Non-Enforcement and Part B?

Non-Enforcement and Part B?

Postby mulp » Thu Jan 15, 2009 10:55 am

I have just spoken to the head of building control in a Dublin Local Authority who has told me that new houses with one floor more than 4.5m above ground level do not necessarily require windows for escape or rescue. (See: Part B TGD Section 1.5.3 and 1.5.6).

I wondered if anyone else could see any justification for this opinion.
The "G" in TGD does stand for Guidance document, this was his main point.
He repeated to me a few times that the TGD is not the "Regulation".

Compliance with Part L, E,F,... Possibly even Part M may be achieved in a number of ways besides those illustrated in the Technical Guidance Documents, but what about this requirement of Part B?

I can confirm there are no enhanced fire detection systems.
Up until my initial involvement, the only stair descended into an open-plan space containing all the living spaces and the kitchen (this is now rectified).
The houses are now privately rented and occupied.

If openings for escape or rescue are not provided at 1st or 2nd floors in a private house, how can it meet the requirements of Part B?
The Enforcement Officer has told me that he will not explain how this can be achieved as I am an architect and should be able to figure it out myself!
mulp
Member
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 12:16 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Non-Enforcement and Part B?

Postby henno » Thu Jan 15, 2009 11:06 am

forget about the enforcement officer.....

Its your name on the cert, do you want to stand in a court and try to argue reg loopholes if someone has been killed in a fire??? i certainly wouldnt.

As a certifier its up to you to demand whatever method of compliance with the regulation you feel happy with. I know i personally would not be happy with non-escape opes in habitable rooms... on any level!

The reg simply states:

Means of escape in case B1
A building shall be so designed and constructed that there are
of fire. adequate means of escape in case of fire from the building to a
place of safety outside the building, capable of being safely and
effectively used.

How you propose to comply with this is up to you..... but the TGD B offers one possible solution...
henno
Senior Member
 
Posts: 540
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 12:07 pm

Re: Non-Enforcement and Part B?

Postby mulp » Thu Jan 15, 2009 11:14 am

Hi,

I am not the designer or person who will certify these houses.
I brought the matter to the attention of the enforcement Officer.
I am not at all concerned with a person who is responsible for certifying feeling able to argue his position in court.

The intention of the Act & Regulations is to ensure the safety of occupants.
So, from their perspective (and not that of a professional trying to get out of a tight spot), how can the regulations be met in this instance?

Is provision for safe escape or rescue provided as intended by the regulation when no escape openings are provided?
"..... but the TGD B offers one possible solution..."
If that solution has not been followed, can someone explain what the Other Possible Solution is in this case?

I am also very interested in the performance of Local Authorities in Enforcing the Building Regulations.
(Ref: http://www.archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=6768&highlight=building+regulations)
mulp
Member
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 12:16 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Non-Enforcement and Part B?

Postby henno » Thu Jan 15, 2009 2:54 pm

you miss my point....

my point is that the certifier will and should always demand the highest level solution to comply with the reg... 'its not getting out of a tight spot' ... its ensuring the best possible saftey for occupants.

Other solutions are not documented. Its up to the certifier to argue the case.

its easy for a building control officer to say the TGD are not the only solutions, but just try to get him to agree to a compromise that is not in accordance with the TGD!!!!

Id suggest the reason he didnt tell you is because he doesnt know of any.

Other solutions can be easier applied to other TGD's... but with part B id be loathe to stray beyond the specifed path because of the huge life and death risk involved.


