PB flats: how to discover fire safety design features, mainly common areas.

[davidj]

Based on existing postings, this seems about the best sub-forum for questions relating to management of purpose built flats, but such questions do seem to be spread over several sub-forums, including ones where I would think them off topic, so any guidance of a better sub-forum will be noted.

I've become a director of the Residents' Management Company for 5 blocks of, three storey, early 70s, purpose built blocks, with two flats per floor.  Just over half are still owner occupied.  In my researches to try to get the manager (another resident) and the other directors to take a FRA seriously, I've become aware of a lot of design features that either are, or could be, there for fire safety reasons, but would not be obvious as such to residents, or most contractors.  There is no relevant signage.

If we do have any original plans, the manager is not aware of them.  They may still turn up, but, in the mean time, are their any resources people can suggest to enable us to reverse engineer the fire safety of the blocks?

Particular questions for me at the moment (although I can give a more detailed description if required) are the front and back doors, and the meter cupboards.  The front door is self closing and has wired glass, and opens onto a porch, onto which a wood clad brick dustbin store opens.  The door to the dustbin store is not a fire door and there is a gap above it.  We believe there is asbestos board on the dustbin store and possibly porch roof. There is a meter and switchgear cupboard in the dustbin store (fibreglass and wood, respectively).  Inside the front door is the stairwell and flat front doors open directly onto that.

My feeling is that the wired glass hints that this was intended to be a fire door (reference to fire doors means the intended purpose, not that they would qualify on a new build), and it seems to me that one is needed in this position, because a fire in the dustbin store could compromise the main escape route.  Is that analysis reasonable, and therefore the door requires signage and to be maintained as a fire door?

At the back of the stairwell, there is a door, which I have little doubt is a fire door, leading into a store cupboards corridor, and eventually to a back door.  The store cupboards belong to the individual flats, and therefore we have limited control over them.  The back door also has wired glass and a self closer.  The store cupboards have flimsy doors with gaps above.  The wired glass hints at a fire door and the other possible indicator is that there are openable windows in the flats which are within the distance limits for opening in fire compartments.  Should this door also be treated as a fire door?

Also, in spite of the store cupboards, (which belong to the individual flats, not the common areas) should the back door be treated as an escape route?  My feeling is that it should be, because of the risk from the dustbin store.

Electric meter cupboards for the flats are in the stairwell in Permali fibreglass boxes.  Am I right in assuming that the doors of these boxes should be treated as fire doors to cupboards (kept locked shut, with appropriate signage?  (The electricity supplier has compromised the doors on some of these with over-size meters.)

(Features that residents wouldn't recognize as fire safety features, but clearly are, include the door into the corridor and the large windows at the top of the stairwell.)

There has been one major fire in the past.  The stairwell was compromised by smoke and one first floor resident escaped through a window.  However, none of the features above seem to have been implicated.  The problems were a failure of the door of the flat with the fire to close (rising butt hinges, but there may have been other problems) and inadequate smoke sealing for the first floor flat.  Remember these are grandfathered to 70s standards, and note that there is little likelihood of any of front doors being replaced (except for flats owned by better housing associations).

Eventually, we may get in an external assessor, but, as the law doesn't make this an explicit requirement, and there is a fear that such assessors are really there to sell remedial work, that may not happen quickly.

[kurnal]

The appropriate design document would probably be British Standards Code of Practice CP3 Chapter 4 - Precautions against Fire - part 1  Flats and Maisonettes (In Blocks over two storeys). There were editions dated 1971, 1962 and 1948.

These documents were replaced by BS5588 part 1 in the 1980s. You need to refer to the contemporary design document relevant to your buildings to be able to understand and benchmark the design. Then to have regard to technical progress that has been made since then - take a look at Building regulations Approved Document B which sets the benchmark for current buildings. In the event of any variations or weaknesses from the original spec, your remedial work should be to current design standards.

Many companies carrying out fire risk assessments do nothing else so if you choose carefully you will not be subject to the hard sell and other vested interests.
Its a bit worrying that you have had a fire and a fire door has not done its job. Generally standards of joinery were pretty good in the 60s and early 70s. 

[davidj]

take a look at Building regulations Approved Document B

I've already done that.  The BS documents are more of a problem, because of the price.  I'd probably have to use the reference library.  (We have a situation where legislation is available free of charge online, but sometimes includes very expensive documents, by reference.)

One problem I have discovered, I think from this forum, is that building regulation violations are unenforceable after a year.  (I think we may have one, and that it will have to be dealt with under the lease, rather than by the council.)

Its a bit worrying that you have had a fire and a fire door has not done its job. Generally standards of joinery were pretty good in the 60s and early 70s. 

The fire was about 18 years ago.  I lived in the flats at the same time, but not in the same block, and didn't take a lot of notice of the details at the time, so I'm largely talking second hand.  However, in terms of the door of the flat of origin, there may have been some human factors (the owner went into a care home soon afterwards) and there may have been poor maintenance of the rising butt hinges (e.g. no oil).  The door wouldn't have latched on its own and it is possible it stayed more open than just kissing.  It was described to me as having been left open after the occupant escaped.

I think it was only smoke and some heat that got into the stairwell.

