Gordo

if you own say 30m of land between your new house and boundary, you could argue there is no need to fight fire as it wont spread. just let it burn. After all they are not there to preserve property mainly life. With regards to which standard/code should be used. The AD is the code that is "presumed to comply" with the regulations. The BCO can actually insist on a higher standard if deemed it appropriate to comply with the regulations. They do not have to (actually they shouldn't) accept any lower standards, in piecemeal fashion that is quoted in any other code. Unless they consider it to be at least equal to the provisions in the AD. if that makes any sense. Read the actual regulations first for the context of what is provisions are required for the fire and rescue service. Then formulate your argument based on that with referance to the various codes. The fire and rescue services input can not be underestimated here.

Just make sure you photo and measure existing arrangements as evidence. Note down any deficiencies in this arrangement with regards to use as an escape window, heights from both floor and sill to opening for guarding. You can then replace like for like (similar features) or make alterations. but make sure you dont make any of the noted deficiencies any worse or BC wouldn't be happy. It would be preferable if you could improve on original arrangements for current standards for your own benefit. lets face it fire safety and fall hazards shouldn't be ignored. If its a listed building you should discuss alterations with them first but they should consider reasonable alterations for health and safety.

what is this problem? I like the FE thinking about fire suppressant system but dont think it would compensate for lack of fire hose. Don;t know if it will wash but worth a try. i mean how would the fire authority fight the fire and stop it spreading without water. Sprinklers are usually about safe means of escape, unless they can be convinced the sprinklers could contain/limit the fire.

heres a copy of the most recent BCA guidance on subject that i have on the subject and it is in the open domain. H - BCA-GN-16-Guarding-to-openable-windows-with-low-cills-Rev-1-Sept-2016.pdf

This guidance is for BCOs and not available to the public. Tha BCA guidance provided by kandgmitchell includes a paragraph at end saying the same thing. I do recall seeing LABC guidance online somewhere. The principals of the guidance from memory where opening restrictors screwed to plastic frame would be unlikely to be strong enough to act as guarding and in the summer months the window may be left fully open leaving the opening without guarding. Dwellings require 0.36 kN/m min. strength guarding. So say for a 1m wide window with two screws to one restrictor that would be in the region of 0.18kN or 18kg load on screw with no safety margins. You always have the option of getting a structural engineeer to prove adequacy of your opening restrictor. perhaps he could prove its adequate. I would expect few BCOs would accept this giving the potential outcome from a fall from second , third or whatever floor window. In this senario the only option is supplementary guarding to 800mm height.

quite right. I was just letting you know that this guidance is outdated (but fundamentally relevant)

I beg to differ. The BCA guidance offered above has been superseded. BC NI have a formal policy as does LABC on mainland to not accept such restrictors for guarding a window opening. Unless you get a soft or ignorant BCO

The reason for inconsistencies is there is no formal guidance for this scenario and BC must look at the functional requirements of the regulations and make a considered opinion. If the window opening is below 800mm it requires adequate guarding. this must be permanent and strong enough. No wise person would consider opening restricters screwed to a uPVC window as strong enough and an opening restricter that can be disengaged should not be considered adequate. A BCO who accepts this is making a poor decision IMO and would struggle to justify his decision should someone fall out a window that he deemed safe. A robust rail at 800mm may be considered adequate, if the gap to window opening is small enough that someone could not fall through it (but some may get hung up on the 100mm maximum gap rule, which i may/not agree with )

A regular fire engine will NOT be 3.7m wide. if the were they wouldn't be able to navigate a lot of public roads. So obviously the 3.7m includes a healthy tolerance that the fire brigade may waver in your circumstances ie the driveway is relatively straight with no sharp bends possibly or 3.7m clear width between barriers / fences / buildings along access road. Id wait to see if BC raise the issue before offering fire brigade solutions tho.

Most codes / guidance are based on a worst case scenario for simplicity. This allows the codes to be used by the “less expert”. If you employed a certified fire engineer they can provide a bespoke solution to argue lower standards than the codes quote. Building control generally bow to the experts (unless they are talking nonsense. For example in a HMO they generally designed for simultaneous evacuation ie every one out and with max 1/2 hr fire resistance elements. so I would imagine it wouldn’t be hard to argue that 3hr battery back up to emergency lights is not necessary.

Anyone can provide the proof. BCO doesn’t care who provides it and a good FR ceiling only works for a set period of time before it’s compromised and bendy steel time.

If your steels are behind an adequate FR system the steels are protected and require no further protection. Usually this would require 12.5mm fireline or similar lining for a ceiling. 12.5mm regular plasterboard wouldn't cut it. To prove this to the BCO go to british gypsum or whoever your board manufacturer is and get a copy of their declared fire performance for your system.

Good for Scotland. The rest of UK submit plans and start work same day. Hence a shit show of non-compliance. Shitty drawings/specifications, ignorant first time self builders lead by sub-contractors of varying pride levels with no interest in the overall build. Complaining about building control for their own short comings and not offering professional design advice. Its really a joke but the public are funding one of the biggest investments the are likely to make on it, so its not funny.

Exactly. The BCO is only an inspector. if unsure they have a duty to ask for evidence to prove it complies. It is the builders responsibility to prove they have complied with the substantive requirements of the regulations. If shit goes wrong the courts/investigators will look at the evidence.

A lot of research on bendy steel steelwork following a fire supports the need for fire resistance to any steel works supporting floors or any fire resistant element / system. The fire resistance need only equal the FR of the element it supports. Never debated the issue of falling cables entangling fire fighters but I am aware of it. I didn't think it applied to domestic work TBH.