I am not entirely understanding where you are coming from on this.....

section 1.5.8.2 of part B clear states
"As a general provision, in addition to the specific
situations referred to above, all bedrooms in
dwelling houses, other than bedrooms with doors
that give direct access to the outside at ground level,
should comply with the provisions outlined in
Paragraph 1.5.6."

para 1.5.6 states
"Where provision is made in this subsection
for windows for these purposes (see
paragraphs 1.5.2, 1.5.3, 1.5.7.6 and 1.5.8.2), such
windows should comply with the following:
(a) The window should have an openable section
which can provide an unobstructed clear open
area of at least 0.33 m2 with a minimum width
and height of 450 mm (the route through the
window may be at an angle rather than straight
through). The opening section should be capable
of remaining in the position which provides this
minimum clear open area.
(b) The bottom of the window opening should be
not more than 1100 mm and not less than 800
mm (600 mm in the case of a rooflight) above the
floor, immediately inside or beneath the window
or rooflight.
etc



Its clear enough to me.
henno
Senior Member
 
Posts: 540
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 12:07 pm

Re: Non-Enforcement and Part B?

Postby mulp » Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:27 pm

You have missed the point in your first line:

"my point is that the certifier will and should always demand the highest level solution to comply with the reg... 'its not getting out of a tight spot' ... its ensuring the best possible saftey for occupants".

Is that really your experience of the system? Surely not!
That was the intention of whoever devised our self-certification model,
but it is most definitely not reality.

This is not just because the "architects" used are often unqualified, fully qualified architects are just as culpable as other designers. Our building control system is highly flawed primarily due to a lack of funding which would be essential to have a system akin to that in the UK.

On one small street (my street), one architect designed (full service by the way) development had the roofs of 4 houses taken off to insert insulation retrospectively. In this instance, the architect stated compliance with Part L had been achieved through the use of foil-backed plasterboard alone. Go figure.
Another 3 houses have attics sopping wet because no provision was made for ventilation. I am not sure what alternative method of compliance with the regs. was cited here...

Now we have a development with a non-compliance issue that poses a risk to life as opposed to just creating discomfort or possibly timber decay.

IF the certifier did demand the highest level solution, we would have no problem.

As this is not the case, the fall back position has to be compliance through enforcement, right? The L.A. is statute bound to follow up on a notification.

In this case it is perfectly clear the Enforcement Officer knows of no alternative means of achieving compliance. There is none.
He has met a poor small-time developer on site and agreed with him that if he makes the stair enclosed, they can overlook the other potentially life-threating issue, and not bother changing the windows.
Thats my theory anyway.

But what about the tenants who are ignorant of this risk? Can they rest assured that the building designer/specifier has reached the very highest standards??
If not,
Surely they could rely on the appropriate actions of the Enforcement Officer (once notified) under statute law, No? Surely when it comes to Part B he would be acutely aware of the importance of 'rule-book enforcement' because of the huge life and death risk involved?

Question Again: Does anyone know of any method complying with Part B for dwellings when not providing any openings for escape or rescue?

Final thought: The RIAI maintains a log of bizarre and incorrect reasons for planning application invalidations,...Another slightly flawed system?
I think it would be well worth collecting examples of non-compliance with the Building Regulations where Architects, Designers and subsequently Enforcement Officers have clearly not performed their roles. This could be put to productive use in demonstrating the many flaws of the current system to those in a position to do something about it.
mulp
Member
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 12:16 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Non-Enforcement and Part B?

Postby parka » Thu Jan 15, 2009 6:20 pm

mulp wrote:The Enforcement Officer has told me that he will not explain how this can be achieved


That sounds like they don't know the answer themselves.
parka
Member
 
Posts: 150
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 10:10 pm

Re: Non-Enforcement and Part B?

Postby henno » Thu Jan 15, 2009 7:41 pm

mulp... i will not try to condone sub-standard work.

you state
"He has met a poor small-time developer on site and agreed with him that if he makes the stair enclosed, they can overlook the other potentially life-threating issue, and not bother changing the windows.
Thats my theory anyway"

have you any facts? theres no point commenting on assumptions and theories...

did you contact a fire officer for their comment?
henno
Senior Member
 
Posts: 540
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 12:07 pm

Re: Non-Enforcement and Part B?

Postby mulp » Thu Jan 15, 2009 9:25 pm

Everything stated is factual.
"Thats my theory anyway" related solely to my comment on the likely agreement between Enforcement Officer & developer.

The E.O. stated that the developer had agreed to rectify all of the problems within two weeks of their meeting on site.

