Who wins ? FRA or Building Control

[John]

In a 2 storey building where ground floor is a small shop, with 2 flats on the first floor accessed by a communal staircase, building control have asked for a vertical automatic opening vent on a sash window, which will open upwards, therefore it will not vent any smoke anyway, if it was to be installed, it would vent more efficiently opening downwards.

In my opinion, this is cleary over the top, with no reason or requirement.  If I am wrong, there are many thousands of buildings in non-compliance where they do not have these.

Realistically, this building would not need much more than a part 6 alarm, but to have this vent installed, obviously it will need a part 1 system.

A fire risk assessment of the building has not identified any requirement for such a vent.

So, the question is, who wins, FRA or Building Control ?

[kurnal]

Theres so many unanswered issues here about compartmentation, suitable fire evacuation strategies and the height of the first floor and the availability of window exits from the flats etc.

But the window would vent products ofcombustion more effectively if it operated as you describe, ADB would suggest a full square metre AOV as a benchmark but this applies to small blocks of up to 5 storeys IIR with full compartmentation etc. In such a case the smoke detectors controlling the vents would normally be specific to that and nothing else so would not need to operate sounders, assuming full compliance with other aspects of the ADB.

There would be no need for a part 6 or a part 1 alarm system with sounders in the communal areas if this were the case.

[Phoenix]

I don't think there's anything in the guidance that asks for such a vent so what reason have building control given for its requirement?

Stu

[John]

Stu,

Kurnal is quite right in saying that ADB would suggest a full metre square AOV, however, the common sense approach is leading me to think that the stairway will be a designated sterile area, no fire loading whatsoever, and no source of ignition.  Section 2.26 of ADB suggests that there may be no requirement for AOV if the building "complies" with Diagram 9, the building in question is less complex than the building shown in diagram 9b, as there is no lobby, the entrance doors to the flats open directly onto the staircase landing, the diagram does not stipulate automatic opening vents, just opening vents for fire service use, so in theory, these could just be openable windows, therefore removing any requirement for AOV.

[John Webb]

I'm not clear from the original poster's query why Building Control are involved anyway - or has there been a recent 'change of use' of the building which has bought them along?

[Fishy]

...So, the question is, who wins, FRA or Building Control ?

If building works are taking place, then Building Control 'wins'.  Once they are over, & the occupants take over, then the RRO applies & you have a general duty to maintain whatever was put in to satisfy Building Control.

[kurnal]

Stu,

Kurnal is quite right in saying that ADB would suggest a full metre square AOV,

I only say that is what is required if a vent is needed John. Thats why I mentioned the floor height as being important because if the floor where the flats are is less than 4.5m above ground level and all other things being equal the ADB would not require ventilationat all. This has always been the case and the old CP3 only covered flats in blocks of three storeys and higher.

[kurnal]

...So, the question is, who wins, FRA or Building Control ?

If building works are taking place, then Building Control 'wins'.  Once they are over, & the occupants take over, then the RRO applies & you have a general duty to maintain whatever was put in to satisfy Building Control.

Unless whatever that  was put in by building control was insufficinet then the risk assessment wins. On the other hand if the risk assessor determines that the building control provision was over the top an application must be made to the building inspector (at least within the first two years and possible thereafter if judged material alterations)  before reducing provision so the building inspector wins .

But its the RP who really should be expecting to win by the diligent and proportionate application of National Guidance by all parties. If its someone else who has won then the RP has been let down in this respect.

[nearlythere]

...So, the question is, who wins, FRA or Building Control ?

If building works are taking place, then Building Control 'wins'.  Once they are over, & the occupants take over, then the RRO applies & you have a general duty to maintain whatever was put in to satisfy Building Control.

Usually in theory only Fishy. I have a medium sized B&B which has just been cleared by BC. By no means to standard. 

[Northern Uproar]

To save starting a new thread on a similar subject, I've just had a look around a building that is having the upper floors converted into a different use, but the ground floor is remaining the same. When it comes to the fire resistance of the structure, how much water does a letter from the BCO saying it's an 'existing condition' in an area where there is no change of use hold when apllying the FSO and writing the risk assessment? If the Fire Service had concerns about the fire resistance under the FSO, would you expect them to pick it up on the B Regs consulation and put it in the response? If they didn't, can they have a second bite, should they decide to audit the premises?

[nearlythere]

You might well find that BC don't want to know about existing buildings or parts thereof. This is quite common in NI as some premises have found to their surprise even anger at times when I do their FRAs after renovations and alterations. Builders in again.
Even after consultation with F&RS, who could make comment on existing building if the new works would have an effect on it, they have commented to me that they have no power to enforce so therefore ignore it.
Not a very joined up system we have.

[Mike Buckley]

My experience is that more and more the process is 'subject to a fire risk assessment'. The fire service pass most of the consultations on the nod and building control take that on. I assume that the fire service will go down the 'suitable and sufficient' route if it turns pear shaped.

[Golden]

NT I fully agree that the system isn't working. I would be fuming if I was a building owner where the FS hadn't made any comments on plans then came back after consultation then on completion told me changes had to be made, at least why couldn't they comment that advice should be sought from an appropriate fire engineer or consultant - it would be a lot cheaper than making building alterations.

Planning used to be basic work when I first started in fire safety; it was where you learnt to apply codes and give advice to architects on how to vary codes with compensatory features.

[nearlythere]

NT I fully agree that the system isn't working. I would be fuming if I was a building owner where the FS hadn't made any comments on plans then came back after consultation then on completion told me changes had to be made, at least why couldn't they comment that advice should be sought from an appropriate fire engineer or consultant - it would be a lot cheaper than making building alterations.

Planning used to be basic work when I first started in fire safety; it was where you learnt to apply codes and give advice to architects on how to vary codes with compensatory features.

I agree the system is a tab user unfriendly and both EAs could maybe help a little more, but we have to bear in mind that BC and F&RS are not designers or developers. I think designers should give more advice to their clients or at least take some from good FS consultants who would be aware of these issues.