Four Storey House

[stevew]

Currently three storey with first floor lounge/sitting room open to stair from second floor.
Layout will not allow for separation to the stair at this level.
Proposal will include two floors above 7.5m.
B Regs ADB appears to require either protected stair plus sprinkler system or alternative from third floor.
Has anyone experienced similar cos I would appreciate views please.

[Phoenix]

The existing layout doesn't sound great. I recommend you follow ADB.

[stevew]

Thanks Phoenix
Yes I could follow ADB by creating the protected stair or a separate route from the third floor would be both costly and unworkable. The project is to create a fifth bedroom but at what cost.
The Building Inspector suggested that the owner contact a fire engineer for advice so he/she appears to suggest that there is a way forward.

[Phoenix]

Hi Steve

Fire engineering answer:

The judicious use of fire cutains around the staircase and smoke extraction from the fire floor could possibly protect the escape route to a suitable degree.


More cautious answer:

By far, most fire deaths occur in homes.  Fire engineering is a new 'science' that has yet to rid itself fully of the scepticism more commonly associated with generic pseudo-scientific approaches.  In other words we can, and do, experiment with fire engineering in less risky buildings such as offices and shops (and we won't see the results of our experiments for decades) but when we deal with the most risky places that exist (our homes) we have to be extremely sure of the safety features that we use in order to protect future residents.

We know that following ADB does not necessarily lead to 100% safe buildings but it's close enough for the time being. 

The response from the BCO is a standard reaction to a non-standard proposal and should not be taken to imply that a safe solution does exist outside the confines of ADB guidance.  If you believe he/she is making such an implication then you should ask for a stear on what kind of solution might be satisfactory whilst lying outside the guidance.  I doubt you will get a helpful response.

Good fire engineering is really just the application of realistic assumptions and logic with clear and unambiguous presentation of the conclusions.  Unfortunately, many fire engineers, BCOs, fire officers, developers and clients mistakenly believe that there is more to it than this.  This belief in an intangible, boundless (and usually unnecessary) complexity leads to a broader belief in mythical and magical capabilities of fire engineering that simply don't exist.

I don't doubt for a second that there are many possible safe solutions for your building but I suspect that the majority of safe solutions will lie within the guidance of ADB.  My fire engineering answer above might work for a while but, in fifty years time, how sure can we be that there will be a safe route from the upper bedrooms at 4.00am if the living room is on fire?  There is no magical fire engineering wand to wave at it.

[stevew]

Thank you Phoenix
I have a proposal to put to the LA.  Watch this space

[lyledunn]

A very good response Phoenix.
I have sat in numerous site meetings with BC and clients mostly from the licensed trade. My role is to ensure that the project meets all statutory and other authority provisions so that it can be regarded as safe for licensing purposes. Fire safety is probably number one priority from my perspective but nothing other than an irritation that the designers have to contend with. Often their proposals push the normally accepted technical guidance beyond the edge. BC don't say no outright, increasingly they will say that they might accept an engineered proposal from a fire engineer. The client has already been sold on the layout and aesthetics presented by the designer so naturally sees the said fire engineer as the projects saviour.
I have been surprised by the weakness of some of the so-called fire engineered solutions. However, it does seem that BC don't have the expertise to counter the solutions proffered and much in the same way as a consultant structural engineer has his calculations go unchallenged, so it seems similar with the Fire engineer.

[Fishy]

Absolutely agree with Lyledunn... so many of the Fire Strategies I've seen over the years on the face of it tell a good story, but rely upon perfect implementation of all the fire protection measures, perfect maintenance, perfect management, & the fire obligingly starting in the place(s) that the fire engineer anticipated (and nowhere else).  Some have even relied upon you not having a fire in the first place!  One of these days we're going to have a serious fire in a fire engineered building & the **** will hit the fan, but until then the fact is that a lot of these 'creative' strategies go effectively unchallenged.

It's getting better, but building control have to take a risk-based approach to enforcement & that doesn't always allow them to thoroughly vet and challenge strategies (though some do get them peer reviewed by other fire engineers - which can actually help both the authors of the strategies and the reviewers if done constructively).  I guess as the profession matures it'll get better still - though I've seen some dreadful documents signed by people with the CEng post-nominal!

[nearlythere]

Engineered solutions are fine in those buildings where regulations can be monitored but, in the domestic environment, once the building is passed with its engineered solution that's the last time it will be seen. What guarantees are there that the "Solution" will be retained never mind maintained.
I would suggest that BC might look at an engineered solution just to get the box ticked and a cert issued.

[stevew]

Just advised by the owner that he not only wants the lounge open to the stair.
He wants the kitchen open to it as well.

Not going anywhere with this one.

[nearlythere]

Just advised by the owner that he not only wants the lounge open to the stair.
He wants the kitchen open to it as well.

Not going anywhere with this one.

Pushing the boundaries to infinity and beyond as Buzz would say if he was a Fire Safety type.