We've just had a detailed quote for some building work on our house, but
not had a chance yet to discuss it with the builder.

One puzzling thing is the mention of fire doors and door closers. The
builder seems to have quoted for door closers on nearly every door in
the house, including doors in areas where no work or changes are
required (for example, all the bedrooms).

He has also quoted for "changing doors to fire doors"; again this
applies to doors that we hadn't expected to be changed into anything.

Does anyone happen to know if all these closers and fire doors are
required by building regulations?

Thanks,

Daniele

In article ,
(D.M. Procida) writes:
We've just had a detailed quote for some building work on our house, but
not had a chance yet to discuss it with the builder.

One puzzling thing is the mention of fire doors and door closers. The
builder seems to have quoted for door closers on nearly every door in
the house, including doors in areas where no work or changes are
required (for example, all the bedrooms).

He has also quoted for "changing doors to fire doors"; again this
applies to doors that we hadn't expected to be changed into anything.

Does anyone happen to know if all these closers and fire doors are
required by building regulations?

They were if you were adding a third (or more) stories.
I have a recollection this changed in some way just recently,
but I can't recall what the change was.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

"D.M. Procida" wrote in
message
...
We've just had a detailed quote for some building work on our house, but
not had a chance yet to discuss it with the builder.

One puzzling thing is the mention of fire doors and door closers. The
builder seems to have quoted for door closers on nearly every door in
the house, including doors in areas where no work or changes are
required (for example, all the bedrooms).

He has also quoted for "changing doors to fire doors"; again this
applies to doors that we hadn't expected to be changed into anything.

Does anyone happen to know if all these closers and fire doors are
required by building regulations?

Thanks,

Daniele


Simple answer is YES. The builder knows the current regulations on fire
safety and prevention. If this is a loft conversion you are having, then
the regulations are now very strict, right across the whole of the UK and
Ireland.

But, one thing I will tell you to do is, make sure the barsteward does
exactly what he says he is going to do on his quote. If you have an
estimate, then make sure he discusses everything that he is going do to,
before he gets started on it. If you see any sort of missed bits that he
should have done, pull him up immediately on finding it, and get his
explanation on why it is missing. You don't have to be rude in doing this.
Something like, I see that you are getting to that bit now. What happens
there then? Is a lot better than getting upetty and pulling him up with a
stern face and tough voice.

But what he says about new fire break measures is correct. They have been
for a few years now, and have saved a good many lives in those few years.
So go with what he says.

Good luck with it all. And some photos' after it is finished, would be
nice. :-)

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
(D.M. Procida) writes:
We've just had a detailed quote for some building work on our house, but
not had a chance yet to discuss it with the builder.

One puzzling thing is the mention of fire doors and door closers. The
builder seems to have quoted for door closers on nearly every door in
the house, including doors in areas where no work or changes are
required (for example, all the bedrooms).

He has also quoted for "changing doors to fire doors"; again this
applies to doors that we hadn't expected to be changed into anything.

Does anyone happen to know if all these closers and fire doors are
required by building regulations?

They were if you were adding a third (or more) stories.
I have a recollection this changed in some way just recently,
but I can't recall what the change was.

It used to be fire doors on the habitable rooms in the new storey (self
closing) and the door to any room opening onto the escape route to be
made self closing.

This was revised IIRC to require fire doors for all doors mentioned
above, but the relaxation of the self closing requirement (presumably in
recognition that they almost always get taken off once building regs
approval has been granted!)

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

D.M. Procida wrote:
We've just had a detailed quote for some building work on our house, but
not had a chance yet to discuss it with the builder.
snip
Does anyone happen to know if all these closers and fire doors are
required by building regulations?

"Some building work" is a bit vague. If you were to let us know what
you're planning, we might be able to help you.

Builders, bless their little hearts, aren't always up to date with
changes to the Building Regulations. Speak to Building Control who, I
suspect, may need to be involved anyway.
--
Hugo Nebula
"If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this,
just how far from the pack have you strayed"?

On Nov 12, 12:11*am, "BigWallop"
wrote:
"D.M. Procida" wrote in
...



We've just had a detailed quote for some building work on our house, but
not had a chance yet to discuss it with the builder.

