RA advises replacing fire alarm system in 2003 conversion. Is he right?

[DawnF]

It?s a building that we converted ourselves during 2003 and an enormous amount of work was done regarding fire protection to comply with the regulations at the time.  The communal hallways/means of escape was completely lined to achieve 1 hour protection and each flat was horizontally protected to an hour.  Each flat has an internal hallway with all doors, those to the communal hallway and those in the flat, having new doors and frames to FS30s.

There are 3 flats with 4 floors above ground level and the top flat comprises 2 of the floors with a protected hallway inside the flat to the top floor.

The building inspector specified mains operated detectors interconnected and wired to a separate fused circuit, which I believe is LD3 D1 along with emergency lighting.  So each flat has multiple smoke and heat detectors, with backup batteries.

I must admit this is the first time I've had a company do an assessment, as I believed I was doing everything properly already, but what with up and coming changes in legislation it would be a good idea.   I was extremely surprised that this was his advice and I requested clarification from him, but he's not been very helpful.  His assessment states this system is recommended by LACORS Guidance, which I pointed out applies to pre 1992 conversions.  (I did tell him it was converted in 2003) He just keeps saying building regs have changes since 2003 and it doesn't comply with them and this is his advice.

Try telling that to a leaseholder who would be expected to contribute approx ?1000!

I was always under the impression that building regulations are not retrospective.  

I don't know what to do and obviously am extremely reluctant to go to a lot of expense when it was clearly considered suitable for that building when it was converted.

Any thoughts will be greatly appreciated!  Thank you in advance for your time.

Dawn 

[Dinnertime Dave]

Hi Dawn,

I assume you have the original certification for the conversion?

Based on the information you have provided the assessor is wrong. If it was converted post June 1992. It should be suitable for stay put and no common alarm.

May I ask what the fire action notices say. If they imply full evacuation, he may have based the recommendation on that. Cheaper to change the FAN than provide an alarm.

Or, you might just have found a fire risk assessor who doesn't assess risk.

[AnthonyB]

Based on the information given it appears the conversion was done to the edition of Approved Document B (Building Regulations Guidance) applicable at the time which would indicate no communal fire alarm (only detectors with no sounders linked to automatic vents) and a stay put policy.

None of the Building Regulations changes that have occurred since 2003 would have significantly changed anything even if you were doing the conversion now rather than back then.

Building Regulations have a statutory bar meaning they aren't retrospective, but the fire safety legislation doesn't any more so just because something was OK a long time ago doesn't mean it can automatically be accepted now - the FRA would determine whether the legacy standards in place still safeguard the relevant persons in the building or whether they need changing - it's not an automatic requirement to modernise either though, often some or all legacy provisions remain suitable.

Was the assessor registered/accredited? 

[DawnF]

Hello Dave!  Thank you so much for your reply!  Very much appreciated.

We do have the original certificate for the conversion.

I don't know what you mean by the fire action notice, but I have the construction notes saying that we should provide mains operated detectors interconnected and wired to a separately fused circuit.  I also have the plans showing where he wanted the sd's to go.  In fact we put in more.

Today I  managed to get a further response from the assessor to my further questions that he had refused to answer. 

I obviously asked if the building regulations are supposed to be retrospective and he said that if they were not retrospectively applied every building in Brighton would look like it did in the Victorian times.  One of the purposes of a risk assessment is to bring older buildings up to modern standards in a practicable fashion.

He quotes sections 3.26 to 3.28 of the Approved Document B 2019 and says that irrespective of internal compartmentation there is no circumstance where a 5 story building with a single escape route without lobby protection does not necessitate a Grade A system.  (this is 4 above ground).

He has already said he doesn't think it would satisfy a stay put policy as each flat would have to be lobbied, there would need to be auto opening vents and the detection system would be non-sounding and emotely monitored.

I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean by FAN.

It certainly does feel that he's not just looking at the actual risk.  However, it certainly does feel that the occupants would have plenty of warning of a fire, but I don't really understand yet the additional benefits of a Grade A system.

Thanks again!

Dawn

[DawnF]

Hello Anthony  You posted as I was posting!

I do believe the assessor is register/accredited.

He says even if he came across a building that was constructed yesterday and found this he would recommend a Grade A system.

Does my reply to Dave alter your response?

Thanks again!

Dawn

[Dinnertime Dave]

A fire action notice is simply what residents do in the event of a fire.

I?m not really sure why the assessor is quoting ADB 2019. Your block should be assessed to the guidance, the most appropriate is purpose built flats guide.

