Differences between bld regs and RRO

[JWatts]

Our local brigade are now working more closely with us on new builds (blocks of flats) to ensure any issues which will not meet the RRO (once the building is occupied) are raised at the design stage and dealt with.

I often hear how new builds do not always meet all of the requirements of the RRO, only that of building control / ADB etc, can anyone give me examples of these differences that they have encountered or that are typical?

[Phoenix]

The Building Regs look after the design of the building but have little to say about the management of the building during its lifetime.  The RR(FS)O covers the lot.

Also, sometimes new builds do not meet the requirements of the RR(FS)O because of poor design and incompetent supervision by the Building Control body.  Often, in such cases, there has been discussion between the b.c.b and the FRS but it has been too little, too late and has been inconclusive.  The lead authority, who controls such discussions, is the b.c.b. so it is usually their responsibility to ensure that proper consultation takes place.

If you're interested in the consultation process between b.c.b.s and FRSs read "Building Regulations and Fire Safety: Procedural Guidance."  This is freely available on the world wide interweb net.

Stu

[JWatts]

Hi Stu,

Thanks for the link, I will take a look.

What you say about poor design and incompetent supervision in BCB leading to new builds not meeting the requirements of the RRO, can you give me example's of these deficiencies that you have encountered?

[kurnal]

The biggest one that bugs me quite often is when the builder, with the approved inspectors approval, boxes in the uder sife of stairs and odd corners to create store rooms often in the only protected staircase serving the flats and in "compensation" for this variation from the ADB puts in a stand alone series of interlinked smoke alarms in the staircase.  It seems  to be one of the National organisation's inspectors staff who keep doing this- its ill conceived and self defeating. 

[AnthonyB]

I must say that as the years pass my confidence in Buliding Control and the Building Industry drops more and more with sub standard work, non compliant (to their own codes) construction or provisions with no or inadequate trade off, or conversely totally meaningless and irrelevant requirements!

Part refurbishments are the worst where the designers & BCO only seem to consider the part of the buliding being refurbed and ignore the effects of what is being done on the fire strategy in the rest of the building.

This includes major multi million projects, one of which I was brought in for after completion was at threat of enforcement due to some fundamental errors made by the designers, implemented by the contractors and PM and all signed off by a BCO!

[ASIF]

Another classic example is the lack of fire stopping through compartment walls, especially where the fire alarm cables are installed . Or large lumps of magic expanding fix all foam holding together the loose brickwork of a fire break wall post building control handover. At this point we become less popular!

[nearlythere]

I have seen FRAs by "competent" persons (RICS types) who have assessed the passive fire safety measures as being adequate because a BC completion certificate had been issued.

One recent case comes to mind of a major shopping centre where rear 2 level escape enclosure was assessed as "structurally protected from ingress of heat and smoke" despite large unsealed gaps provided for the transfer of trunking and pipework.

I am seeing more of this in the field where FRAers are accepting these BC completion certs when all they say is that the building satisfies Building Control rather than they comply with the technical requirements of the B Regs. A quick survey confirms my view that these are two different things.

Another recent one was a new residential outdoor pursuits centre with the ground floor used for the storage of a large number of wet suits with gaps around service pipes penetrating the ceiling to two levels of sleeping risk. It had received it's final BC inspection that morn with the only concern being a 50mm step at a back door which could impede access for wheelchairs. I was carrying out a pricing survey and pointed out these issues with the manager. He did not really want to hear this as, despite my alternative advice, according to him it would be building control's fault. I think I didn't get the job because I would be too fussy but arn't I the lucky one.

Ticking a box labelled "Do the premises comply with current building regs?" cuts out a lot of work for the high output assessor.

[JWatts]

Hmmm, yes these all sound familiar to what we suffer with.  The gaps & holes up riser shafts never fails to amaze me, one contractor recently replied that it was ok as they only opened up into the ceiling void above.  He failed to look at the services that ran horizontally along the ceiling void and back down into the flats with no fire stopping around the cables!