Fire certs

no, there are no exemptions.

and not only will the extension have to meet the fire regs, but you will have to show that the existing fire escape and protection measures of the existing building are not contravened due to this new extension.

What is the present use of this old schoolhouse ?

When your 20 sq m extension is complete, what will be the use of the building then ?

@teak wrote:

What is the present use of this old schoolhouse ?

When your 20 sq m extension is complete, what will be the use of the building then ?

No sorry, its currently a school & is remaining a school. Im just worried that the very small budget we have obtained to build a staff & disabled toilet wont be a runner due to additional fees for fire cert application & also depending on extent of any alterations to existing building that it may require. Engineers fees it seems will amount to a rather large percentage of the overall cost.
Now obviously the Engineer will look after all this but are there likely to be many alteration required to the existing building. Its an early 60s building & wouldnt have had much thought given to fire detailing. The new extension is just a new door from existing corridor accessing new staff & wheelchair toilet

A Fire Safety Cert is required if the works constitute a material alteration affecting Part A or B of the building regulations.
That seems to suggest that something that didn’t affect both regulations might be exempt.
Increasing the area increases the occupancy and this will materially affect Part B.

Read this for an outline of the considerations:

http://www.dublincity.ie/WATERWASTEENVIRONMENT/DUBLINFIREBRIGADE/FIREPREVENTION/Pages/BuildingControlFireSafetyCertificatesFAQ.aspx

ONQ.

Don’t forget your DAC!
It kicks in with the Fire Cert.
Expensive and time consuming…

@Bob Dole wrote:

Don’t forget your DAC!
It kicks in with the Fire Cert.
Expensive and time consuming…

Ive been told we are exempt from local authority fees. At least thats a help.

@Jimjim wrote:

…………additional fees for fire cert application & also depending on extent of any alterations to existing building that it may require. Engineers fees it seems will amount to a rather large percentage of the overall cost.
Now obviously the Engineer will look after all this but are there likely to be many alteration required to the existing building. …….

Rule No. 1.
To get work and get paid in this country for providing architectural services, call yourself an “Engineer”.

@Jimjim wrote:

(snip) Its an early 60s building & wouldnt have had much thought given to fire detailing. The new extension is just a new door from existing corridor accessing new staff & wheelchair toilet

You might be surprised at the level of fire safety your building might already have.

The Fire Services Act 1981 came in after the Stardust disaster and some fire officers were quite diligent in inspecting public buildings afterwards. The Health Safety and Welfare at Work Act 1989 came in shortly after that and this might have encouraged the authorities to upgrade the building.

Signs of these upgrades might include the provision of self-closing fire doors with tight tolerances along corridors and at fire stairs as well as new(ish) Fire Detection and Alarm systems.

ONQ.

I’d say that a Fire Certificate is obligatory as you are making a material alteration to a building used as a place of assembly (school).

Has the engineer in question been formally engaged yet ?
If not, then please refrain from engaging him.
Because this is a school improvement – funded by a very smal budget, maybe funded by the school itself – then there is no justification for anyone to charge normal-sized fees for such a small 220 sq ft extension.
There must be some engineer/arch/arch tech in the parish who will see the necessity for doing this job “on the house”.

@teak wrote:

I’d say that a Fire Certificate is obligatory as you are making a material alteration to a building used as a place of assembly (school).

Has the engineer in question been formally engaged yet ?
If not, then please refrain from engaging him.
Because this is a school improvement – funded by a very smal budget, maybe funded by the school itself – then there is no justification for anyone to charge normal-sized fees for such a small 220 sq ft extension.
There must be some engineer/arch/arch tech in the parish who will see the necessity for doing this job “on the house”.

Are you serious about somoeone doing this on the house. They would laught at us. There is a planning application & a fire cert to be obtained as far as I can work out. There is also quite alot of health & safety documentation etc to be sorted. Engineer must also hold professional insurance.

@onq wrote:

You might be surprised at the level of fire safety your building might already have.