One puzzling thing is the mention of fire doors and door closers. The
builder seems to have quoted for door closers on nearly every door in
the house, including doors in areas where no work or changes are
required (for example, all the bedrooms).

He has also quoted for "changing doors to fire doors"; again this
applies to doors that we hadn't expected to be changed into anything.

Does anyone happen to know if all these closers and fire doors are
required by building regulations?

Thanks,

Daniele

Simple answer is YES. *

But only in certain circumstances. A better answer would be to ask the
OP for more details.

More details please, OP.

MBQ

Man at B&Q wrote:

We've just had a detailed quote for some building work on our house, but
not had a chance yet to discuss it with the builder.

One puzzling thing is the mention of fire doors and door closers. The
builder seems to have quoted for door closers on nearly every door in
the house, including doors in areas where no work or changes are
required (for example, all the bedrooms).

He has also quoted for "changing doors to fire doors"; again this
applies to doors that we hadn't expected to be changed into anything.

Does anyone happen to know if all these closers and fire doors are
required by building regulations?

More details please, OP.

This is a two-storey semi-detached house. We're having the loft
extended, and turned into a bedroom, a study and a small shower room.

Downstairs, various building works will be carried out (getting a wall
or two taken away, and an extension bult at the back for a utility room,
for example).

I can understand that if a door is fitted to the kitchen where there was
no door previously then building recommendations might mandate that a
fire door be used, but that existing doors might need changing is not
something I've heard of before.

Daniele

On 12 Nov, 17:05, (D.M.
Procida) wrote:

This is a two-storey semi-detached house. We're having the loft
extended, and turned into a bedroom, a study and a small shower room.

Downstairs, various building works will be carried out (getting a wall
or two taken away, and an extension bult at the back for a utility room,
for example).

I can understand that if a door is fitted to the kitchen where there was
no door previously then building recommendations might mandate that a
fire door be used, but that existing doors might need changing is not
something I've heard of before.

Daniele

What do you mean by "having the loft extended"? If the loft was not
previously a habitable room, or rooms (did it have a staircase?), then
it's a loft conversion, and current Building Regulations require a 30-
minute fire door to the new landing, and every door on the escape
corridor to the outside to be a 30-minute fire door. This means every
door that opens onto the landing(s) and the hall, on your way to the
front door. You no longer need automatic closers on any of these doors
- if your builder thinks you do, then he doesn't know the regs
properly.

The regs changed some time in 2006. Prior to that, you needed
automatic closers on all the doors mentioned above, which had to be 30-
minute fire doors. There was an alternative, whereby if you had
suitable escape windows in the loft, you didn't need fire doors to the
escape corridor, (apart from the new one at the top landing) but you
did need self-closers. That alternatrive option was removed in 2006,
so see first para above.

We had a loft conversion done in our last house after the regs had
changed, but as we had put the building notice in before they changed,
we used the alternative option.

On the other hand, if your loft already comprises habitable rooms, and
either it was built that way or it complies with the regs in force
when it was done, you might not need any of the above. Having said
that, I'm sure there are considerations that apply if one room opens
off another (possibly your bedroom and study). Someone else may know
about this.


Regards
Richard

geraldthehamster wrote:

If the loft was not previously a habitable room, or rooms (did it have a
staircase?), then it's a loft conversion

Yes, that's what it is.

and current Building Regulations require a 30- minute fire door to the new
landing, and every door on the escape corridor to the outside to be a
30-minute fire door. This means every door that opens onto the landing(s)
and the hall, on your way to the front door. You no longer need automatic
closers on any of these doors - if your builder thinks you do, then he
doesn't know the regs properly.

Rats. So we'll have to replace our existing bedroom doors then - the
only nice doors in the house!

Grumble grumble.

Thanks for the explanation.

Daniele

On 12 Nov, 18:41, (D.M.
Procida) wrote:

Rats. So we'll have to replace our existing bedroom doors then - the
only nice doors in the house!

Grumble grumble.

Thanks for the explanation.

It's a pain. However, provided he can do it without wrecking the
frames (some old frames aren't suitable for modern fire doors - too
thin), you could always keep the nice doors and accidentally put them
back after the job has been signed off. That's after you'ev incurred
the expense of fire doors in the first place, unfortunately.

