Confused: Flats above a shop

[SidM]

Two shops next to each other have three self contained flats above it.

1.  I am led to believe that the conversion took place in 2001 and a Building Regs application was submitted. 
2. The escape from the flats is down a single staircase in to an alleyway and out to fresh air. 
3. From the basement the wooden underside of this staircase can be seen.  The alleyway is a means of escape from the rear of the shop. 
4. The basement is open to the alleyway.
5. Under the false ceiling tile in the shop the wooden floor above is visible.
6. Along the alleyway is a door to the shop whih those escaping from the flats would have to pass

Questions are under the RRO:

1. Should the basement be sealed off to one hour or 30min standard.
2. If they plasterboard to one hour is it a stay put policy.
3. Should the flat doors be an hour or 30min
4. Is AFD required even if it is a stay put policy.
5. What about primary and emergency lighting down the staircase and out through the alleyway.
6. Should the door to the shop be 30min or 60min.

Any answers with reasoning would be appreciated.

[AnthonyB]

Well with the total lack of FR underdrawing to floors and stairs it certainly isn't Building Regs compliant and either wasn't signed off or the BCO didn't bother to look anywhere other than the internals of the flats.

Either provide suitable fire warning throughout or the required separation in ADB (60 minutes). Doors to 30 mins.

If you want stay put you need the full ADB package of FR - that includes between each flat and the flat and escape stairs as well as the shop & flats, shop and stairs.

If you meet the structural requirements for stay out then you will only need a grade D-LD3 to each flat and to the shop whatever suits (manual or electrical M or L5 based on the risk) with no interfacing required.

There must be good artificial lighting to the escape and ideally EL if it's meant to meet current requirements.

So:
1. Should the basement be sealed off to one hour or 30min standard. 60
2. If they plasterboard to one hour is it a stay put policy.Only if all separation meets ADB not just the flat/shop division
3. Should the flat doors be an hour or 30min 30 min normally
4. Is AFD required even if it is a stay put policy. Yes, but self contained to each flat only, plus whatever the shop needs
5. What about primary and emergency lighting down the staircase and out through the alleyway.Artificial primary in all cases, plus EL (especially if insufficient borrowed light)
6. Should the door to the shop be 30min or 60min.30 normally

[kurnal]

Dont forget the shop ceiling needs to be one hour as well or half hour with AFD.

This situation is very common. It appears that many applications for building regs approval are dealt with as a desk top exercise without a visit to the site.

[Clotty]

I agree with the above, however I'm not a fan of stay put policies in converted buildings and the underlying structure is usually unknown.  I always advise occupants to leave the building unless the building was designed with a stay put policy in mind. ie nice concrete boxes.
If the shop does not have afd then even with an hour seperation the first time occupants of the flats are aware of the fire is when it breaks through the boards and cuts them off.
I've seen this several times in my 27 years as a fire fighter!
never forget the FSO is about assessing risks not about being code compliant.

[Phoenix]

Well, I think we have discussed at some length, in the past, whether or not the people in the flat above the shop are "relevant persons," under the FSO, for whom the employer in the shop has some responsibility.  I cannot recall all the avenues that have been explored in this respect but I seem to recall coming away with the impression that the people in the flat are, indeed, "relevant persons" but that, provided that the premises have the correct separation (60 minutes, to ADB requirements) then the "responsible person" is likely to be deemed to have exercised due diligence in discharging his duties towards thiose relevant persons. 

Personally, I feel that an interlinked (at least) part 6 fire alarm might be be a good idea.

This is possibly a matter that needs to be tested in a law court.

Maybe somone can support this or argue against or provide a link to previous discussions.

Stu

[wainy]

An interlinked fire alarm system will, no doubt, result in earlier warning being given to all occupants, however this would be impractical.
For example; if a detector activates in one area and the occupier is not in attendance, it is likely the other occupiers will not have access to the area to investigate, reset the system or take the necessary action.
A mixed system is better suited to this type of establishment.

[FSO]

As the original question asked in respect of the Fire safety order, it is fair to acknowledge that there is no requirement for any detection within the flats. Bearing in mind that the order generally only applies to the shop and common areas of flats.