The Fire Services Act 1981 came in after the Stardust disaster and some fire officers were quite diligent in inspecting public buildings afterwards. The Health Safety and Welfare at Work Act 1989 came in shortly after that and this might have encouraged the authorities to upgrade the building.

Signs of these upgrades might include the provision of self-closing fire doors with tight tolerances along corridors and at fire stairs as well as new(ish) Fire Detection and Alarm systems.

ONQ.

Well no. Its one long open hall about 5 foot wide with external door at either end. No fire doors (all internal doors are original). No alarm or Fire detection currently. Its a single storey building. I guess its pretty small & wouldnt require a huge amount of stuff as it does seem pretty safe with class rooms opening onto the one hall with a door at each end.

Ok,
The exit doors at each end of the Hall don’t need to be upgraded because final exit doors are not required to to be fire doors.
Notwithstanding the extension, you should have a fire detection system already in place for a place of assembly such as a school. How did you get insurance with no fire detection? That’s asking for trouble.

Is it too much to ask that if someone requires architectural services like planning applications and fire cert applications that they hire an architect?

Are you serious about somoeone doing this on the house ? They would laught at us.

I’m deadly serious.

Sure, there are a lot of forms to be filled in.
But it’s just 20 sq m, goddammit.
And an professional already has the PI insurance anyway.
You must already be getting “very keen” (a building trade euphamism for work at cost) quotes for the actual building work from local tradesmen. No moaning about insurance from them.
Christ, when is someone going to tell these old bulls behind brassplates where to get off.

Is it their mock-offended refusal that bothers you ?
Shame on you for not trying.

this is very simple

1. take all references to the name and location of the project off your drawings

2. Arrange a meeting with your local building control and fire officers.

3. Ask them “do I need a fire cert?”

4. If “yes”, do one. if “no”, don’t

you’d have known by now

@Tayto wrote:

Ok,
The exit doors at each end of the Hall don’t need to be upgraded because final exit doors are not required to to be fire doors.
Notwithstanding the extension, you should have a fire detection system already in place for a place of assembly such as a school. How did you get insurance with no fire detection? That’s asking for trouble.

Is it too much to ask that if someone requires architectural services like planning applications and fire cert applications that they hire an architect?

Sorry there is a basic fire system. Only remembered from our drill last year. Im newish to the school & have been given the task of sorting this little project.

In relation to hiring an architect, we have got many quotes. Most architects were in the region of €2500 for fire cert(additional for access cert), €2000 for planning & between 1000 & 4000 for other works relating to certification & further design etc.

Engineers have come in much cheaper – about 4000 approx complete

In relation to hiring an architect, we have got many quotes. Most architects were in the region of €2500 for fire cert(additional for access cert), €2000 for planning & between 1000 & 4000 for other works relating to certification & further design etc.

Engineers have come in much cheaper – about 4000 approx complete.

Now I see why you went to an engineer.

I wonder if some of the architects contributing to this thread would care to comment the fees above.
And their professional indemnity components.
In view of it being a 20 sq m extension, particularly.

@Jimjim wrote:

No sorry, its currently a school & is remaining a school. Im just worried that the very small budget we have obtained to build a staff & disabled toilet wont be a runner due to additional fees for fire cert application & also depending on extent of any alterations to existing building that it may require. Engineers fees it seems will amount to a rather large percentage of the overall cost.
Now obviously the Engineer will look after all this but are there likely to be many alteration required to the existing building. Its an early 60s building & wouldnt have had much thought given to fire detailing. The new extension is just a new door from existing corridor accessing new staff & wheelchair toilet

im confused…..

the proper procedure is for you to tell your agent (be they architect / engineer whatever) what you require and what your budget is.