Regards
Richard

geraldthehamster wrote:

On 12 Nov, 18:41, (D.M.
Procida) wrote:

Rats. So we'll have to replace our existing bedroom doors then - the
only nice doors in the house!

It's a pain. However, provided he can do it without wrecking the
frames (some old frames aren't suitable for modern fire doors - too
thin), you could always keep the nice doors and accidentally put them
back after the job has been signed off. That's after you'ev incurred
the expense of fire doors in the first place, unfortunately.

Won't this be likely to invalidate insurance policies?

Daniele

On 12 Nov, 22:13, (D.M.
Procida) wrote:

Won't this be likely to invalidate insurance policies?

Daniele

I suppose it might. Never seemed to stop everyone removing the self-
closers. The joiner who converted our loft had a box of them that he
took from job to job, and nobody ever paid for ;-)

Regards
Richard

D.M. Procida wrote:
geraldthehamster wrote:

It's a pain. However, provided he can do it without wrecking the
frames (some old frames aren't suitable for modern fire doors - too
thin), you could always keep the nice doors and accidentally put them
back after the job has been signed off. That's after you'ev incurred
the expense of fire doors in the first place, unfortunately.

Won't this be likely to invalidate insurance policies?

Peter Parry replied to a poster many years ago on petty rules for loft
conversions:

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....abff47b2a6ad0a
--
Hugo Nebula
"If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this,
just how far from the pack have you strayed"?

Hugo Nebula wrote:

Peter Parry replied to a poster many years ago on petty rules for loft
conversions:

Sorry; this one:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....0089b3fe5ba425
--
Hugo Nebula
"If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this,
just how far from the pack have you strayed"?

Hugo Nebula abuse@localhost wrote:

It's a pain. However, provided he can do it without wrecking the
frames (some old frames aren't suitable for modern fire doors - too
thin), you could always keep the nice doors and accidentally put them
back after the job has been signed off. That's after you'ev incurred
the expense of fire doors in the first place, unfortunately.

Won't this be likely to invalidate insurance policies?

Peter Parry replied to a poster many years ago on petty rules for loft
conversions:

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....abff47b2a6ad0a

OK, I read the thread. I'm going to ask for fire doors on the fire
doors.

I don't think I've ever been so frightened by the thought of a loft
conversion.

Daniele

"D.M. Procida" wrote in
message
...
Hugo Nebula abuse@localhost wrote:

It's a pain. However, provided he can do it without wrecking the
frames (some old frames aren't suitable for modern fire doors - too
thin), you could always keep the nice doors and accidentally put them
back after the job has been signed off. That's after you'ev incurred
the expense of fire doors in the first place, unfortunately.

Won't this be likely to invalidate insurance policies?

Peter Parry replied to a poster many years ago on petty rules for loft
conversions:

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....abff47b2a6ad0a

OK, I read the thread. I'm going to ask for fire doors on the fire
doors.

I don't think I've ever been so frightened by the thought of a loft
conversion.

Daniele


The regulation for fire break is there to make you stop being frightened.
Happy in the knowledge that anyone sleeping in the loft is not going to be
hurt in the case of an emergency. They are there to keep you safe at home,
so it's better to have them in place before the fact.

Once it's all finished, and you have all that new space to play in, you'll
be wondering what all the fuss was about. :-)

On 12 Nov, 23:30, (D.M.
Procida) wrote:
Hugo Nebula abuse@localhost wrote:
It's a pain. However, provided he can do it without wrecking the
frames (some old frames aren't suitable for modern fire doors - too
thin), you could always keep the nice doors and accidentally put them
back after the job has been signed off. That's after you'ev incurred
the expense of fire doors in the first place, unfortunately.

Won't this be likely to invalidate insurance policies?

Peter Parry replied to a poster many years ago on petty rules for loft
conversions:

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....abff47b2a6ad0a

OK, I read the thread. I'm going to ask for fire doors on the fire
doors.

I don't think I've ever been so frightened by the thought of a loft
conversion.

Daniele

Linked mains-powered smoke alarms are another requirement, that I
forgot to mention.

