Managed Flats - what a pain!

[devon4ever]

Is it just me but the April 2007 ADB no longer refers to the document as being for new build, neither does it say it is retrospective for existing premises, (be careful before you all jump down my throat and quote 1.4 on page 18 - this only refers to "New Build regarding the AFD element). Granted it mentions Material Alterations in 1.6 (same page) but I find the whole section on Flats to be wooly to say the least.

With regards to AFD, an FRA by a competent person would be restricted to the Common Areas / MoE, yet the private dwellings need to be assessed for compliance with BS 5839 Part 6 - LD system, and in my interpretation, the Common Areas / MoE accessed by tradesmen, (effectively a workplace), etc would come under BS 5839 Part 1 - L system, under the RRO.

Bearing in mind that to carry out a full FRA you would need acces to all private dwellings on all floors to establish AFD, lobbied entrance halls within flats etc, prior notice would be somewhat untenable in large premises etc

I don't wish to pose a question that has probably already been answered, but in my experience I would rather FRA a large high risk factory with 4 floors than a simple block of Managed Flats, because the letting agency has little or no control over the tenants / owners yet still has to comply with the RRO,

Constructive help/previous experience would be most appreciated

[kurnal]

With regards to AFD, an FRA by a competent person would be restricted to the Common Areas / MoE, yet the private dwellings need to be assessed for compliance with BS 5839 Part 6 - LD system, and in my interpretation, the Common Areas / MoE accessed by tradesmen, (effectively a workplace), etc would come under BS 5839 Part 1 - L system, under the RRO.

Things are never this simple but here goes:
The flats themselves are domestic premises and therefore the RRO does not apply inside the flat entrance door. The LD system is for the protection of the occupants of the domestic premises only and so is no consequence to the Fire risk assessment carried out under the RRO.
Why should the common areas require an alarm system as we ensure that there  are no ignition sources or combustible materials and   no significant risk tp persons from fire in the staircase? (Till somone dumps their rubbish there and someone sets it alight- but then we wouldnt want people to come out from the safety of the flats into the fire and tradesmen would best be trained to arrange for the area to be cleared before entering)

Now in reality the design and layout of the flats can be of consequence to the common areas- for example diagram 9 of the ADB allows the lobby to be omitted in certain small single staircase blocks if the flats have an internal lobby. If someone knocks this out it could affect other occupiers of the building.

[devon4ever]

Thanks Kurnal, your response on the AFD issue echoes my thoughts and you have made my point entirely by mentioning the flat that has the protected lobby disposed of by the resident, these are issues that the ADB doesnt address because the tenant is not under any managerial control by the letting agency....neither is there a RRO guide that covers the Common Areas/Stairwells of flats, the nearest would be HMO guide but thats different as far as Im concerned

[wee brian]

ADB is guidance on compliance with building regs. Building regs arent retrospective so unless you are doing building work ADB isnt even relevant.  Of course its a useful benchmark (except where its confusing).

[BCO]

ADB provides guidance for ‘building work’ as defined by the statutory instrument of the building regulations. This legislation defines ‘building work’ as the erection or extension of a building, or work which involves a material alteration or a material change of use of an existing building. Therefore ADB does apply to new build and existing building that are being altered.
Making reference to ADB for the purposes of a FRA seems like a reasonable approach. As Wee Brian says it is a useful benchmark.

There is legislation in place to deal with the removal of the internal lobby. The removal of the lobby is a material alteration and is therefore building work and subject to the requirements of the Building Regulations. This would require an application to be made to the Building Control Authority.
Obviously there will be lots of instances of unauthorised building works out there and many unsafe situations are likely to exist. If you were made aware of, or discovered these works as part of a FRA then the local authority should be informed. It is the responsibility of the LA to control these works within the dwelling. I think that if you are not aware of missing lobby approaches then you should not worry about what is beyond the front door of the dwelling. It is beyond the scope of the RRO and there is alternative legislation in place to control it. If you were aware of the contraventions in a dwelling it would be reasonable to note it in your FRA as contravention of the Building Regulations and requiring to be regularised by the LA. You may even wish to notify the LA yourself. (Dangerous from a client point of view)

Whether the LA do anything about it is a whole different debate, but at least you will be comfortable that you have done all you can.
And contrary to popular belief the LA can take action for contraventions after 12months by using an injunction in line with section 36 (6) of Building Act 1984. It is not used very often and when it is used it has to be shown that the contravention is potentially life threatening. (Which it would be if the 2 door protection had been removed)

[messy]

The whole issue of AFD in residential common parts is becoming a nightmare.