By way of a little background:

1. I wrote to the E.O. six months ago about the windows. They had just been put in and no finishing works around them had been done. Problem could have been resolved without huge inconvenience to the developer, and I would venture that the window supplier should have taken the hit.

2. Late November, after no response, the houses are now complete.
I write to the E.O. and copy letter to County Manager.
Immediate response received.

3. The E.O. tells me that the delay occurred as he was still "awaiting a report" on the matter from a staff member. He had now however arranged to meet the developer on site that week. He also enquired of me whether I was aware of the non-protected staircase in each house. I hadn't been up till then.
I told him I would like to be kept informed.

4. I received an email telling me that the developer had agreed to rectify all matters as noted earlier.

5. The houses are completed and occupied before Christmas with no work to rectify windows. A further email and telephone message to the E.O. are ignored.

6. I managed to get through directly today and am told by the E.O. after enquiring about the windows that: "I am awaiting a report on the matter"!

7. He then quickly tells me that "The T.G.D. is only guidance and not the regulation....The designer can use other means to achieve compliance"
(Yes, yes, yes, you can use different insulation, means of ventilation, means of whatever)
But
When I asked him at least twice what the other method of achieving compliance was in this specific example (where risk to life happens to play a role), he refused at least twice to tell me.
Now, as I happen to know of no other way of complying (and no one has suggested a way so far), I started to smell a fish.

8. I asked him directly would the developer be allowed to retain the existing windows?
He answered Yes.
So, now he wasn't waiting for that report!

9. The conversation ended pretty abruptly when I said that I felt duty bound to pursue the matter further given the potential implications.

All of this is fact.
To me it seems clear: If the matter had been caught when I raised it, it would most likely have been resolved. However a protracted delay in action by the E.O. would now mean that significantly more disruptive work is required to rectify. My opinion is that a bit of ‘sop-sop’ from the developer won the day and the E.O. was lenient where leniency was not at all appropriate.

Anyway, Can the Fire Officer get involved in private dwellings where F.S. Certificates are not required?
The primary interest here remains the risk to tenants who are unaware of the problem.

P.S. I use the phrase "Thats my theory anyway" in a similar manner as the word "allegedly" is constantly used in 'Have I got News for You', even if I haven't identified anyone.
mulp
Member
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 12:16 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Non-Enforcement and Part B?

Postby henno » Thu Jan 15, 2009 9:38 pm

very very interesting....

i remember being told a few years ago about a reluctance for fire officers to get involoved with single dwelling builds... and when quizzed he said there was lots of 'grey areas' in the regs.

to answer your initial question, personally no, i know of no other way to comply wth these regs, nor would i attempt to take a path not prescribed.

i wouldnt suggest the DOEHLG because i have found tem useless beyond the, check with your local EO answer..
henno
Senior Member
 
Posts: 540
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 12:07 pm

Re: Non-Enforcement and Part B?

Postby missarchi » Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:16 am

fire regulations in ireland are a joke...
missarchi
Old Master
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 7:53 pm

Re: Non-Enforcement and Part B?

Postby mulp » Fri Jan 16, 2009 11:04 am

missarchi wrote:fire regulations in ireland are a joke...


I don't agree.
I think the Enforcement System and some of those charged with that enforcement are though...
The regulations and guidance are clear.

In this instance the alternative means of complying could have involved a domestic sprinkler system or an enhanced fire detection & alarm system.
Neither of these is present and the escape/rescue openings are absent.
The reason the windows were not done: Cost.
The reason there are no other enhanced measures: Greater Cost!

The E.O. will not pursue the matter and the party highlighting the remaining risk to occupants (me) is meddling!
The enforcement system intended in this case to protect life in the event of fire, becomes a system for those operating it to express their disinterest & do nothing.
The E.O. has no liability when things go wrong, even (apparently) if formally notified of non-compliance. He is satisfied that all liability lies with that "certifier who "will and should always demand the highest level solution to comply with the reg..."
Maybe a perfectly designed enforcement system is just one where blame is shifted from one desk to someone else’s.
What a shame though that that primary intent: Safety of Occupants, seems to slip unnoticed between the cracks.
mulp
Member
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 12:16 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Non-Enforcement and Part B?