Regards
Richard

"geraldthehamster" wrote in message
...
On 12 Nov, 23:30, (D.M.
Procida) wrote:
Hugo Nebula abuse@localhost wrote:
It's a pain. However, provided he can do it without wrecking the
frames (some old frames aren't suitable for modern fire doors - too
thin), you could always keep the nice doors and accidentally put
them
back after the job has been signed off. That's after you'ev incurred
the expense of fire doors in the first place, unfortunately.

Won't this be likely to invalidate insurance policies?

Peter Parry replied to a poster many years ago on petty rules for loft
conversions:

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....abff47b2a6ad0a

OK, I read the thread. I'm going to ask for fire doors on the fire
doors.

I don't think I've ever been so frightened by the thought of a loft
conversion.

Daniele

Linked mains-powered smoke alarms are another requirement, that I
forgot to mention.


I built a loft conversion and muttered about all the bloody fire
regulations/escape requirements etc. Shortly after it was finished my 11
year old son had a sleep over with 6 of them sleeping in the loft
conversion. After I had settled them (for the nth time) and was about to
retire and go to sleep (ha ha), I had a think about it and about them all
asleep up there and went off to bed wishing I hadn't done the muttering but
glad I had adhered to the regulations.

'nuf said


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)

D.M. Procida wrote:
geraldthehamster wrote:

If the loft was not previously a habitable room, or rooms (did it have a
staircase?), then it's a loft conversion

Yes, that's what it is.

and current Building Regulations require a 30- minute fire door to the new
landing, and every door on the escape corridor to the outside to be a
30-minute fire door. This means every door that opens onto the landing(s)
and the hall, on your way to the front door. You no longer need automatic
closers on any of these doors - if your builder thinks you do, then he
doesn't know the regs properly.

Rats. So we'll have to replace our existing bedroom doors then - the
only nice doors in the house!

Grumble grumble.

Thanks for the explanation.

Daniele

Not necessarily, you can get intumescent varnish with 30 mins fire
rating, apply to both sides. Proof of purchase is enough for some
jobs, a receipt for the job done is good for some - what your BCO
would want I dont know.


NT

On 13 Nov, 16:39, wrote:

Not necessarily, you can get intumescent varnish with 30 mins fire
rating, apply to both sides. Proof of purchase is enough for some
jobs, a receipt for the job done is good for some - what your BCO
would want I dont know.

NT- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I guess that might work, but as you say, you'd need to check with
Building Control. Don't forget that a fire seal is also required
around the door (in ours it was a brush seal in the frame).

How old are these doors of yours, Daniele?

Regards
Richard

geraldthehamster wrote:

On 13 Nov, 16:39, wrote:

Not necessarily, you can get intumescent varnish with 30 mins fire
rating, apply to both sides. Proof of purchase is enough for some
jobs, a receipt for the job done is good for some - what your BCO
would want I dont know.

I guess that might work, but as you say, you'd need to check with
Building Control. Don't forget that a fire seal is also required
around the door (in ours it was a brush seal in the frame).

Can a bit of paint really be as good as a specially-made door costing
£200?

The doors must be the original ones, so from the 1930s.

Daniele

In article
,
D.M. Procida writes
geraldthehamster wrote:

On 13 Nov, 16:39, wrote:

Not necessarily, you can get intumescent varnish with 30 mins fire
rating, apply to both sides. Proof of purchase is enough for some
jobs, a receipt for the job done is good for some - what your BCO
would want I dont know.

I guess that might work, but as you say, you'd need to check with
Building Control. Don't forget that a fire seal is also required
around the door (in ours it was a brush seal in the frame).

Can a bit of paint really be as good as a specially-made door costing
£200?

Why are you paying 200quid for a 30min fire door?

http://www.wickes.co.uk/Fire-Doors/F...or/invt/200294
--
fred
BBC3, ITV2/3/4, channels going to the DOGs

D.M. Procida wrote:

We've just had a detailed quote for some building work on our house, but
not had a chance yet to discuss it with the builder.

One puzzling thing is the mention of fire doors and door closers.

Thanks for all the responses. One interesting thing - the building
control officer told the architect that linked mains smoke alarms in the
rooms on the first floor would be acceptable as an alternative to new
fire doors there, though I admit that by this point I was quite pleased
at the thought of fire doors.

