Loft conversion and certified double-leaf firedoors?

[Milligan]

Hi,

We will be starting work on a loft extension in the NY.
A condition is to fit FD30 rate doors for all habitables coming off the stairwell. This is all sensible and fine.

The trouble is I have a non-standard width double door coming off the dining room into the hall.
I have found some Deanta doors that can be (safely) trimmed to fit and the initial plan was to have a pair of doors fitted with intumescent strips on hanging, top and meeting edges and the appropriate hinges.

When I contacted BC to inform of this they asked for fire certs, trouble is the manufacturer only have certs for single-leaf or 1.5-leaf. This seems pretty standard with none of the main manufacturers providing double door certification.

I can't be the only person to have come up against this so how does everyone else get signed off?

Thanks in advance,

Will

 

[Nakajo]

They put in a single door, and swap it post sign-off. They also put in a mains interlinked smoke alarm, and possibly a smoke vent

 

[Milligan]

but the double door way is already there...

 

[tony1851]

deleted

 

[tony1851]

They put in a single door, and swap it post sign-off.

........and thereby invalidate their house insurance.

@op; your BCO is being unduly restrictive, just copying the guidance in the A.D. Fire safety is down to risk, and reducing that risk to an acceptable level. One (private) inspector I use allows (non-fire resistant) doors to remain around the escape route, provided each landing and hallway, and every habitable room, is fitted with interlinked alarms.

 

[wessex101]

Companies that manufacture commercial doorsets have certified fire rated double doorsets but whether they have a pattern that you would be happy with in your home is another matter. I've seen some in common areas of new build flats that aren't too bad.

Some BCO's will accept certified door leafs hung as a double in a hardwood lining with the necessary seals and ironmongery but the meeting stile can be a weak point on double doors. As can the added pressure on double doors to try and push/pull them open in a fire so you often need bolts on the passive leaf or strong closers.

Technically they are only required to be FD20 which no one tests too anymore as it is such a low spec but from memory it is basically a FD30 without the intumescent seals.

 

[Milligan]

........and thereby invalidate their house insurance.

@op; your BCO is being unduly restrictive, just copying the guidance in the A.D. Fire safety is down to risk, and reducing that risk to an acceptable level. One (private) inspector I use allows (non-fire resistant) doors to remain around the escape route, provided each landing and hallway, and every habitable room, is fitted with interlinked alarms.

Thanks, that is helpful guidance.
I did note that I've got a trainee building control chap, seems helpful but I wonder if I'm paying for his education...

 

[Milligan]

Thanks Wessex; you're right, there are commercial makers but not ones I'm happy with, nor are they readily available in the width - 1180mm.
I'll have a read through the AD and have a discussion with BC people. Hopefully we'll arrive at a position.

 

[^woody^]

........and thereby invalidate their house insurance.

@op; your BCO is being unduly restrictive, just copying the guidance in the A.D. Fire safety is down to risk, and reducing that risk to an acceptable level. One (private) inspector I use allows (non-fire resistant) doors to remain around the escape route, provided each landing and hallway, and every habitable room, is fitted with interlinked alarms.

Yes that is always a possibility, but its not just a case of one or the other, rather it is risk based - so other factors are (should be) taken into account in determining the appropriate solution.

 

[^woody^]

but the double door way is already there...

The risk will be altered and so it may well be that the existing arrange ment is no longer suitable.

What you could do is argue on a risk basis that the doors are adequate. If you can't do this informally yourself, then someone could prepare a brief risk assessment to justify keeping the doors. Or you could get a similar thing from a certified fire door assessor www.fdis.co.uk/inspector . Although the potential problem with these is that whoever does the report will be liable for its contents, so may not be willing to deviate from the standard "fit fire doors everywhere" which crops up all too frequently.

 

[endecotp]

What you could do is argue on a risk basis that the doors are adequate.

I guess you could say: the places that need maximum protection are (a) upstairs bedrooms to protect the occupants from fire, and (b) potential sources of fire downstairs (i.e. the kitchen), to keep the fire out of the stairs. The dining room, where you have this double door, needs less protection.

 

[Nakajo]

Really, the primary concern is to protect people from smoke.

 

[^woody^]

Really, the primary concern is to protect people from smoke.

Not really considering that the requirement for FD20 doors does not include cold smoke seals.

However early detection of smoke may be an alternative to aid occupants getting out past the OP's non- fire doors before a fire takes hold.

 

[Milligan]

The risk will be altered and so it may well be that the existing arrange ment is no longer suitable.

What you could do is argue on a risk basis that the doors are adequate. If you can't do this informally yourself, then someone could prepare a brief risk assessment to justify keeping the doors. Or you could get a similar thing from a certified fire door assessor www.fdis.co.uk/inspector . Although the potential problem with these is that whoever does the report will be liable for its contents, so may not be willing to deviate from the standard "fit fire doors everywhere" which crops up all too frequently.

Thanks, I have no issue changing the doors but removing the doorway or restricting it to a single really seems restrictive...
I just can't believe this issue is so rare that there isn't a readily replicable solution.

 

[^woody^]

Thanks, I have no issue changing the doors but removing the doorway or restricting it to a single really seems restrictive...
I just can't believe this issue is so rare that there isn't a readily replicable solution.

It's not rare, but common.

Thats when risk assessments come in to it and so what may work on one property may not work on another - because the assessor and the inspector may judge the risk (and the solution) differently.