I wanted to elaborate on a recent experience to see what the comments of the forum was. (Forgive me, I did post a similar theme on my original post in the fire safety section started 2nd September 2010, however, thought the 'New' topic logo in the FRA section would catch your attention better!)
I was requested to undertake an FRA of a new, small, single stairway (no lobbies) (AOV fitted) block of flats prior to first occupation for a social housing provider. I noted, inter-alia (I love using that phrase ever since I read it in Toddy's report for Rose Park) that three flats opened directly onto the stair on the ground and 1st floor whilst 2 opened directly onto the 2nd floor. Dutifully I reported back to my client that the block did not comply with prescriptive Building Regulation guidance (paradox intended) found in ADB, Volume 2, Diagram 9b and therefore an inquiry should be made with the developer/regulator for its justification. I went onto say that any justification by either aforementioned party should have been considered upon receipt of a fire strategy report so that they could fully appreciate the weight/circumstances/consequences of their decision.
A request was sent to the developer who didn't know what a fire strategy report was!! (no surprise there) and eventually an email was sent by the regulator (LABC) who responded as follows, and I quote:
""In respect of item 3 below, regarding apartment building A at (name removed for confidentiallity), I would respond as follows:The plans were considered to conform with paragraph 2.21 and diagram 9b in Approved Document B with the exception that there are 3 flats to the ground and first floors rather than the suggested maximum of 2 where a lobby is omitted between the stair and dwelling entrance. It was considered, for the layout provided, that 3 flats per storey did not present a significantly higher risk to occupants than 2 flats per storey and the design was approved. Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Service was also consulted on the proposals and did not raise this as an issue. The provision of the AOV was not a compensatory feature as this would normally be expected to conform to diagram 9 note 3."
My questions to the forum are set out below:
1. Can a regulator and/or fire service make a decision that a non ADB compliant layout does not represent a significantly higher risk without having received a documented fire strategy report which would consider, inter-alia (love that phrase) the history of why only two flats per storey are permitted and then provide argument for why (if appropriate) by having more than 2 per floor in this case doesn't matter?
2. In consideration that the fire service did not raise the matter as an issue could mean one or more of several things; e.g. They didn't pick up the plans, they didn't know what they were doing, they were talking about their pensions, they were on strike or something else! Nonetheless, by not making any comment I suggest it would be for the regulator to raise their attention to it so at least they note the variation?
3. Now that the block has been handed over and has passed from BC regulation to FSO would it not be appropriate for the fire risk assessor to request a fire strategy report from the developer as part of his Building Regulation 38 burden so that the risk assessor can ensure that any compensatory measures (physical and/or managerial) adopted for the variation are appropriately managed, tested, maintained for compliance with the FSO for the life of the building? Without any such justification surely the risk assessor could only advise remedial works required commensurate with diagram 9b requirements. (Now its the clients problem and cost to put something right that without justification should have been done by the developer/regulator.)
(In the meantime, the client is now thinking that they should of used a fire risk assessor that doesn't know his arse from his elbow so that no such awkward issues are ever raised again!! Ho Hum!)