Hi Midland Retty
Yes we have challenged the BCO (head of) who is backing up his team, here is an extract from reply to our challenge, I have XXX anything which may shown anyones name..let me know your what you think to the logic:.......(I should also point out at the stage previous to this we had be advised by one of the BCO's to submit a letter asking for a relaxation of the regulation, no mention of any compensatory features required and in our ignorance we did this and you guessed it, it was rejected.) also happy to email anyone floorplans and a picture of the staircase if you are interested.
Letter as follows:
You are correct in stating that Approved Document B allows suitable alternative solutions to those contained in the document. The difficulty that arises when an alternative solution is proposed is concerned with assessing the alternative proposal. Approved Documents set out details of how the mandatory requirements of the regulations can be met. Anyone wishing to offer alternative solutions should set out how and why the alternative is capable of meeting the mandatory requirement.
It is not permissible to merely omit part of the Approved Document requirements without there being clear evidence that to do so would not reduce the standard of safety in the building. Where people wish to deviate by omitting a feature there is an implicit requirement that some compensatory measures will be applied that results in an equivalent degree of safety.
An alternative approach to following approved document requirements is to provide an engineered solution that takes into account all of the factors that influence safety, quantifies these factors and demonstrates an appropriate solution. Such an approach will involve engaging an appropriately qualified fire engineer.
In the case of your development, AD B1 para 4.34 clearly requires that, where there is only one escape stairway serving a building with more than one storey above the ground storey, the added protection of a protected lobby or corridor is required. In addition to this appropriate means of warning of fire is required. BS 5839 -1:2002 indicates an L1 or L2 system is appropriate. The difference between the two is that L2 systems are fitted in defined parts of the building whereas L1 systems are fitted throughout. In practice it is recognised in the British Standard that, because of the need to specify most rooms in small premises such as this one, the code effectively requires L1 in most situations. Escape lighting is required in all escape routes.
The above paragraph sets out the basic Approved Document requirements. Your proposal, if lobbies are omitted, provides no significant additional compensatory measures. Neither does it provide any quantified and reasoned argument to demonstrate the building would be less safe than is required if the lobbies were omitted. To permit the development to proceed without the lobbies would, therefore, in the absence of compensatory measures or justification in the form of an engineered solution, be to simply ignore the guidance. As I have indicated, the design can be based on a fire engineering solution in which protection is provided to compensate for departure for some departure from normal guidance. The omission of the lobbies must be justified.
Insofar as your comments about an nearby authority are concerned if you provide me with the details I will explain the requirements and the only acceptable approach to the individual concerned.
Finally I would point out that on receipt of your previous letter the matter was again raised with a Fire Officer (not Mr XXXX) and he confirmed the Fire Authorities opposition to approval of the scheme without the provision of lobbies or a suitable engineered solution or justification.