I have received a number of enquiries from RPs of flats (particularly where the residents have formed their own Compnay to manage the block) where AFD salespeople have called and said they must have AFD - showing them the sleeping guide AFD table as 'evidence'.

I can only advise them to conduct a FRA by an independant assessor to determine their requirements. Not a wholly satisfactory answer for them or me. Then I audit premises and find in a building with a adequate system, a risk assessor asking for audibility tests to ensure that the L2 system is 75Db at the bedhead.

I reckon a reliable supplement to the sleeping guide - relating specifically to residental blocks- should be published asap (like the additional info on disabled persons) to help stop confusion and protect RPs from dodgy businesses.

So, when conducting a FRA, how do you determine what does and doesn't require AFD in resi blocks?
How far do you go when determining fire separation?
And, whether you advice AFD or not, do you justify you decision in the FRA report?

[devon4ever]

Thanks for the replies, its clear to me that a "Flats & Common Areas" guide is sadly lacking in this type of premises. Why not go for AFD in the common areas and stairwells and leave it to the individual to protect his/her own apartmet through choice; and at least give early warning of a fire in a neighbouring flat when smoke issues through the entrance door....and most of all make it retrospective. Its the common areas that need protecting as in certain circumstances, if travel distance is okay and lobbies are provided in the flat or at the stair entance, it is the only MoE and could be compromised.

If a flat entrance door & lobby function well, a fire could remain undected for hours, (sorry to say this but you can "right-off" persons in the room of origin, but once it has spread beyond the room of origin, the fire is somewhat hungry for fuel. A typical smoke-in-bed fire during the early hours of the morning could manifest itself for some time and when overcoming the front door, prevent or hinder escape for other residents.

In perspective, airbags in cars save lives, a 1990 Ford Escort cant be made retrospective to fit them, new cars do.  But in a 1990 Escort if your airbag is non-existent because it aint fitted, you are not affecting the other "as new fitted air bag" road users' life.

On another note its worth remebering that AFD will detect but not extinguish or contain an outbreak of fire, how about going the extra mile and make resi-sprinklers also retrospective in flats as well, wow how radical is that! Letting & Management Agencies are comparitively easy bodies to hold accountable with regards protecting the common MoE to, as opposed to dictating an AFD requirement within individual residents households.

Why leave a grey area grey? (PS is that "grey" or "gray" I could never grasp that concept at school - answers on a postcard to.........)

[Mushy]

I have just been reading a letter in our local paper written by the owner of managed flats and the gist of it was that he is not happy the RRO is retrospective and that the news media haven't informed people of this legislation. What puzzles me is that he says that there is new fire safety legislation for flats coming out in April, has anyone any idea what this is? is he getting confused with the ADB from last year?

[The Colonel]

He may be thinking of the LACORS consultation document that has just finished the rounds which is trying to join up different councils requirements to all the same recs, understand it has the backing of CFOA and other bodies. Watch out there's a document about!!!!

[Mushy]

Thanks The Colonel

[Big T]

There is no statutory requirement for a common fire alarm system to be provided in a building solely containing flats and/or Maisonettes. You should only need to provide an alarm in a building where some degree of control can be gained over the occupants so that a pre determined response to the alarm can be triggered.

There are circumstances where an alarm may be necessary such as sheltered housing, mixed user developement flats or flats and maisonettes containing predominantely elderly or disabled occupants.

You might need one installed to monitor a specific hazard that is unattended at night that would be picked up by a FRA or to operate active fire protection, such a s smoke ventilation, releasing fire doors etc.

[wee brian]

Yes - but theres a lot of people messing this up.

Thats why landlords have the hump.