Daniele

"D.M. Procida" wrote in
message
...
D.M. Procida wrote:

We've just had a detailed quote for some building work on our house, but
not had a chance yet to discuss it with the builder.

One puzzling thing is the mention of fire doors and door closers.

Thanks for all the responses. One interesting thing - the building
control officer told the architect that linked mains smoke alarms in the
rooms on the first floor would be acceptable as an alternative to new
fire doors there, though I admit that by this point I was quite pleased
at the thought of fire doors.

Daniele


Stick with fire doors and battery smoke alarms. I'd rather have a warning
and a haven of safety in the rooms rather than a warning with less
protection behind a less resistant door.

BigWallop wrote:
"D.M. Procida" wrote in

One puzzling thing is the mention of fire doors and door closers.
Thanks for all the responses. One interesting thing - the building
control officer told the architect that linked mains smoke alarms in the
rooms on the first floor would be acceptable as an alternative to new
fire doors there, though I admit that by this point I was quite pleased
at the thought of fire doors.

Daniele


Stick with fire doors and battery smoke alarms. I'd rather have a warning
and a haven of safety in the rooms rather than a warning with less
protection behind a less resistant door.

Not sure I follow the logic. I would have thought that fire doors with
interlinked mains alarms with battery backup was a better bet. Why not
have the safe haven of a fire door, *and* the earlier warning you are
likely to get with interlinked alarms?

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

BigWallop wrote:

Stick with fire doors and battery smoke alarms. I'd rather have a warning
and a haven of safety in the rooms rather than a warning with less
protection behind a less resistant door.

It may all be moot now...

Our house was on the market, but the credit got crunched right at the
wrong moment for us, and we couldn't find anyone who wanted to buy it.

Having paid out now for an architect's plans, planning permission, etc
etc etc, not to mention some preliminary building repairs, we have an
offer from a buyer with ready cash.

So, either we:

spend a total of about £90,000 for a loft extension and major rebuilding
works on a house worth about £215,000 in the current market, or:

sell the house for £215,000, and live in rented accommodation until the
market bottoms out of its freefall, and then buy something that will be
suitable without needing £thousands of work on it.

An extra £90,000 right now won't get us a house with all the things that
our £90,000 work would, but if prices fall another 20% it will.

However, I really don't like the idea of gambling with something as
basic as a home, which is what the second option is, effectively. I
don't even like the idea of a house as an investment. It's a place to
keep you as safe and happy as possible, not something to juggle for
possible future financial advantage.

So possibly, no fire doors for us.

Daniele

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
BigWallop wrote:
"D.M. Procida" wrote in

One puzzling thing is the mention of fire doors and door closers.
Thanks for all the responses. One interesting thing - the building
control officer told the architect that linked mains smoke alarms in
the
rooms on the first floor would be acceptable as an alternative to new
fire doors there, though I admit that by this point I was quite pleased
at the thought of fire doors.

Daniele


Stick with fire doors and battery smoke alarms. I'd rather have a
warning
and a haven of safety in the rooms rather than a warning with less
protection behind a less resistant door.

Not sure I follow the logic. I would have thought that fire doors with
interlinked mains alarms with battery backup was a better bet. Why not
have the safe haven of a fire door, *and* the earlier warning you are
likely to get with interlinked alarms?

Cheers,
John.


If the choice is having safety zones compared to just early warning, I think
I'd choose the safe haven option. Battery powered smoke detectors are cheap
compared to the installation of a mains interlinked detector system, and has
less maintenance worries, and they give early warning just as good in a
domestic installation.

The accessories that go with a hard wired interlinked system are,
maintenance contracts, which insurance companies insist upon if you have
such systems installed. The replacement of more expensive back-up battery
packs at least every 5 years, which the insurance company insists upon. The
weekly testing and result recording of the system, which the insurance
company insists upon.

I'd rather have the Battery DIY Smoke Detectors placed around the house,
which can also be interlinked
http://www.safelincs.co.uk/Radio-Int...05RF/?fdb=true
and fire doors, than go through the mains systems hassle for a domestic
situation.

Just personal preference on my part, mind.