Postby henno » Fri Jan 16, 2009 11:17 am

mulp... do you know if anyone did actually certify the works??

also, i completely agree that theregs are fine, its the enforcement thats none existant...
henno
Senior Member
 
Posts: 540
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 12:07 pm

Re: Non-Enforcement and Part B?

Postby mulp » Fri Jan 16, 2009 11:26 am

When the E.O. came back to me after his site meeting he did give a name of the developer's "Architect", who he said had agreed on the works to rectify.

The person is not an institute member and I can't find any listing for him.

If I saw a lump of tiling missing in the swimming pool and informed management that someone might cut their toe, they would most likely be relieved and grateful for the notice.
I do feel like writing to the new occupants just so that they are aware of the risks and know to keep a big hammer by the bed. They could then make their own informed decision.
mulp
Member
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 12:16 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Non-Enforcement and Part B?

Postby corkblow-in » Fri Jan 16, 2009 2:33 pm

Just a point.......it is possible to achieve compliance for a 3 storey house withourt escape windows on 2nd floor, but it requires planning from the outset. (Happened once to me due to construction issues - error in constructing a concrete frame meant windows had to be1250 over ffl)

Proper floor construction, protected stairway and detection will do it, but it also requires supervision to ensure that some electrician or plumber doesn't poorly fit a recessed light or pipe and scupper the whole thing. Its my guess that the EO is relying on these arguments from the builder, but can he back it up? Course in an apartment building the windows aren't required to be escape due to the other measures fitted.

There is a report somewhere - UK I thnk, can't locate it at present - that states 2nd floor windows are not really suitable for escape and that protected stairways are preferable.
corkblow-in
Member
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: Non-Enforcement and Part B?

Postby mulp » Wed Jan 21, 2009 10:35 am

OPINION OF A DIRECTOR OF A FIRE SAFETY ENGINEERING COMPANY:
_______________________________
Query:

I wonder if you could answer a query:
Two new houses have been built near me and have bedrooms at 1st floor and attic level.
None of the windows or roof lights provide openings suitable for escape or rescue as per Part B. There is one stair and no enhanced fire detection.

The developer's agent considers that they comply with Part B and that the TGD is only
guidance, so therefore they do not have to comply by means of escape/rescue windows.

What would be your opinion? Is there any other way they could possibly comply?


NOTE: I did not state that the comments that no escape/rescue windows were required were in fact those of the Building Control Enforcement Officer. I thought it better not to let that colour a response. Read on.
_______________________________________________
Response:

In relation to your query my opinion is as follows;

· They might not have to necessarily comply with the relevant requirements of TGD-B but they must as a minimum provide an escape window from all bedrooms.
They must show compliance with whichever document such as TGD-B, Approved Document B, BS 5588 Part 1 or other similar approved documents. It is a very flippant remark to say that they do not need to comply with TGD-B when in fact they must comply with the Building Regulations or show written evidence as to where they do not need to provide escape windows from bedrooms.

· As the building is a 3-storey building with bedrooms on all upper floor levels makes this particularly dangerous. If the builder/owner is reluctant to comply then maybe passing the matter onto the local Building Control Officer or the local Fire Officer will bring some results. The following is an outline of what is required in relation to provision for fire for three storey dwellings

· From Section 1.5.6 of TGD-B 2006 an escape window from a bedroom should have an openable section which can provide an unobstructed clear open area of at least 0.33m2 with a minimum width and height of 450mm. The opening section should be capable of remaining in the position which provides this minimum clear open area.

· The bottom of the window opening should be not more than 1100mm and not less than 800mm (600mm in the case of a rooflight) above the floor, immediately inside or beneath the window or rooflight.

· In the case of dormer windows or rooflights, the distance from the eaves to the bottom of the opening section of the rooflight, or, where the window is vertical, the vertical plane of the window, should not exceed 1.7m measured along the slope of the roof.