Your agent should inform you off all legal requirements to be meet, including planning, fire safety, disability access, health and safety etc. Your agent should inform you of fees required to bring the project to site, in order for you to confidently work out building budget.

there should be no “additional fees”….!!!!

was this done for you??

assuming the 20 sq m would costs in the region of €25,000 to finish…. the architect quotations are offensive. maybe sweary mary was correct and some architects have not yet felt the “ill wind”….. :rolleyes:

I’m beginning to think this thread is a wind-up. Any school I know would have had it built and be well into the shoulder shrugging stage by now

@teak wrote:

In relation to hiring an architect, we have got many quotes. Most architects were in the region of €2500 for fire cert(additional for access cert), €2000 for planning & between 1000 & 4000 for other works relating to certification & further design etc.

Engineers have come in much cheaper – about 4000 approx complete.

Now I see why you went to an engineer.

I wonder if some of the architects contributing to this thread would care to comment the fees above.
And their professional indemnity components.
In view of it being a 20 sq m extension, particularly.

Ah……… here we go again……

20m2 for a staff toilet and disabled toilet for a small one-corridor schoolhouse?
That’s one big mother of a toilet facility. Now I see why you went to an engineer.

An acceptable size for a disabled cubicle as described in Part M of the building regulations is 2mx1.5m = 3m2. For a small school like you describe, a similar sized cubicle for staff would be sufficient. Add another 1.5m for a vent lobby and that adds up to 7.5m2.
That could probably be built for say, 10.5k euro, or nearly 1/3 of your current budget if your budget is based on a floor area of 20m2.

An architect could have told you that, but I agree with you, Teak & Henno that architects are offensively expensive, especially the unemployed ones.:rolleyes:

@Tayto wrote:

……

An architect could have told you that, but I agree with you, Teak & Henno that architects are offensively expensive, especially the unemployed ones.

ok charity boys

before we take this any further – what, in your pro bono little minds, would be an acceptable salary for a fully qualified MRIAI self employed architect with 20 years experience – in a given financial year?

@wearnicehats wrote:

ok charity boys

before we take this any further – what, in your pro bono little minds, would be an acceptable salary for a fully qualified MRIAI self employed architect with 20 years experience – in a given financial year?

I’ve edited my previous post to indicate the intended sarcasm.
From past posts I have read, I am of the opinion that Teak has a general contempt for architects. If you have energy to waste in engaging in argument then off you go.

What would be an acceptable salary? For someone to do an ‘ol drawin’ an’ fill out a few forms an’ dat?
Given current employment rates, economic conditions, state of public finances, etc. blah blah blah, how about…….”Any”?.:rolleyes:

WNH and tayto….

20m2 school extension should cost no more than €25k in todays economy. Yes, that is actually realistic pricing outside the M50..!!!

so based on what jimjim has posted architects quoted between €5,500 and €8,500.

what in gods name are they doing quoting figures of these percentages (22 – 34%) for toilet extensions???…. if theyre trying to cover high PI premiums id question why they are high !!?!

Jimjim, what is the proposed construction cost of the build???

@Tayto wrote:

Given current employment rates, economic conditions, state of public finances, etc. blah blah blah, how about…….”Any”?.:rolleyes:

and how does that statement marry with what jimjim has posted about quotations??

@henno wrote:

WNH and tayto….

……so based on what jimjim has posted architects quoted between €5,500 and €8,500.

what in gods name are they doing quoting figures of these percentages (22 – 34%) for toilet extensions???…. if theyre trying to cover high PI premiums id question why they are high !!?!

Jimjim, what is the proposed construction cost of the build???

JimJim is the Project Manager.

Having posted an inquiry regarding fire certification on Archiseek (that’s “Archi” and “Seek”) and having received free advice from some architects, the Project Manager then revealed that he had “forgotten” that there was an existing fire detection system in the school.

The PM has selected a tender from an engineer who is unable to advise on fire issues and who has quoted a fee for provision of all services.

The proposed area (20m2) is also nearly 3 times too big than the proposed use merits (7.5m2).

Any architect could have provided this information for free at an initial meeting if the PM had any intention of engaging one.

If the PM had accurately described the project he would have received accurate quotes.

I don’t think the PM accurately described the project to any architect and did not receive any accurate quote from an architect.

Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that, with probably 60% of architects unemployed and many others on 3-day- weeks, that a client could do no better than get a fee quote for 20% of construction costs?

I don’t think the PM has done his homework and the School Principal will not be pleased.

Perhaps the proposed large size of this particular sanitary facility is to cater for the particularly large amount of waste matter emanating from this thread.

@Tayto wrote:

If the PM had accurately described the project he would have received accurate quotes.
.

why do you think there was any difference in the brief given to the architects and the engineer??

on your figures…

figure 16 on page 59 of the irish wheel chair association access guideline shows the suggested size of a wheelchair accessible WC.

It sizes out at 4.5 sq m, not 3 as you state. Maybe the engineer knows where to go for best design standards and not just minimums like you have stated??

assuming two wc cubicles and a wash area in the staff toilet it would be a safe estimate to design a room of approximately 8 sq m (2 wc cubicles, 2 wash sinks, hand dryers)

now assuming the corridor is 1.2 m (which it should be) that allows only 6.25 m length for the corridor, and allowing for the final exit at the end… easily made up of the widths of the staff and disabled wcs.

you figures, like your argument, dont stand up.

@Tayto wrote:

Ok,
The exit doors at each end of the Hall don’t need to be upgraded because final exit doors are not required to to be fire doors.
(snip)

While they may not function as internal fire doors, they have in some respects a more onerous function as Final Exit Doors.
There is a balance to be struck in all buildings between security and safety, and the Final Exit Door is where this balance is most crucial.
Locks cannot be put on final exit doors.
That is to say, the door cannot be capable of being permantly locked in a manner would would impede the exit of the design population.

While the building is in use the doors must be unlocked.
However the door cannot be capable of being opened from outside.
For places of assembly or institutions where a lot of people could be arriving at the door at once, the opening mechanism has to be simple and effective.
This usualy led to the development of a press-bar type door operation.

Locks on such doors are problematical and there are not easy solutions particularly in areas where there is a high incidendence of vandalism.
One workaround is a padlock and chain to prevent full opening during lockup hours that can be removed totally from the door during opening hours.
Another workaround is an external padlock and receiver that must be opened according to a fire protocol when the building is in use.

The threshold for the door used as the access door cannot exceed 15mm and requires a ramped approach.
Both doors must afford egress to wheelchair operating disabled persons or else provide a place of safety in which they can wait until rescue can be organized.
So, with respect Tayto, in terms of FInal Exit Doors, not only the doors themselves for use as final exits, but also the surfaces and approaches to them need to be in compliance and a place of safety installed if not.

ONQ.

@henno wrote:

why do you think there was any difference in the brief given to the architects and the engineer??

on your figures…

figure 16 on page 59 of the irish wheel chair association access guideline shows the suggested size of a wheelchair accessible WC.

It sizes out at 4.5 sq m, not 3 as you state. Maybe the engineer knows where to go for best design standards and not just minimums like you have stated??

assuming two wc cubicles and a wash area in the staff toilet it would be a safe estimate to design a room of approximately 8 sq m (2 wc cubicles, 2 wash sinks, hand dryers)

now assuming the corridor is 1.2 m (which it should be) that allows only 6.25 m length for the corridor, and allowing for the final exit at the end… easily made up of the widths of the staff and disabled wcs.

you figures, like your argument, dont stand up.

Oh God, ok let’s nitpick.

1. Well well well. Look who hasn’t done their homework. The relevant recommended guidelines of the Department of Education and Science are those of the NDA. This is described in TGD-020, General Design Guidelines for Schools.
2. The wheelchair toilet requires a shower (oops). Oh- you’ve called it up as a “wheelchair accessible wc”. Not quite tchnically correct I’m afraid. You lose marks there. This toilet (or “universal access sanitary suite”) will therefore be 4.5m2 approx.
3. 2 cubicles 2 whbs and hand-dryers for a small school, single corridor. Ok – let’s go with that then. That’s easily accommodated in 6.5m2 approx, nevermind 8m2. Sure why didn’t you say 15m2 while you’re at it?
4. As the toilets open over a presumably vented corridor then no vented lobby is required. (You can always add one in tho’ if you like).
5. Total area 11m2., just over 1/2 the proposed area.

