DTD - I thought this is refering to a new build? And he is proposing SD as justification to treat the 'protected corridor' as an Access room to justify the fireloading! Although i do take your point about imposing unnecessary standards on existing buildings
Ruby - Are the travel distances still ok considering they have been extended by the creation of the 'access room'? And could i ask why has there not been alternative MofE provided from the class rooms?
Although the F Eng is correct in saying that BB100 does not preclude Fire Engineered solutions. he still has to demonstrate he has acheived the Functional Requirements. This type of proposal is run-of-the-mill in other types of buildings, and i am never too concerned about them. But a School!!! Really!!! That makes me twitchy to say the least.
How many classrooms is the new 'access room' serving? 6? 8? Is it possible you could have 200-300 children relying on that access room as their single direction MofE. Would anyone really be happy to rely on SD as a compensatory feature?
we all know the possiblities of arson in schools. What if a child sets light to a lovely big corrugated cardboard display in the corridor/access room? From the point of detection by the SD, do you think you could get up to 300 kids through the corridor/access room in an orderly fashion, without some kind of panic or resistance from the children (who can see the fire is in the corridor you're wanting them to walk into)? Basically the answer is no. They're not adults (and we all know how irrational they can behave in a fire), it doesn't matter how well you drill them, the minute you say 'were now going to go this way' and they see your leading them into the room of the fire or smoke many will freeze, run or hide.
Bearing in mind this school is at the planning stage, would anyone really be ok with single direction into a protected corridor that provides 2 directions, that is the only route out for up to 300 children, being treated as an Access Room (to justify the likelyhood of excessive fire loading in the corridor) because it has SD? thus extending the single direction until you leave the access room/corridor.
I have a feeling some of you may think i am coming across a bit dramatic. Good, I hope i am!!! This, i believe, is a perfect example of when a chip at standards here, and a chip there, and for good measure throw in some poorly judged reliance on management systems, becomes a precurser to a small incident quickly developing into front page news.
I'm going to stick my neck out on this one and say 'never in a million years would i accept this senario' if you can't provide alternative escape from the class rooms then the corridor MUST be protected. I would even go so far as to say that they should consider in their design, and thus restrict, the potential for the corridor to lend its self to secondary use. i.e no unnecessarily wide corridors, alcoves or recesses. The latter, i accept, wouldn't be enforceable. but would be a point i would raise as part of the B regs and FS procedural guidance.