved Documents and British Standards are documented ways of meeting the requirements of the Building Regs, they are not the only way. However they are a shortcut so it can be documented that the building complies with ADB etc., if someone wants to build outside these guides then they will need to justify their decisions possibly in Court.

Let us take the example mentioned elsewhere in this forum of the conversion where the Fire Brigade has said they would put an Enforcement Notice on the place as soon as it is finished. If the client believes it is ok then they should appeal, put forward their case and the Court will decide.

[kurnal]

Tom note the scope of BS 9999 - it does not apply to dwellings, BS9991 complements BS9999 in respect of dwellings.

Note also that there is a spectrum of fire engineering and BS7974 also allows for simple, qualitiative comparative analysis in which the designer persuades the Authorities that shortcomings in one area can be offset by enhancements in another. No calculations or sophisticated cooking of the books is needed. One most common example is the extension of travel distances in the flat lobby, I have seen a 22m corridor accepted on the basis of self closers to all doors and LD1. A code compliant solution would set a limit of 9m but in a dwelling would not require self closers and (according to ADB) only require an LD3 alarm system.  

[AnthonyB]

Kurnal - I was deliberately being a little vague on some details of the project however from your replies I suspect the developer is going to be one and the same - feel free to PM me.

[Tom Sutton]

Point taken Kurnal. I read elsewhere that some Building Controls are privatised is that correct?

[kurnal]

yes Birmingham is one such example - they are called acivico ltd (or something like that). Many others ousource their work to the private sector.

[Phoenix]

I would just unusually like to question Phoenix's comment. Many flats converted in the 1930s had kick out panels and hatches between flats, and the old CP3 chapter 4 part 1 1963 and 1971 allowed for linking balconies. They were still private dwellings. I agree that current building codes do not allow for such arrangements but it sounds like the designer has breached most other basic rules in addition.  

Yes, I don't deny that thousands of such buildings exist, I just do not think that such a design meets today's standards.

Everyone in this thread has posted such obviously reasonable comments but, at the same time, we have fire engineers and AIs colluding all over the country to reduce safety in the pursuit of profit.  For me, fire engineering is finding a safe way around an unavoidable problem but these people create problems out of thin air and then don't resolve them.  The saddest thing is that this is repeated all over the country hundreds of times each year and it has been going on since the rise of the AI.

I know that there isn't a trail of bodies leading from these designs but it's early days yet, these buildings are all relatively new and in good condition.  Give them time.  We've seen fire deaths reduce to the lowest levels ever but I fear that these poor designs will, in the decades to come, slow that trend or even reverse it.  That is very sad for our children who do not deserve this willful neglect.

I hate to sit idly by wallowing in a sea of frustration.  Can't we start lobbying someone?  What do CFOA think about this?