BigWallop wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
BigWallop wrote:
"D.M. Procida" wrote in
One puzzling thing is the mention of fire doors and door closers.
Thanks for all the responses. One interesting thing - the building
control officer told the architect that linked mains smoke alarms in
the
rooms on the first floor would be acceptable as an alternative to new
fire doors there, though I admit that by this point I was quite pleased
at the thought of fire doors.

Daniele

Stick with fire doors and battery smoke alarms. I'd rather have a
warning
and a haven of safety in the rooms rather than a warning with less
protection behind a less resistant door.
Not sure I follow the logic. I would have thought that fire doors with
interlinked mains alarms with battery backup was a better bet. Why not
have the safe haven of a fire door, *and* the earlier warning you are
likely to get with interlinked alarms?

Cheers,
John.


If the choice is having safety zones compared to just early warning, I think
I'd choose the safe haven option. Battery powered smoke detectors are cheap

Indeed, but that is not the only choice on offer. Have both.

compared to the installation of a mains interlinked detector system, and has
less maintenance worries, and they give early warning just as good in a
domestic installation.

The interlinked mains alarms cost much the same, and about a quid more
for the ones with battery backup. Wiring and installation is pretty
straight forward.

I can't agree that individual alarms will give equally good warning - in
some circumstances they *may* give as good a warning, however in may
they certainly won't (the variability obviously changing with house
layout etc). An alarm going off in a hall is going to take longer to
wake people than all the alarms going off - including the one right
outside the bedrooms. This is especially true with three storey
properties or loft conversions. (where interlinked alarms are required
by building regs)

The accessories that go with a hard wired interlinked system are,
maintenance contracts, which insurance companies insist upon if you have
such systems installed. The replacement of more expensive back-up battery

Huh?

packs at least every 5 years, which the insurance company insists upon. The

The battery is a PP3, same as any other alarm:

http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Products/KD123slash9HI.html

weekly testing and result recording of the system, which the insurance
company insists upon.

Perhaps it might be a requirement in a commercial premises, but not in a
domestic one. In fact most domestic insurance policies don't even
require that smoke alarms be fitted, let alone specify how they are
powered.

Having installed mains alarms with battery backup, I can't say it is
really much hassle - took about one and a half hours to do three on
three storeys, including the provisioning of a dedicated circuit.

You can run a 1.0mm T&E to the first from a dedicated circuit, or from a
nearby lighting circuit. Thence a 3&E to the other alarms. If you don't
fancy running cables then use wireless interlinked ones in the same way

I'd rather have the Battery DIY Smoke Detectors placed around the house,
which can also be interlinked
http://www.safelincs.co.uk/Radio-Int...05RF/?fdb=true
and fire doors, than go through the mains systems hassle for a domestic
situation.

Well in my mind, its the interlinking that is the important bit.

The mains powering just reduces the hassle of changing batteries so
often, and also reduces the possibility of there being no alarm when
required because a battery has failed (or more likely) been removed.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Well in my mind, its the interlinking that is the important bit.

The mains powering just reduces the hassle of changing batteries so
often, and also reduces the possibility of there being no alarm when
required because a battery has failed (or more likely) been removed.



It seems to me that perhaps it would be better driven off a circuit like
a lighting one as if say the dedicated one were to fail or be more
likely accidentally tripped off, no one would notice that whereas they'd
be far more likely to do something about a lighting circuit that wasn't
working;!....
--
Tony Sayer

tony sayer wrote:

It seems to me that perhaps it would be better driven off a circuit like
a lighting one as if say the dedicated one were to fail or be more
likely accidentally tripped off, no one would notice that whereas they'd
be far more likely to do something about a lighting circuit that wasn't
working;!....

Presumably they let you know if the circuit has failed.

Daniele

In article 1iqt01c.iyhn8rwmcmajN%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-
juice.co.uk, D.M. Procida real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-
juice.co.uk scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:

It seems to me that perhaps it would be better driven off a circuit like
a lighting one as if say the dedicated one were to fail or be more
likely accidentally tripped off, no one would notice that whereas they'd
be far more likely to do something about a lighting circuit that wasn't
working;!....

Presumably they let you know if the circuit has failed.