(Nit pick/point score on an imaginary design:-
So, you’ve quoted the wrong standards, oversized the design and if accepted, would have committed a small school with limited budget to excessive expenditure. Stick with the day job).

@henno wrote:

……now assuming the corridor is 1.2 m (which it should be) that allows only 6.25 m length for the corridor, and allowing for the final exit at the end… easily made up of the widths of the staff and disabled wcs.

you figures, like your argument, dont stand up.

Forgive me, but I have absolutely no idea what you’re trying to say here with this statement. (Edit- Ah, I see now. You’re assuming there’s a central corridor with rooms either side. A consequent extension to one end requires that the corridor be extended as well. That’s a serious amount of assumptions to make in order to nit pick and point score. Why? Why did you bother? Is is completely beyond you to consider the central point of my posts?
In relation to this imaginary school, did you even consider a plan where there is a single-sided corridor, classrooms on one side, and external wall on the other, with the extension built off the external wall, ie. no corridor extension required?).

And yes, given the wildly varying quotes and complete absence of any reasonable architect’s quote, I doubt if there was an accurate project description sent out for tender. That’s just a guess. I may, of course, be wrong.

The point I’m making is I find it very hard to believe in the received quotes, as described, for the project, as described, given current conditions in the profession.

I understand from experience of this website that to argue otherwise is pointless.
You are right. I’m wrong.

Generally architects are overpriced and overcharging and this “case” proves it. :rolleyes:

@onq wrote:

While they may not function as internal fire doors, they have in some respects a more onerous function as Final Exit Doors.
There is a balance to be struck in all buildings between security and safety, and the Final Exit Door is where this balance is most crucial.
Locks cannot be put on final exit doors.
That is to say, the door cannot be capable of being permantly locked in a manner would would impede the exit of the design population.

While the building is in use the doors must be unlocked.
However the door cannot be capable of being opened from outside.
For places of assembly or institutions where a lot of people could be arriving at the door at once, the opening mechanism has to be simple and effective.
This usualy led to the development of a press-bar type door operation.

Locks on such doors are problematical and there are not easy solutions particularly in areas where there is a high incidendence of vandalism.
One workaround is a padlock and chain to prevent full opening during lockup hours that can be removed totally from the door during opening hours.
Another workaround is an external padlock and receiver that must be opened according to a fire protocol when the building is in use.

The threshold for the door used as the access door cannot exceed 15mm and requires a ramped approach.
Both doors must afford egress to wheelchair operating disabled persons or else provide a place of safety in which they can wait until rescue can be organized.
So, with respect Tayto, in terms of FInal Exit Doors, not only the doors themselves for use as final exits, but also the surfaces and approaches to them need to be in compliance and a place of safety installed if not.

ONQ.

Jaysus, this place is Nitpicker Central today. Or is it Point-Scorers Anonymous?

That’s a lovely sounding extract from some Fire Consultant undergraduate lecture series. But eh, what has it got to do with my comment?

The school in question, apparently is functioning, apparently has a fire detection system in place, is run under the authority of the Minister for Education and the Department of Education and Science and is apparently insured.

Would the Department and Minister expose themselves to a Stardust-type inquiry following a fire or legal action by not having compliant fire escapes? Granted, not knowing all the facts, I assumed not.

Perhaps somone who knows will tell us of the current level of inspection and enforcment of fire regulations in our schools.

The school may or may not need to be completely upgraded in order to comply with regulations. By pulling me up on this point, you are indicating that you know. Eh…”With respect” ONQ, how do you know?

My comment was based on assumptions, but I may be wrong. I will henceforth amend the post to include the words “may not“. ie. “may not need to be upgraded”, in acknowledgement that it is based upon the aforementioned assumptions.

