Office based in a wing of a historic house

[A J]

Hi All,

I am asking your advice on the best means of raising the alarm in an office based in the ground floor wing of a historic house.
The house itself does not have any fire alarm system and the layout of the office is rooms off a corridor including a server room.There are  doors which seperate the wing from the rest of the house which are locked.The  travel distance to the exit door is fine as are the fire doors on route, my concern is that as the house is unprotected should the offices have an early warning of fire as it is sandwiched between the basement and the floor above? There are 10 employees who come and go and two office staff who are there 9-5.
I feel there is a need for a simple alarm system to protect the server room and any person (lone worker) who maybe in their office with the door shut.
There is only the front door to exit from and fire extinguishers are correct and maintained.

Am I being over cautious?

[CivvyFSO]

I don't think you are being over cautious.

Since it sounds like you are in a dead end then you should possibly look at having detection in every room off your corridor or fire doors with self closers on. The problem with the second option is that eventually a 30 minute fire door will fail, and if someone is sat behind another door then they may be unaware of the impending problem, so detection is the sensible option. A BS5839 part 1 with L3 standard coverage would suffice. A part 6 system may do the job depending on the size of the premises involved. Also if the corridor is particularly short, with limited fire loading in the rooms, then a risk assessment may show that detection just in the corridor may suffice.

Assuming that you are the only commercial enterprise in the building: If this is in the UK then we can't really insist on detection in the rest of the house as it is domestic, but you should possibly have detection covering your escape route as this is a part of the premises you have access to so the legislation covers that. The funny thing is that you should also be thinking about protecting the people in the domestic premises from a fire in your part of the building.

If the basement and first floor are also commercial and they can affect your escape route (Unlikely with the first floor, but possible with the basement) then the occupiers there should ensure that you are kept safe from a fire in their premises.

[jokar]

The house could have an alarm to BS 5839 part 6, perhaps a PD1 system which could then be extended to cover the offices.  Alternatively, a full commercial system so as to protect all the relevany persons.  You have not mentioned whether visitors come to the house but as these will be relevant a full part 1 system may be a recommendation.

[A J]

Thanks civvyfso & Jokar,

The house is still a private residence owned by an eccentric millionaire who is reclusive in nature and rattles around the main house so not many visitors! however, he is starting to rent certain areas out to business, this wing is the first, and I feel its better to have sufficient fire cover so at least people have a chance.

[Medieval]

Hi , from your comments it would appear that the property owner is in the process of developing the propery for commercial letting aspects and as such, would not the implications of the RRO now apply as a commercial landlord via change of usage etc.

It may be that if such an assessment were completed, then the risk assessment may highlight the need for full detection to be installed in the property throughout which would certainly aid your cause.


Just a thought though, regards.

[kurnal]

Theres a lot of peripheral considerations and we must assume that planning, and change of use, business rates, OSRA considerations have been dealt with. This does sound like a change of use in respect of Building Regulations and this would dictate the fire separation between purpose groups and consequential means of escape and alarm considerations.

The owner living above the office is a relevant person under the RR(FS)O 2005 and so could be affected by a fire in the office. Therefore unless offices are separated by one hour compartment walls and floors from the residential areas, and means of escape are independent of each other,  the minimum fire alarm system would have detection in the office with sounders in the residential part in addition to other considerations.

[kurnal]

Have come across another variation on the Relevant Person / Responsible person theme. Similar to this case.

A private school, running since 1880 occupies the lower 2 floors and basement of a 3 storey listed building measuring 60 x 18m. The whole of the top floor is a private flat, occupied by a very elderly man who used to own the school. He still owns the building and is responsible for its maintenance but sold the school business many years ago. There is no fire separation whatsoever but means of escape are not too bad  because there are three seperate staircases - all unprotected but separated from each other. All stairs serve the top floor flat.There is just an old 240volt manual alarm.

There is concern for the safety of the owner in his flat, in the event of a fire in the school. He is a relevant person. But he is responsible for maintenance and   steadfastly refuses to invest in a new alarm or fire separation. The liklihood is that a notice will be served on the school to upgrade the systems which the owner of the building will refuse to carry out. The school cannot afford it as it is running on a shoestring but fills a very important role in the local community. The outcome is likely to be closure of the school after 130 years.

