Common ares of blocks of apartments.

[Tom Sutton]

The building has been developed 30 years ago from a school into 26 apartments. The leasehold owners all own 1 equal share of the Freehold Company which manages the apartments using a Board of Directors.

We have 4 different communal hallways some with 3 apartments, others with as many as 10. Each has been clad in "wood panelling" and a Fire Risk Assessment (by an outside company not the Fire Service) advised its removal in order to lessen the risks.

Some residents are happy to do so others not.

1. Would the use of a "fire retardant" spray/liquid onto this panelling be an option rather than removal?
2. What are the Directors responsibilities in law if "advice" is not followed?
3. Do we need to have Exit signs and little green running men as this would detract from the look of our homes?
4. We do have emergency lighting in place. Is this a requirement in law?
5. The apartments are owner occupied in the main but one or two are rented to tenants are there further complications because of this fact?
6. I would like to know what the legislation pertain in to Fire Safety and Emergency Lighting is with regard to the communal areas.

An enquiry I receive recently and would like to hear some observations.

[kurnal]

A lot of questions.

1- A spray may improve the fire performance of the timber panelling  in terms of surface spread of flame  from typical class 3 to class 1. The requirement for a protected escape route is class O which cannot be achieved with timber panelling. And such a spray / liquid would only protect the treated face and a bigger problem of fire spread may occur behind the panelling.
2-The directors have a duty to take suitable and sufficient general fire precautions which includes the provision of an adequate means of escape from fire. The company and its directors would be held accountable if they fail in this duty and especially if someone is hurt as a result.
3- that is subject to your assessment of risk. If there is only one way in and out and everybody who comes into the building goes out the same way probably there is probably no need for signs. If there is a lift the stairs should be signed.
4- yes if in its absence there could be a risk that persons may not be able to find their way out of the common areas of the building in safety.
5- Landlord has additional duties in respect of safety testing of gas and electrical installations in a rented property and for maintenance of any fire equipment he provides eg detectors
6- The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

[Tom Sutton]

Thanks Kurnal it has confirmed most my ideas.

As to the emergency lighting I do not know if they have walked the routes in the dark to check the borrowed light but as they have it installed it would be silly to remove it.

What is new to me is the landlord having additional duties in respect of safety testing of gas and electrical installations is this a requirement of the RR(FS)O or other legislation.

[wee brian]

Theres a bunch of stuff on gas. http://www.hse.gov.uk/gas/

Not really an FSO issue.

[William 29]

Sorry to throw a spanner is the works but my questions would be:

1.  Are the apartments built as fire tight cells to 30 or 60 mins i.e. concrete walls floors and fire doors to each apartment?  If so then is the   common area required to be a “true protected route” as in the event of a fire in one apartment the building would be designed for all other occupants to stay put.

2.  What would ignite the wood panelling in the common areas?  If there are no ignition sources (as it should be a sterile area) and as above it is not in the true sense an escape route, why remove or treat it with flame retardant materials?

3.  With regard to emergency lighting, was is the risk that a fire within any apartment will affect the normal lighting to the common area?  And again if not an escape route and persons are staying put is emergency lighting needed at all?  I agree though if in place I would not recommend it to be removed.

4.  Fire exit signage would be unlikely to be required for the same reasons as above, particularly if the route from the block is via a single staircase.

[kurnal]

Hi William

Yes I agree with a lot of what you say but on the forum we all have a different perception of the problem described.

We could add that if its a two storey building with the potential for window escapes or if the panelling is of historic interest then we should be a little bit more considered in our response.  

I pictured an old school building with little fire resistance, a full evacuation strategy and since it was a conversion cheap matchboarding panels put up to disguise the austere  corridors. As its a conversion you can bet your bottom dollar that the BCO would not have approved the use of anything other than Class O  linings.
If however its antique mahogany that may be a different kettle of fish.  I would be very reluctant to vary too far from class O iin escape routes though except in very unusual circumstances.

[Tom Sutton]

William,
Lets assume the apartments are fire tight cells to 30 or 60 mins and one weekend a fire starts in one of the unoccupied apartments and eventually burns through the front door then surely commons areas would then need to be “true protected route” and rated as class "O"?

This scenario would also throw doubt with the second item?

[wee brian]

Its class O because little Johny and his hooded friends are in the habit of setting fire to stuff in these spaces (yes even posh ones)

The idea is that the fire doesn't get any bigger as there is no fuel.

You can treat the timber but makes sure you use the right stuff - the manufacturer should be able to advise and will put you on to trained contractors.

[William 29]

William,
Lets assume the apartments are fire tight cells to 30 or 60 mins and one weekend a fire starts in one of the unoccupied apartments and eventually burns through the front door then surely commons areas would then need to be “true protected route” and rated as class "O"?

This scenario would also throw doubt with the second item?

Hmmm.. ...how many fires do we know of in this type of property were the fire has developed to the extent that is has burned through the front door either before fire service intervention or all occupants have escaped?  (I am assuming in this case the conversion is of a good standard or in  cases were the appartments are purpose built as such)

[Mushy]

What about human behaviour? hasn't that got to be considered...there may be a 'stay put' policy...it doesn't mean they will stay put though does it?

[Tom Sutton]

True William I do not know of any incidents but it is a possible scenario and I think wee brian's suggestion is more likely. Therefore I still favour the common areas to meet the class "O" standard unless there is some extra ordinary reason for accepting a lower standard.

[CivvyFSO]

What about human behaviour? hasn't that got to be considered...there may be a 'stay put' policy...it doesn't mean they will stay put though does it?

Quite right.

[wee brian]

Stuff goes wrong - that's why we have layers of protection. That's also why we have fires.

[Tom Sutton]

Thank you all very much for all your opinions and help.

It has made me do some research especially about class "O" and found lots of people out there just cannot understand it. Why not use the European standards which appear easier to understand or is it better to keep it complicated so you need experts to explain it.

http://www.fmb.org.uk/publications/masterbuilder/august99/21.asp its 8 years old but I think still relevant.

[wee brian]

So you want to re- test every product on the market cos you are struggling to understand class "0"