Part B fire safety second floor protected route design

[PSC88]

Hi,

building regs have advised my loft (second floor) habitable rooms are not fire safety complaint due to all rooms not having a protected route (direct access) to the stair case.

 

I have had this redesigned by architect  and would like an opinion on whether this now meets the regs or how it can be improved?

 

first image is the original design, games room was subdivided into a sep room, 

 

second image the doors removed so it becomes part of the space. The cinema, study and server now all have direct access to the stairwell.

 

 

[-rick-]

Doesn't you architect understand the rules? That's a big red flag, you are paying them for a compliant design.

 

Even if you came up with your own design and then went to an architectural technician they should still be fully aware of the rules and be able to advise you of any issues/propose fixes.

[PSC88]

Hi we originally were not having as much space on the second floor it was just going to be one room and storage but with a redesign of the roof structure and trusses we decided to capitalise on the space hence the first design the games room was almost a bolt on so more our own design.

 

the second design is with the architect input to meet the concerns flagged on the first design so my query isn’t whether my architect is competent it’s whether the design is now meeting regs or any input on if it can be better utilised.

 

[-rick-]

18 hours ago, PSC88 said:

the second design is with the architect input to meet the concerns flagged on the first design so my query isn’t whether my architect is competent it’s whether the design is now meeting regs or any input on if it can be better utilised.

 

If your architect is telling you it now complies, what makes you concerned that it doesn't? Your instructions to the architect should be to produce a compliant design so whether it complies or not shouldn't be a question. I certainly don't know enough to tell you it complies and even those here with more knowledge likely wouldn't want to confirm it now meets regs (none of us know enough about your situation). People will happily highlight flaws if they see them. From my limited knowledge of the regs I don't see anything obvious (but I'm no expert on the regs and last read them well over a year ago). If you have a specific concern maybe highlight it so people can give their thoughts.

 

As far as improvements go, it's very difficult to say without knowing and awful lot more about what you want out the space and the restrictions you are dealing with. It does seem like a compromise design but everything in building is a compromise and maybe that's the best given the constraints you are under.

[MPx]

You are very unlikely to get a definitive answer.  The fire regs are set out as principles and red flags.  That has to be interpreted by someone.  Different people on different days will give different answers.

 

We had an issue with two rooms that were considered "inner" rooms - ie no escape window.  One was upstairs one downstairs.  Our architects had come across the problem before and suggested that they had overcome it before by installing a sprinkler system.  I really didn't want to do that, but in the absence of a better idea I commissioned a fire specialist to design a "minimal" compliant system.  That was put forward but turned down by Building Control - no other feedback.  So I went back to the specialist and got him to do a full blown design - much as you might have in a block of flats.  That too was turned down by BC - no other feedback.  In a fit of pique I suggested just leaving out the walls so that both rooms were effectively just wider bits of the corridor they were on. That was allowed.... on the basis of access to adjacent room's escape windows.  So extrapolating that reasoning, the architect put forward the original design but with doors added to the adjacent rooms.  That was passed.

 

Another Building Controller on another day would almost certainly have responded differently as evidenced by the acceptance or not of sprinklers.  But while frustrating at the time, I feel lucky to have gotten away with a couple of extra doors and not the huge expense and maintenance of the sprinklers.  

 

My advice would be just put forward your the next idea hopefully knocking off at least one stated issue each time.  Sounds like you're at least getting some useful feedback on why, so keep that conversation going ...

[Mr Punter]

When the plans are submitted to BC they will do a plan check to let you know if they comply.  I think that to comply each room either leads directly to the protected staircase or is on a corridor that is part of a protected escape route.

[PSC88]

Thanks all my second design has been accepted by BC as all rooms now have direct access to the stairwell 

[MortarThePoint]

36 minutes ago, PSC88 said:

Thanks all my second design has been accepted by BC as all rooms now have direct access to the stairwell 

 

I guess they don't worry about the WC which is good.

[torre]

1 hour ago, PSC88 said:

Thanks all my second design has been accepted by BC as all rooms now have direct access to the stairwell 

I'm surprised honestly as the games room still looks very separate, you've essentially just taken the door off. Other BC officers might have viewed that differently I think as the escape path is quite long and via another furnished space, potentially tricky when filled with smoke. 

The plans don't show smoke detectors either but you'll definitely need them