I think the author needs help understanding the difference between Building Regs and a Fire Risk Assessment.
To be fair I have to agree with some points though.
A building which complies with current Building Regs should be regarded as adequate but we all know how thorough Building Control can be.
I disagree, and made this point to a local authority who seemed to think that a Building Control Warrant (actually a temporary occupation certificate) was a substitute for a FRA in their own premises.
Building Control determine the standards to which the building is built. However it is a FRA which responds to how a building is used. You can have a building built to the highest standards but if it's badly managed or used inappropriately (exits blocked, accumulation of flammable material, sources of ignition, etc) then it is the FRA which will save lives, not the Building Control Certificate.
Not quiet sure why or what you disagree with Owain.
Certainly in my experience a BC completion certificate rarely means built to standard.
Example:- Newly built large two storey dwelling. Never lived in. Built as dwelling so as to make it easier to change use to Day Nursery. When dwelling completed application made to change use. Plans submitted for change of use to incorporate roof space conversion to play rooms, office etc.
Resulting building is a three storey day nursery for 60 kids with a sleeping risk.
BC inspected, were happy and issued completion certificate.
I surveyed and found second storey doors around stairway egg box type. No alternative escape stairway. Emergency lighting not linked to lighting sub circuits, etc etc. all Building Control issues.
I recorded these in Assessment as significant findings but if something goes wrong will he wave the completion cert or the FRA?
I said that "A building which complies with current B Regs should be regarded as adequate......" and so they should be, in theory, if everyone was doing their jobs properly. But they ain't - but they should.