· The area below all escape windows should be clear of all obstructions and the ground beneath the window should be suitable for supporting a ladder safely.

· The opening section of the window should be secured by means of fastenings which are readily openable from the inside and should be fitted with safety restrictors. Safety restrictors can be either an integral part of the window operating gear or separate items of hardware which can be fitted to a window at the time of manufacture or at installation. Restrictors should operate so that they limit the initial movement of an opening section to not more than 100mm. Lockable handles or restrictors, which can only be released by removable keys or other tools, should not be fitted to window opening sections

· Dwelling houses with up to three storeys above ground level should have at least an LD2 type fire detection and alarm system. An LD2 system incorporates suitably located and interconnected detectors in all circulation areas that form part of the escape route and in all rooms or areas such as kitchens and living rooms that present a high fire risk. Heat detectors should be provided in kitchens and this is all in accordance with BS 5839 Part 6 2004 Fire Detection and Alarm Systems for Buildings

· As this is a 3-storey building then it is safe to say that the top floor will be in excess of 4.5m therefore all of the provisions of Section 1.5.3 of TGD-B will apply in that

1. A habitable room should not be an inner room
2. Unless the top storey is separated from the lower storey by fire resisting construction and is provided with an alternative means of escape leading to its own final exit, the internal stairway should
· Be a protected stairway
· Connect the ground and all upper storey’s, and
· Either deliver directly to a final exit or give access to not less than two independent escape routes delivering to two alternative final exits
3. An automatic smoke detection and alarm system should be provided in accordance with Section 1.5.5 of TGD-B
· All of the general provisions of Section 1.5.8 of TGD-B must also be complied with
· At the moment I think that the developers agent is hoping that by giving you that answer that you will leave it be and not make an issue of it. At the end of the day they must comply with Building Regulations and under those Regulations escape windows must be provided. All documents relating to dwellings will all recommend escape windows including guidance documents, approved documents from England and British Standard publications.
mulp
Member
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 12:16 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Non-Enforcement and Part B?

Postby missarchi » Wed Jan 21, 2009 12:36 pm

mulp wrote:I don't agree.
I think the Enforcement System and some of those charged with that enforcement are though...
The regulations and guidance are clear.
[/B]


The result is almost the same... Any way lets people talking in here (bait):p

I want some discussion as to why you cannot have an apartment where you enter into the living room past the kitchen (no lobby) and then to the bedrooms with wait for it... sliding doors. what do you have to say about that?

Another question how many people in Ireland are killed a year in house fires that are not intentional?

How many fires are started by cigarettes what percent?

what percent of fires start in the living room/kitchen area?

If I have a 3 storey house plus a basement is there any way I can get away with no protected staircase?:mad:

what do you read as must and should?

first person to answer gets some baileys chessecake:cool: j/k
missarchi
Old Master
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 7:53 pm

Re: Non-Enforcement and Part B?

Postby paulie » Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:53 am

The result is almost the same... Any way lets people talking in here (bait)

I want some discussion as to why you cannot have an apartment where you enter into the living room past the kitchen (no lobby) and then to the bedrooms with wait for it... sliding doors. what do you have to say about that?

Another question how many people in Ireland are killed a year in house fires that are not intentional?

How many fires are started by cigarettes what percent?

what percent of fires start in the living room/kitchen area?

If I have a 3 storey house plus a basement is there any way I can get away with no protected staircase?

what do you read as must and should?

first person to answer gets some baileys chessecake j/k


My answers for the baileys cheesecake are as follows..... No seriously though, I am in the middle of conducting my dissertation research project, where I am investigating to determine if the current Fire Certification Legislation in Ireland is acceptable for the provision of residential accommodation.