Judging by current trends, it is likely that the fire door from the lounge, where the fire started, to the lobby, was jammed open. (Now that such doors don't have to be self closing, I cannot imagine many people actually closing them in a fire. I don't think people release ours at night.  I don't believe there is anything that allows us to make them do so, other than education.)

The vast majority of residents will have no concept that doors are fire doors.

I'm not sure about the first floor resident. They did, apparently, try to escape through the stairwell, but it was too filled with smoke.  I don't know how much smoke got through the door before they decided to use the window, and whether they did so before or after the brigade arrived.

[kurnal]

As you say current building regulations Approved Document B does not require self closers on internal doors of flats. It recognises the inevitable- that people do not like them and will almost always wedge them open if closers are fitted.But the main purpose as you say is to protect the escape route during the night- you should educate residents to close them at night and to ensure their smoke alarm is working.

The background to the design of flats is that the purpose of the internal flat lobby is to limit the exposure of the main flat entrance door to fire- there is unlikely to be a high fire loading adjacent to the door.

Rising butt hinges for flat entrance doors were permitted under CP3 but they are hopeless on a number of counts- there is no power to close the door against a latch, there is no power to close the door from the partially open position and inevitably there are large gaps between the head of the door and the frame, the very area most prone to attack by fire.

You will be able to access CP3 chapter  4 part 1 1971 edition via your local library. Early editions are not available on BSI online.

Whilst the Building Regs are only enforceable for 12 months by the Building Authority, the Fire safety order will take precedence in common areas in any case. There are no time limits on enforcement of the Fire safety Order by the Fire Authority.


 

[davidj]

you should educate residents to close them at night and to ensure their smoke alarm is working.

Do you know of any supporting graphic materials for this, and for keeping common areas sterile.  Whilst we could circulate the LFB residential safety leaflet, even if we highlighted paragraphs, I doubt if many would take notice. These days, video material freely downloadable from the internet would be the ideal, but I've not been able to find any.  The service charge probably couldn't legally be used for paid for material, and one probably couldn't get people to come to a communal viewing.

Whilst the Building Regs are only enforceable for 12 months by the Building Authority, the Fire safety order will take precedence in common areas in any case. There are no time limits on enforcement of the Fire safety Order by the Fire Authority.

The big difference is that the suspected problem is the responsibility of one leaseholder,  Building control could have addressed them directly, whereas an FSO would have to be applied to the RMC.  To be honest, building control didn't seem too interested, even before I discovered the time limit.

[Phoenix]

Hi David,

Looking at the layout you describe, this is quite a typical layout.  I'm not absolutely sure I have the layout correct in my head but I think you're right in your assessment of which doors should be fire doors.  The doors that must be fire doors are the doors from the porches to the stairs and the doors from the store cupboard corridors to the stairs.  The purpose is to separate fire load from the escape route.  The doors should be properly self closing, they should be marked with the "Fire door keep shut" signs on both sides, and if you have money in the budget you should make an effort to get intumescent and cold smoke seals fitted to them.  Nowadays, they wouldn't be allowed to have uninsulating glazing in them but that's today's standard and I wouldn't worry about that.

The flat front doors should all be self closing fire doors also.  It's a common problem to come across expensive replacement doors that have been fitted in good faith by the flat owners but that do not provide the necessary fire resistance (incompetent and unscrupulous door salesmen have to be held morally to blame).  Some fire authorities insist on replacing such doors with ones that are certified as providing half an hour fire resistance whilst some others are more tolerant, taking into account the fact that the doors are into hallways that have little in the way of combustibles in them and so the doors are unlikely to be subject to direct burning and have the benefit of a buffer between the fire and the doors.

If all flat doors, the doors from the stairs to the porches and to the store cupboard corridors are fire doors then you've got most of it covered.  The electric meters in the staircases I wouldn't worry about but I'm not sure I fully understand the nature of their enclosure.  If there are no combustibles around the meters, what's the worst that can happen?  If the meters are the cause of a fire, will it go anywhere?  Provided you have the installation checked as recommended then I wouldn't deem the meters a hazard.

You do need the rear way out by the sound of it as a fire in the bin store could take out the route through the front porch.  It's not usually necessary to stipulate exit signs in small blocks like this but perhaps a sign over the rear route past the store cupboards would be beneficial to remind people that there is an alternative to running the gauntlet past the flaming bin store.

A good, but often expensive and problematic, means for reducing the risk of fire in such premises is the provision of a secure door entry system.  

I would support kurnal's suggestion that you educate people to shut the doors inside their flats at night.  Part of the reason that the requirement for self closers was withdrawn was on the understanding that fire services were enlarging their community safety departments and educating people to shut doors at night.  Okay, the fire service may or may not have done this, but you certainly can.  Simple leaflets for all flats, and don't forget to mention the importance of smoke alarms, as kurnal also said, and remind them that the new shiny "Fire door keep shut" signs are there to protect them so should be complied with.

A fire risk assessment may ask you to consider installing emergency lighting in the staircases and you should think carefully about this.  You may have sufficient borrowed light in the staircases from street lamps and/or, if you look at the electrical installation, you may find that a fire in a flat is unlikely to blow the electrics in the staircase.  So emergency lighting may not be necessary.

Finally, I'm not sure I like the sound of switch gear in the bin store.  As long as the principle of keeping apart potential ignition sources and combustibles is adhered to then I guess it can be okay.  

Stu