Quoting the scope

?This guide is intended for buildings which have been constructed as purpose-built blocks of flats. It applies to existing blocks only. Fire safety design in new blocks of flats is governed by the Building Regulations 20101, but, once a block is occupied, this guide is applicable.

The scope of this guide excludes buildings converted into blocks of flats. However
the guidance contained in this document will largely be applicable to such buildings, provided that ? at the time of conversion ? the work was carried out in accordance with the then current Building Regulations. In particular the guidance is likely to be relevant to conversions in which, as a result of compartmentation, a ?stay-put? policy is appropriate?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1020410/Fire_Safety_in_Purpose_Built_Blocks_of_Flats_Guide.pdf

[DawnF]

Hi Dave

I have pointed out that the Purpose Built Blocks guidance seems more appropriate, but he says a stay put policy is not appropriate.  I replied that I'm not necessarily suggesting a stay out policy, just that the current system doesn't need changing.

Your response reassures me that I'm not right in disputing this, but now I don't know what to do about it as I don't think I can just ignore his advise in terms of any flat sales or if there were a fire and I've ignored him.  I really want to sort it out as he's just not backing down.

I've thought about approaching the Council, but worried I will get another jobsworth person.

Any suggestions?

Do you mind me asking where your knowledge comes from?

Thanks again!
Dawn

[morph]

Hello there.
I often ask the question "Does the Fire Risk Assessor also provide equipment (such as fire alarms, extinguishers etc)?"

Sometimes this will reflect in the FRA, but not always.

I would also say that not all Council staff are jobsworths!  if you contacted your Local Authority, you may get further, competent advice.

Going by the information provided I agree that the findings of the FRA do not appear appropriate or necessary.

Good luck.

[DawnF]

Thank you Morph!  He is contracted by a company that does install systems, but it doesn?t feel like that?s his motivation.  I just think he thinks he?s right.  I?ve got to find a way to get something in writing to get me out of this spot somehow. 

[AnthonyB]

Hi,

How many flats per floor and how tall is the top floor (I can read your description two ways)?

Are there openable windows to the stair if no AOV


I think I can see which part of the 2000 Approved Document B might have been applied depending on your information.

[DawnF]

Morning Anthony

I really, really appreciate your time!

Am I right in thinking you're referring to the bit about small single-stair buildings?  I did suggest to the assessor that that might be what the inspector did and that he considered the fact that there is an openable window on the second floor landing sufficient.

On the ground floor there is an entrance to the GFF (this also has a basement room and a separate entrance at the front). On the first floor there is one flat and on the second floor landing is the entrance to the top flat.  That flat has a loft level which is entered via a further fire 'corridor' which is protected to half an hour.  So I guess the floor of the top floor is below 11m (if it's the floor you measure it to).  As I said there is a large opening sash window on the 2nd floor landing.

I hope that makes sense.

I tried to attach a picture of, but the file was too big.  It's a mid terraced victorian building.

Many thanks.  Dawn

[AnthonyB]

Hi,

Sounds like they've applied Diagram 14 of the 2000 Approved Document B for small buildings. Whether you need a communal system at all or not would depend on actual inspection, but it's one of those cases where the layout doesn't fit the book so a judgement call has to be made - essentially from a common area point of view it's G, 1 & 2 with one flat per floor & it just happens the top & bottom flats are duplex.

I'm not convinced it needs an evacuate policy or even if it does that it warrants a change from Grade D to Grade A as an urgent issue. I'd be more concerned at flat front doors and the existing ventilation before looking at the system.

I don't want to commit 100% without a proper look, but it isn't a clear case for needing a big upgrade.

[DawnF]

Thanks everybody for your input.  I now feel confident that assessor's advice isn't necessary.  It was definitely complied with the regulations at the time and he's not really assessing the actual risk or the additional benefit (if there is any) of a Grade A system.  Now, forearmed, I am going to write to the Council and continue to dispute the recommendation with the assessor.

I will post an update in due course.

Thanks again for all your time.

Dawn

[DawnF]

Quick update.  Having explained the situation and described the property to a gentleman at the Council he has sent me an email to say that he agreed that the current system in his opinion is a reasonable approach.  He suggested we ask the assessor to change it to a recommendation rather than an action.  The assessor has refused to do this and suggested I find another assessor who might be willing to endorse the current system.  Not sure what my next step is, but I do feel I can adequately justify not doing the work.  Thanks again all.  Dawn

[AnthonyB]

Where is the property? In case it's anywhere I regularly cover.