Another question how many people in Ireland are killed a year in house fires that are not intentional? 31 in 2006 (0 malicious). 26 in 2005 (0 malicious). 24 in 2004 (0 malicious). 25 in 2003 (1 malicious). 25 in 2002 (1 malicious). 33 in 2001 (1 malicious). 33 in 2000 (0 malicious)

How many fires are started by cigarettes what percent? 33 fires started by cigarettes resulting in fatalities from 2000-2006. 200 house fires resulting in fatalities during this period = 16.5%

what percent of fires start in the living room/kitchen area? resulting in fatalities from 2000-2006, fire starting in kitchen 22.5%. livingroom 30.5%

If I have a 3 storey house plus a basement is there any way I can get away with no protected staircase? maybe a lift shaft or external steps such as in towns???

am sorry the only figures I can receive for the causes of fires and the area in which the fire started are the statistics of where a fatality has occurred. I have emailed all the county councils in Ireland to get better statistics but no one has detailled enough records
paulie
Member
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 12:34 pm

Re: Non-Enforcement and Part B?

Postby missarchi » Thu Jan 22, 2009 3:18 am

what does mulp have to say about apartments and houses?
While I admire the thickness of part B the issue I have is that fire engineers cannot always come up with a solution that will allow architects more freedom like other countries around the globe. This from my perspective could be seen to be hindering Ireland and wasting more floor space. The standards where all derived from the British...

I know you may not believe this but some fire lectures say our buildings are to safe and are over designed.

Then there is this whole issue of proper detailing of partitions and all these odd joints and what have you that may never be officially inspected.
Only for someone not to replace the batteries in the fire alarm or unplug it because the builder installed it to close to the kitchen.

Is it faster to escape from an apartment with 3 doors or 2 doors?
missarchi
Old Master
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 7:53 pm

Re: Non-Enforcement and Part B?

Postby mulp » Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:01 am

Guys, I do think the 'regulations' are all there.
Everything is covered, and the designer will have demonstrated compliance by following the recommendations of our Part B TGD and B.S. 5588 Part 1 (Residential Buildings).

Also have a look at the revised U.K. Part B:
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/england/professionals/en/4000000000084.html

While it is correct that Technical Guidance Documents are Guidance, and that the designer can demonstrate alternative methods, Items such as openings for escape or rescue from rooms at first & second floors are a requirement.

My fire consultant noted that whenever a house fire is reported in the media where the occupants survive, they either escape, or are rescued through the windows in the majority of cases.

So my main thesis is that the breath and depth of our written regulations are fine.
Some designers may feel encumbered by these requirements diluting their design concept, as some obviously still have difficulty incorporating measures for accessibility.
But we need to get over that and design within practical parameters, which are there for very good reason.
A few years ago in Oporto I climbed the bell tower in Siza's Santa Maria Church in Marco de Canavezes. The lack of any handrail was a head wreck. The public space outside had an unprotected drop to a paved surface nearly a floor below. It all looked stunning. Maybe children don't run around over there?
I don't think sensible practical restraints in our regs. do/should detract from the design integrity of our work.

Last year our practice designed a scheme of four dwellings within one L-shaped building as part of an existing farmyard. A fire cert. was required, but at planning stage the fire officer came back with a request for further information on a number of items, which would have had a significant impact on the design.
Our client would have been entitled to think that we had failed to address these issues.
We got our fire consultant involved and he illustrated to the fire officer how he had 'misinterpreted' the guidance on all points, by reference to Part B and B.S. 5588.

So the problem, as I see it, relates to the standard of enforcement of our regulations: either with too much zeal (as above) or, as in my first example, where the main intent of the safety of occupants is seemingly of lesser importance than the cost & inconvenience of replacing a few defective windows.
mulp
Member
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 12:16 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Non-Enforcement and Part B?

Postby cmfoley21 » Thu Mar 05, 2009 7:57 pm

TGD Part B 2006 should only really be used as a reference. The regulations regarding Fire Safety are the British Standards, namely for fire it would be BS 5588. Although lately BS 5588 has now been superseded (except for Part 1 Residential) by a brand new Standard DD 9999.

i carry out fire certificate applications on a regular basis and find this standard has all the clauses and codes needed to satisfy the Fire Departments
cmfoley21
Member
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 7:18 pm

Re: Non-Enforcement and Part B?