In this case should we allow the relevant person to continue to place himself at risk?

[Davo]

Prof

anything in the school to be concerned about likely to cause or spread a fire?

davo

[kurnal]

Yes theres bits and pieces but most can be dealt with fairly easily. For the school I have suggested a range of options like testing the fire alarm daily as there is no back up power supply, changing some of the heating, fitting some self closers and fire seals to a few key doors. The quote for new fire alarm would put them straight out of business. They only have 30 pupils and cater for kids who have problems in attending the bigger mainstream schools. Going into the school is like turning the clock back 50 years. Thats when it was last decorated I reckon.

[colin todd]

Oh Dear, Kurnal, so its ok to breach legislation if you test things more often. Thats handy to know. It may stand me in good stead as a police car seemed to take an undue interest in me tonight when I was doing 100mph on the M3. If I hear anything from them, I will tell them I do advanced driving tests regularly. I am sure the magistrates will accept this as readily as the contravention that the single power supply constitutes.

Interesting idea that ALARP needs to take into account the string of people's shoes. Never heard that one, but I love it. On the way home tonight the car seemed to wander a bit on the A287 (true). I was going to check the tyre tread tomorrow, but it may simply have been the road surface which is full of repairs that do tend to make larger wheels wander. But now I know if you are on a shoestring different standards apply, I wont bother as I have my tax bill to pay at the end of the week and it seems inordinately large in relation to my meagre circumstances.

Many thanks for these changes to the law. It was much quicker than the normal Parliamentary process.

[kurnal]

Thank you Colin. You really should slow down a little, the Rolls is so uneconomic at these speeds and we dont want you detained at her Majesty's pleasure and your shoestrings confiscated. As One gets older I am told that Ones reactions decline, so by now you may be reaching the 5mph and red flag threshold. Do be careful.

Davo did ask a very relevant question and I gave a too brief response. I am setting out immediate, short, medium and long term action plans showing what needs to be done to achieve compliance, and the plans take account both legal requirements, National Guidance, heritage issues, societal issues and shoestrings. Now having set out what needs to be done, When and By Whom become the key factors.

Hence the original question relevant to the Fire Safety Order. The greatest costs and obstacles to progress in this case arise soley from the need to protect a relevant person who also happens to be a Responsible Person who owns the building.This person has responsiility under the lease agreement to pay for the work, much of which is needed to protect only himself. He does not want to make any changes at all.  If it were a tenanted flat it would be so simple.

If driving at high speeds and with bald tyres only put the driver at risk and nobody else, would the Police enforce the Law as vigorously as they do now (Outside Surrey).
 

[David Rooney]

Thanks civvyfso & Jokar,

The house is still a private residence owned by an eccentric millionaire who is reclusive in nature and rattles around the main house so not many visitors! however, he is starting to rent certain areas out to business, this wing is the first, and I feel its better to have sufficient fire cover so at least people have a chance.

Sounds like you need a wireless fire alarm system.............

[Davo]

Prof

No chance of a grant?
Sorry to be cynical but there may be a new owner in the 'long term' as you put it
Perhaps the FRS would accept a time planned improvements list if they saw action was already in hand for more urgent stuff- surely reducing the risk is more important than batteries?

If money is tight then I am glad they chose you as your rates are so reasonable

davo

[colin todd]

Kurnal, Wrong again, its a BMW.  And the old geezer is probably not an RP from what you say. he is an entirely different animal, namely another person having control of the premises. Very different from an RP.

[Midland Retty]

Hi Prof

I see exactly what you are saying. Should a notice be issued against a person (i.e; the elderly gent you mentioned) for essentially putting himself at risk. Its seems a total no brainer.

There is a lot at stake, both financially and in terms of potential loss to the community by making these uprgades and / or taking the action against the stubborn gent. And for what benefit? Is it really in the public interest to take action against the fellow?

if the old fellow chooses to put himself at risk, then I feel he should be left to his own devices. By all means recommend any upgrades required for teh safety of relevant persons using the school, but I feel the old gent must take the consequences of putting himself at risk.