Details apart, it seems that JimJim has either disappeared after winding us all up — or else he’s gone out seriously looking for better action for his money.
Maybe he will find someone who’ll go a bit easy as it’s where that arch/arch tech ‘s own kids go to school.

I don’t know what a fire cert costs.
I made efforts to elicit eng/arch PI insurance charges yesterday from someone in UK but they were giving up no secrets — just said it related to things like complexity, service fees applied, professional’s experience, overall turnover p.a., etc.
But on the cost of design, planning & builder’s drawings for a properly qualified person in private practice, is it not supposed to be ~ 10% of the project cost ?
Could this place not be built for €100 a sq ft ?
=> €21,500 for the builder.
=> ~ €2,500 for design, planning + builder’s progress drawings.

Add on € x for the PI insurance & € y for the Fire Cert.

Wearnicehats:

An MRIAI self-employed ltd co, 20 years exp, 1 wife/husband (small job or housebound), 2 children, mortgage = €1, 200 p.m. with 10 years left on it, 1 1.6L car + one 1.2L car, family VHI, Life Insurances = €100 p.m., Pensions for MRIAI + partner ex practice turnover = €600 p.m., small rented office uptown = € 1,000 p.m., no office employees (at present), lease payments on office equipment = € 200 p.m., usual professional dev outgoings, usual spec budget for attracting customers, Unkown PI insurance, etc.
Some of the above can be squeezed up, e.g. the cars running expenses at CS rate.

I’d put it all at about a practice income of at least €100,000.
So allowing for holidays, you’d be aiming at €3,000 a week.
I know that creative time, e.g. designing, cannot be seen on an hourly rate.
But more routine stuff , going through a procedure well-coursed before, is more consistent.
So say €80 an hour for more routine stuff. €150 an hour for design work. + VAT.

Now, is the design input to the school extension going to be more than 5-10 hours ?
The rest on planning mostly.
Generation of progress drawings in this case not too much.

What do you think ?
In the present climate, could you get by in MRIAI’s shoes ?

Yes- It’s exempt from a Fire Cert app as it’s under 25 sq.m in accordance with Building Control Regs Article 11.

@Meow wrote:

Yes- It’s exempt from a Fire Cert app as it’s under 25 sq.m in accordance with Building Control Regs Article 11.

so if I built an extension that blocked off the only fire exit from a building then it’d be cool if it is under 25sqm? you cannot make a sweeping statement like that when it comes to Part B

It’s exempt from a Fire Cert, as I said. It’s not a sweeping statement. It’s a fact. As written in the Building Control Regulations.

You still have to comply with ALL the building regulations, not just Fire Safety regulations, but all of them.

You are correct to say that you can’t block up a Fire Exit if it’s needed to comply with the building regulations, but this doesn’t change the fact that it’s exempt from a Fire Cert.

@Meow wrote:

It’s exempt from a Fire Cert, as I said. It’s not a sweeping statement. It’s a fact. As written in the Building Control Regulations.

You still have to comply with ALL the building regulations, not just Fire Safety regulations, but all of them.

You are correct to say that you can’t block up a Fire Exit if it’s needed to comply with the building regulations, but this doesn’t change the fact that it’s exempt from a Fire Cert.

would you mind posting a link to that exemption for everyone’s info please

Which developments require a Fire Safety Certificate?

The following developments (other than those listed as exempt below) require a Fire Safety Certificate;

*
Works in connection with the design and construction of a new building
*
Works in connection with the material alteration of:
1. A day centre
2. A building containing a flat
3. A hotel, hostel or guest building
4. An institutional building
5. A place of assembly
6. A shopping centre
* Works in connection with the material alteration of a shop, office or industrial building where additional floor area is being provided within the existing building or where the building is being sub divided into a number of units for separate occupancy.
* Works in connection with the extension of a building by more than 25 square metres
* A building as regards which a material change of use takes place.

Which developments are exempted from the requirement of a Fire Safety Certificate?

