LACORS and purpose built flats

[stewbow]

This is a query relating to a 3 storey building 30 years old. Purpose built for 3 flats on each floor with concrete floors and fire doors throughout. At the moment there is is only the odd grade D detector in some of the flats, nothing in the communa area.
The LACORS guidance document http://www.derby.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/90359DC6-1F0E-4E24-9D67-DE3E7B22CDAF/0/NationalFireSafetyGuidanceJuly08.pdf doesn't give a guidance specifically for this type of building.
The nearest paragraph that comes close is
;-
Three- to six-storey house converted to selfcontained
flats (prior to Building Regulations
1991, approved document B standard)
• Grade A: LD2 coverage in the common areas and a
heat detector in each flat in the room/lobby opening
onto the escape route (interlinked)
• Grade D: LD3 coverage in each flat (non-interlinked

I don't understand why this isn't in the document, Am I missing something, or maybe this type of building is covered under another set of rules/regs/guidance?

[kurnal]

Steve it is as you suggest - The LACORS guide was never intended to cover purpose built flats with compartmentation  that were built to either CP3 chapter 4 part 1 ( three editions 1948- 1971 ) and BS5588 part 1 from about 1980 onwards.

Such blocks have a stay put policy in the event of a fire in a flat due to the degree of compartmentation, and ventilation to key parts of the means of escape. They were never intended to have fire alarms in the common areas- but it is vital that these be kept sterile and free from combustibles etc.

[Hightower]

Kurnal

I understand what you are saying about these flats being compartmented etc. but 30 years on and who knows what has gone on inside each flat throughout this span of time with regard to DIY, alterations, bodged or otherwise - does there come a time where AFD is considered or can the building go on without it indefinitely?  Without being able to enter each flat and confirm that the compartmentation is still sound is it not reasonable to say that after, say 30 years because of the above unknown that AFD is now warranted?

[nearlythere]

Kurnal

I understand what you are saying about these flats being compartmented etc. but 30 years on and who knows what has gone on inside each flat throughout this span of time with regard to DIY, alterations, bodged or otherwise - does there come a time where AFD is considered or can the building go on without it indefinitely?  Without being able to enter each flat and confirm that the compartmentation is still sound is it not reasonable to say that after, say 30 years because of the above unknown that AFD is now warranted?

I don't think you need trouble yourself about what has happened in the apartments HT. Regardless of what you might find what would you do or be able to do about it?
The RRO only applied to common areas anyway and maybe that's why.

[kurnal]

Yes HT you are right that we have no way of knowing what changes have been made, during an assessment i was once invited into a flat in which most internal walls had been demolished and the flat entrance door opened directly into a room, but this was unusual and extreme.

Trouble is with installing AFD in common areas how on earth would you enforce an evacuation and account for all relevant persons at the assembly point?

Control the entrance doors, at least the staircase will still have double door protection and only those in the immediate area of the flat involved will be at risk. You could consider heat detector sounders within the adjoining flats in the immediate area, I have done this in the past.

[Hightower]

Kurnal

Your point about double door protection to the stairway is one that I particularly had in mind.  I recently looked at some flats and the arrangement there was a single stairway over 4 floors.  Original 20 minute fire doors from flats to stairway with an internal lobby inside the individual flat entrances.  I was able to look inside several of the flats and noticed that because the internal lobby was small the owners had removed the internal doors from them for convenience.  I am sure this is not an isolated incidence.  With the double door protection removed, then  the protected stairway is compromised.  As NT says the risk assessment stops at the front door but doesn't it have to be reasonable to consider that in older buildings modifications like the above warrant AFD.  The best will in the world is unlikley to get the structure back to its original state.

I also understand the argument that AFD in flats is unlikely to initiate an effective evacuation, however, if the AFD is linked to an ARC at least in the event of a fire, the fire service will be despatched (1 pump only I guess, but its a start).  Evacuation is unlikley to commence but at least some action has been initiated.  Linking to the ARC will also ensure the system is monitored to ensure it is working properly, something that may not be done effectively by residents.

Just thoughts - welcome the replies.

[nearlythere]

As NT says the risk assessment stops at the front door but doesn't it have to be reasonable to consider that in older buildings modifications like the above warrant AFD.  The best will in the world is unlikley to get the structure back to its original state.

I wonder if the Gov realised what they did when they included this in the legislation bearing in mind that the Scottish Order did not and the NI Order will not.

Probably the reason for the English approach was to account for the Englishman's home being his castle principle?

[wee brian]

No, just a lengthy debate about what is or isn't a workplace.