Postby parka » Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:01 am

cmfoley21 wrote:TGD Part B 2006 should only really be used as a reference. The regulations regarding Fire Safety are the British Standards, namely for fire it would be BS 5588. Although lately BS 5588 has now been superseded (except for Part 1 Residential) by a brand new Standard DD 9999.

i carry out fire certificate applications on a regular basis and find this standard has all the clauses and codes needed to satisfy the Fire Departments



I then ask the question what is the point of having a TGD Part B, if we have rely on a Standard from another country? Surely by now there should be an Irish Standard equivalent to the BS.
parka
Member
 
Posts: 150
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 10:10 pm

Re: Non-Enforcement and Part B?

Postby missarchi » Sun Mar 29, 2009 5:12 am

what do you think of these nice apartments???
Attachments
firecert.jpg
firecert.jpg (48.41 KiB) Viewed 3233 times
missarchi
Old Master
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 7:53 pm

Re: Non-Enforcement and Part B?

Postby mulp » Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:22 pm

Dun Laoghaire Rathdown are currently considering permission for 2 new houses for which the submitted drawings clearly show the absence of windows for escape or rescue on upper floors (proposals are for three-storey houses):
Planning Application Reference:D09A/0110

I think I will bring this to their attention (planners and building control). It will be interesting to see if it is dealt with in a similar manner to the previous case.

http://planning.dlrcoco.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=D09A/0110&theTabNo=3&backURL=%3Ca%20href=wphappcriteria.display?paSearchKey=498443%3ESearch%20Criteria%3C/a%3E%20%3E%20%3Ca%20href='wphappsearchres.displayResultsURL?ResultID=499776%26StartIndex=1%26SortOrder=rgndat:desc%26DispResultsAs=WPHAPPSEARCHRES%26BackURL=%3Ca%20href=wphappcriteria.display?paSearchKey=498443%3ESearch%20Criteria%3C/a%3E'%3ESearch%20Results%3C/a%3E
Attachments
60003T7A.jpg
60003T7A.jpg (32.73 KiB) Viewed 3213 times
mulp
Member
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 12:16 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Non-Enforcement and Part B?

Postby henno » Mon Apr 20, 2009 9:12 am

mulp wrote:Dun Laoghaire Rathdown are currently considering permission for 2 new houses for which the submitted drawings clearly show the absence of windows for escape or rescue on upper floors (proposals are for three-storey houses):
Planning Application Reference:D09A/0110

I think I will bring this to their attention (planners and building control). It will be interesting to see if it is dealt with in a similar manner to the previous case.

http://planning.dlrcoco.ie/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=D09A/0110&theTabNo=3&backURL=%3Ca%20href=wphappcriteria.display?paSearchKey=498443%3ESearch%20Criteria%3C/a%3E%20%3E%20%3Ca%20href='wphappsearchres.displayResultsURL?ResultID=499776%26StartIndex=1%26SortOrder=rgndat:desc%26DispResultsAs=WPHAPPSEARCHRES%26BackURL=%3Ca%20href=wphappcriteria.display?paSearchKey=498443%3ESearch%20Criteria%3C/a%3E'%3ESearch%20Results%3C/a%3E



you may find the planners will say that compliance with building regs is not under the remit of the planning section... and building control will say that they cannot comment on a building not yet under construction....
henno
Senior Member
 
Posts: 540
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 12:07 pm

Re: Non-Enforcement and Part B?

Postby missarchi » Thu Apr 30, 2009 3:15 pm

at last some one says something!

Irish fire regulations, which prohibit means of fire escape from a bedroom past a kitchen or living room, also took their toll. “The regulations exert a terribly negative control over homecoming,” says Tuomey. “It’s all backwards. You arrive in a dark corridor. Contrast that with the apartments we all know from Frasier or Friends, where they walk in, throw their keys on the table and announce they’re home. There’s got to be a better solution.”
missarchi
Old Master
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 7:53 pm

Next

Return to Ireland