2 volmes of ADB

[wee brian]

AD B is currently in 2 volumes, V1 - Houses. V2 - Everything else.

Any thoughts on the pros and cons of having houses and flats in V1 and everything else in V2?

[Bruce89]

Can't see it as a problem either way whether it's in the 2 volumes or alternatively put all into 1.

[Mike Buckley]

I assume it is somnething to do with the difference between dwellings and other buildings, however there is also quite a bit in Vol 2 on flats.

It is also to some extent related to the Britsih Standards where BS 9999 and 9991 do a similar thing.

[Fishy]

To me it would be most sensible to have residential in one volume & non-resi in the other (a bit like BS 9991 & BS 9999).

[kurnal]

In my view ADB is the best most comprehensive and concise guidance on fire safety that could be achieved. It is a brilliant concept and whilst some of the general provisions are a bit random its down to familiarity, the more you use it the easier it becomes. I find the 2 volume approach useful in so far as I rarely had cause to use vol 1 as a fire consultant so it led to less pages to turn. I guess the fact that an old  dinosaur thinks it good is a kiss of death though! 

[Tom Sutton]

Volume 1 covers premises not subject to the RR(FS)O Volume 2 covers premises subject to the RR(FS)O could that be a reason?

[wee brian]

The main reason for the current split is that it made life easier for housebuilders. At the time DCLG looked at putting all the guidance for dwellings in one doc but it came out pretty large as there was a lot of common ground between flats and non domestic buildings.

However, there's a school of thought that all of the ADs should split between dwellings and non dwellings so ADB could be re-jigged. just wondered what people thought.

[colin todd]

In Scotland (you have probably heard the country, Brian- you pass watford gap and keep going), they have flats and houses in their domestic handbook.  It seems to work ok.  It does mean you dont need to read lots of stuff about flats before finding out what you need in your hotel.  Equally,  I  dont think it is a big deal either way-there are pros and cons.

[kurnal]

Yes Colin but in England (you may have heard of the place it's the big bit of the U.K. Where the important parts of the government reside) the legislation treats communal area of residential buildings differently which would complicate matters.

[wee brian]

OK, I get the vibe that people aren't all that bothered.

Thanks guys.

[col10]

It was done for the users eg architects / plan drawers / builders.  It would be a bad move to complicate vol 1 by putting flats in there.

[col10]

Why are you asking?

[kurnal]

Wee B has a very major involvement with its production Colin.

[col10]

The Docs are accessed on line now, you don't have to buy hard copies, so it is better to have different volumes to try and make it simpler for most users.  I would use 3 volumes, houses, flats, the rest, or maybe more. 
The majority of projects that go through BC are to single occupancy dwelling houses.

[kurnal]

I agree with you Colin to the extent that the old BS5588 series broken down into occupancies as you describe was far far easier to navigate than the bulky BS9999 that replaced most parts.

On the other hand consider that the slim and concise volume of the ADB part 2 had effectively the same content as BS5588 most parts combined  and you start to see just how cleverly ADB has been written.

As a dinosaur I much prefer to have a printed copy in my hands, not least for the diligent checking of cross references which I can mark with post it notes and be sure to fully follow up all such references. BS9999 is a nightmare to read online as it is so unwieldy to follow up the thousands of cross references that seem to occur in never ending chains. I feel sure this leads to loads of errors and omissions in persons failing to diligently follow these through.

And ADB has always been available for free download and printing and regularly updated free of charge.

All the outdated views of an old dinosaur out to grass of course.