FRA actions vs. building regs 'non-retroactive'

[witsd]

Hey all, I'm curious as to opinions on this one.

Can an FRA action be refused on the basis that the upgrade requested wouldn't have been required at the time the building was constructed?

Example:

FRA request that a door to a plant room is upgraded to a modern FD30S or at minimum retrofitted with strips and seals.

Response is that the door isn't damaged, and it met the building regs at time of construction (1960s), therefore no legal requirement to complete.

I know my opinion on this, but I'll try to avoid 'poisoning the well' here.

[Messy]

This has always been a tricky area and one I do not think has ever been adequately addressed

ADB - Building Regs
Firstly, let's consider ADB of the Building Regs. Each section starts with the 'Functional Requirements' of that section

for example, B1 sets a statement that (paraphrasing) the building will be designed to allow for adequate warning of fire and adequate escape measures - this is the bit YOU must achieve in a new building or when carrying out substantial alterations.

The rest of B1 shows examples of how to achieve compliance with B1's function requirement. This is the optional bit as there are often many ways to achieve the aim set out in the functional requirement including bespoke fire safety engineered solutions not set out in ADB.

FRA
So when its comes to the FRA, ADB is a useful reference for guidance and I have used it many times as it has many examples of best practice. However, there is no need to achieve compliance with the functional requirements of ADB. As I have said, these relate to new builds and large alterations. In any case, its impossible to apply ADB in many older premises.

Use of the Govt guides and BS9999 are again useful, but don't really help in relation to retrospective application of standards.

Article 10 Fire Safety Order
Article 10 refers to the Rest person applying the 'Principles of Prevention' . These are tucked away in Schedule 1, Part 3 of the Order

Paragraph (d) says 'adapting to technical progress' as being one of those principles

I have seen this part shoe-horned in to support retrospective enforcement of the application of ADB and other standards and I believe that is totally incorrect.
Article 10 says 'Where the responsible person implements any preventive and protective measures he must do so on the basis of the principles specified in Part 3 of Schedule 1.' (my underlining). In the case you mention, the RP hasn't changed or implemented anything relating to that door, so Article 10 - IMO - does not apply

Summary
It makes sense that some improvements can be applied retrospectively in terms of what the assessor puts in the 'significant findings' of the FRA, but rarely can they be applied by enforcement.

I worked in London's West End when I was an inspecting officer. We had terraces of what would now be considered 'overweight' single staircase buildings, many with nasty rooftop escapes via a ladder to neighbouring premises. NO WAY would that ever get through BC now, but if the RP showed it still worked, it was not possible (or right) to apply the FSO retrospectively

Lastly common sense must be applied in any FRA and it is not ethical to hide behind a no retrospective application' rule.

The door on your plant room if it fits well into its frame, may be OK for an office or low risk application or even a sleeping risk if there was an alternative means of escape. But - consider that plant room to opens up onto the ground floor of a 4 storey old persons home, or medical centre where treatment under aesthetic maybe carried out - or even a single staircase hotel? In my previous life, I would be asking for the door to be upgraded

A FRA can never be a tick box exercise and this sort of application of strips and seals sort of implies that may have been what's happened here

[witsd]

The door on your plant room if it fits well into its frame, may be OK for an office or low risk application or even a sleeping risk if there was an alternative means of escape. But - consider that plant room to opens up onto the ground floor of a 4 storey old persons home, or medical centre where treatment under aesthetic maybe carried out - or even a single staircase hotel? In my previous life, I would be asking for the door to be upgraded

Shall we put that door on the only escape route of an MSF?

Just, you know... as a hypothetical example.

A FRA can never be a tick box exercise and this sort of application of strips and seals sort of implies that may have been what's happened here

The possible addition of strips and seal is suggested in the FRA as a 'next best thing' if upgrading to a modern fire door is deemed too costly. In practice any changes to the door have been ruled out.

The problem is that if you don't apply new information and at least consider upgrades based on that information or new technology and follow that logic through, then by law there is no need to remove ACM or HPL cladding if an MSF building was built with it, as it met the Technical Standards of the day. This is obviously a ridiculous position to try and defend.

My belief has always been that the FRA overrides the building regs (or perhaps it should just be considered to be a totally separate thing with no link). If the FRA says "consider", then you may very well be able to justify a refusal based on factors that the assessor couldn't know (cost, special difficulties in acquiring things, whatever), but if the assessor has seen fit to write "must" then... You either need to get it done or source a second 'competent' opinion, and do so quickly.

[Paul1979]

Just butting in on this one as I am always curious about how building regs / authorities and FRA's marry together...

What is the case if the building (new or major alteration requiring authorities consent) is signed-off by the jolly BCO...but the first FRA produced highlights a number of issues which do not comply with building regs and also do not comply with the FSO?? Am I right in thinking there is no right of recourse against the BCO / authorities who signed it off and it is therefore a problem the end user / RP inherits?

Example we came across a couple of years ago (pre-COVID days) related to a residential care home which had an extension built; the new extension included some bedrooms which opened directly onto the staircases used for escape...the first FRA we had done highlighted this as a concern and further investigation confirmed this was not correct / suitable so the client ended up having to introduce a lobby arrangement in the bedrooms in question which the FRA and local fire authorities agreed with...but why would this type of thing not be picked up at BCO sign-off stage?!

[witsd]

Sounds like someone was incapable at doing their job.

The alternate option is that it was deliberately allowed to slide for some reason, but it's generally nicer to assume this sort of thing stems from an error.

[Messy]

Regulation 38 of the building regs says that information relating to fire safety of a new build must be passed to the occupier.

I wonder if that was done for this odd resi care premises as if there was a reason for the door onto the staircase solution.

But these Reg 38 'folders' seem as common as an honest politician