Stay Put with more than 2 flats per floor

[mosh]

I understand that a purpose built block does not need lobbied corridors if there are only 2 flats on each floor, close to the stairway.

I have come across a block that has 4 flats on the ground floor (the most distant one is about 7-8 metres from the entrance door). There are 2 flats on the first floor and 3 flats on the second (top) floor. There is AOV at the top of the stairway.

The building operates a Stay Put procedure. Is this acceptable? Can the  ground floor and top floor have more than 2 flats without being lobbied?

Thanks

[AnthonyB]

When was it built and is there a fire strategy? Minor deviations in older buildings are usually tolerated where the actual risk isn't significantly higher - changing the evacuation type (& providing the associated systems) is not a step to be take lightly - are all other aspects in compliance other than the number of flats?

[mosh]

Thanks for your reply.

This is quite a modern build. I don't think that it has a fire strategy. Everything else seems to be compliant.

[AnthonyB]

It should have one then as part of the Regulation 38 package, although for something of this size it will probably just be annotated fire floor plans.

[mosh]

They don't have a fire strategy, and there was apparently no proper handover to the current owners, so they don't have fire floor plans.

The ground-floor flats can escape via windows. However, there are still 3 flats on the second floor.

Would this require a change to a fire alarm system and an evacuation policy?

[AnthonyB]

What difference would it make in a fire? If the compartmentation & smoke control is fine, travel distances are fine, the most common risks are in a flat, normally only a single flat is initially involved, etc how would the few extra flats per floor affect life safety? Bearing in mind as well it's moderate height.

Possibly not much, which is I'm guessing how it got passed in the first place, Does it justify the expense of installing a full evacuate system and the ongoing access, maintenance and leaseholder cost burden associated with it, is the benefit worth it? What is the occupier mix - would the change potentially lead to a need for multiple PEEPs having to be implemented simultaneously as oppose to one initially if stay put (that's an assumption on the way the proposed block RP evacuation responsibilities may end up going) .

Does the layout support remediation to nearer the benchmark with lobbying with a partition wall & fire door? Is this proportionate?

I've not seen the place so I can't say either way - but these are things to consider

[mosh]

Thanks very much.

That's very helpful.

[Dinnertime Dave]

I don?t think it justifies abandoning the stay put strategy. The issue is a fire in one of the ground floor flats and the door not self closing. A full evacuation won?t change this.

The only solution (and probably the least expensive) if you really think one is necessary would be to enclose the base of the staircase.