Common areas of flats

[Northern Uproar]

I was surprised as well - I've found the email I was sent: basically it states that the removal has been justified by us due to the 1hr compartments enclosing the flats, like we made the strategy up, and that there are no flats in the BCOs area without communal detection and he would like to see it. The Fire Officer asked all sorts of questions like the ADB strategy was alien to them.

[nearlythere]

Why the system thread installed is very simple and a common issue
 Its because designers and architects don't know when it is not needed and wack a full system in to ensure it gets through BC. BC don't care about over provision as long as the minimum  it wants is installed.
I have a BC officer who considers an open plan ground floor of a two storey dwelling which has a hall/living/kitchen as an inner room condition and wants the kitchen area enclosed with a wall and access door.

[Mar62]

Thanks for all your comments. I have now thrown it back to the owners and consequently the developers and questioned its installation. I await their response with anticipation......................

I would like to stress that my initial question was not so much "are they ok in common areas" but more like "is there something new in regards to new builds that I wasnt aware of".

Thanks all...............

[wee brian]

from the DCLG planning portal FAQs

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/buildingregulations/approveddocuments/partb/faqs/other

Should a fire alarm be provided throughout a block of flats?

The guidance in B1 Section 1 of the Approved Document (fire alarm and fire detection systems) is not intended to be applied to the common parts of blocks of flats and does not include a provision to interconnect installations in separate flats.

Fire detection devices may need to be provided in some blocks to actuate automatic smoke control systems in the common parts of the building in accordance with paragraph 2.25. Such devices are not expected to be linked to a common alarm system.

[Fishy]

If recommending removal, be careful of the 'Reverse ALARP' pitfall.  You're fine if you can reasonably argue that it would be safer (in case of fire) after removal, for whatever reason, but it's difficult to justify removing protection if the sole result is that fire risk is increased (even slightly).  The tests you apply when removing fire protection are tougher than those you'd use to consider whether to provide it in the first place.

[Mar62]

Thanks for your comment Fishy.