The following buildings are exempted from the requirement to obtain a Fire Safety Certificate:

* Certain single storey agricultural buildings.
* A building used as a dwelling other than a flat.
* A single storey domestic garage.
* A single storey building ancillary to a dwelling which is used exclusively for recreational or storage purposes or the keeping of plants, birds or animals for domestic purposes and is not used for any trade or business or for human habitation.
* Works by a Building Control Authority in it’s functional area.
* Works in connection with a Garda station, a courthouse, a barracks and certain government buildings.

It’s clear from Jimjim’s post that it’s to be used as part of the school building – a “place of assembly”.
That alone would make it necessary to get it fire-certed, surely.

@teak wrote:

Which developments require a Fire Safety Certificate?

The following developments (other than those listed as exempt below) require a Fire Safety Certificate;

*
Works in connection with the design and construction of a new building
*
Works in connection with the material alteration of:
1. A day centre
2. A building containing a flat
3. A hotel, hostel or guest building
4. An institutional building
5. A place of assembly
6. A shopping centre
* Works in connection with the material alteration of a shop, office or industrial building where additional floor area is being provided within the existing building or where the building is being sub divided into a number of units for separate occupancy.
* Works in connection with the extension of a building by more than 25 square metres
* A building as regards which a material change of use takes place.

Which developments are exempted from the requirement of a Fire Safety Certificate?

The following buildings are exempted from the requirement to obtain a Fire Safety Certificate:

* Certain single storey agricultural buildings.
* A building used as a dwelling other than a flat.
* A single storey domestic garage.
* A single storey building ancillary to a dwelling which is used exclusively for recreational or storage purposes or the keeping of plants, birds or animals for domestic purposes and is not used for any trade or business or for human habitation.
* Works by a Building Control Authority in it’s functional area.
* Works in connection with a Garda station, a courthouse, a barracks and certain government buildings.

It’s clear from Jimjim’s post that it’s to be used as part of the school building – a “place of assembly”.
That alone would make it necessary to get it fire-certed, surely.

not a material alteration though

@Meow wrote:

It’s exempt from a Fire Cert, as I said. It’s not a sweeping statement. It’s a fact. As written in the Building Control Regulations.

You still have to comply with ALL the building regulations, not just Fire Safety regulations, but all of them.

You are correct to say that you can’t block up a Fire Exit if it’s needed to comply with the building regulations, but this doesn’t change the fact that it’s exempt from a Fire Cert.

It’s not exempt. It’s not a fact. You’ve misinterpreted the building regulations.

@teak wrote:

The following developments (other than those listed as exempt below) require a Fire Safety Certificate;………………………………

* Works in connection with the material alteration of:
1. A day centre
2. A building containing a flat
3. A hotel, hostel or guest building
4. An institutional building
5. A place of assembly
6. A shopping centre

Therefore the proposed increase in floor area (material alteration) of the place of assembly (school) requires that this proposed school extension development must have, in compliance with the Planning Act and Building Regulations,

1. Planning Permission
2. A Commencement Notice
3. A Fire Certificate.

Your interpretation is incorrect. Otherwise every school could happily have a 25m2 classroom/office/store extension without having to go through the planning or fire certification process. That just doesn’t happen.
Guess why.

Forgot about this thread, sorry. Only signed in today with new question re building a little conservatory on my house in the coming months.
Anyway,
In relation to school works, we did go with the engineer. Fees in the end work out at 10% of build cost to include planning, design, final certification & the health & safety stuff with him being signed up as supervisor for design stage. Fire cert cost is extra & it was €1300. He was prepared to walk away instead of doing everything for the 10%. Seeing as he was significantly cheaper than everyone else, we thought it was fair in the end. I can see how on a major job, it might be easier to stick to 10% overall but as was pointed out by all the architects, this small job still required a full pllanning application & fire cert application.

Anyway, planners are preparing to grant permission Im told so all is going well with the engineer

Hehehe!

*butters slice of bread and heads to inspect school projects underway*