Daniele

Indeed hence the reason for doing just that!..
--
Tony Sayer

tony sayer wrote:

It seems to me that perhaps it would be better driven off a circuit like
a lighting one as if say the dedicated one were to fail or be more
likely accidentally tripped off, no one would notice that whereas they'd
be far more likely to do something about a lighting circuit that wasn't
working;!....

Presumably they let you know if the circuit has failed.

Indeed hence the reason for doing just that!..

I meant, presumably the alarms let you know if their circuit has failed.

Daniele

In article 1iqt6bz.1a4sr6jwm1hdiN%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-
juice.co.uk, D.M. Procida real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-
juice.co.uk scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:

It seems to me that perhaps it would be better driven off a circuit like
a lighting one as if say the dedicated one were to fail or be more
likely accidentally tripped off, no one would notice that whereas they'd
be far more likely to do something about a lighting circuit that wasn't
working;!....

Presumably they let you know if the circuit has failed.

Indeed hence the reason for doing just that!..

I meant, presumably the alarms let you know if their circuit has failed.

Daniele

Well if there battery backed not all will tell you and if the batteries
haven't been replaced or have more then likely been borrowed;!..
--
Tony Sayer

tony sayer wrote:
Well in my mind, its the interlinking that is the important bit.

The mains powering just reduces the hassle of changing batteries so
often, and also reduces the possibility of there being no alarm when
required because a battery has failed (or more likely) been removed.



It seems to me that perhaps it would be better driven off a circuit like
a lighting one as if say the dedicated one were to fail or be more
likely accidentally tripped off, no one would notice that whereas they'd
be far more likely to do something about a lighting circuit that wasn't
working;!....

In the cases where alarms are required (like a loft conversion adding a
third storey) then you then must use battery backup alarms if you are
powering them from a non dedicated circuit. The logic being that alarms
alone are highly unlikely to trip a circuit, whereas a shared circuit
might be tripped by something else and lose the alarms. Most mains
powered alarms also have a "mains on" LED so you can see at a glance if
they are not powered.

Under the 16th edition regs one would have likely placed alarms on a non
RCD protected circuit. IMO they are probably still better powered that
way when a dedicated circuit is in use, but with a suitably screened cable.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article , John Rumm
scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:
Well in my mind, its the interlinking that is the important bit.

The mains powering just reduces the hassle of changing batteries so
often, and also reduces the possibility of there being no alarm when
required because a battery has failed (or more likely) been removed.



It seems to me that perhaps it would be better driven off a circuit like
a lighting one as if say the dedicated one were to fail or be more
likely accidentally tripped off, no one would notice that whereas they'd
be far more likely to do something about a lighting circuit that wasn't
working;!....

In the cases where alarms are required (like a loft conversion adding a
third storey) then you then must use battery backup alarms if you are
powering them from a non dedicated circuit.

Is that strictly the case that they MUST be battery backed on anything
other then a dedicated circuit?..

The logic being that alarms
alone are highly unlikely to trip a circuit,

No I very much doubt they would, and seeing there're not earthed
even..

whereas a shared circuit
might be tripped by something else and lose the alarms.

Yes but that would be noticed very quickly..

Most mains
powered alarms also have a "mains on" LED so you can see at a glance if
they are not powered.

Yep so they might .. but take the case of a HIMO do you really think
that say some 20 odd year old house sharers would even look?..

Under the 16th edition regs one would have likely placed alarms on a non
RCD protected circuit. IMO they are probably still better powered that
way when a dedicated circuit is in use, but with a suitably screened cable.

Screened against what?..
--
Tony Sayer

tony sayer wrote:

In the cases where alarms are required (like a loft conversion adding a
third storey) then you then must use battery backup alarms if you are
powering them from a non dedicated circuit.

Is that strictly the case that they MUST be battery backed on anything
other then a dedicated circuit?..

That was my experience based on the building regs a the time I did my
loft conversion. However I have just had a read through the current version:

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/upl..._ADB1_2006.pdf

One of the commented changes is that all alarms should now have a backup
power supply.

The current wording is:

"Power supplies

1.19 The power supply for a smoke alarm system should be derived from
the dwellinghouse's mains electricity supply. The mains supply to the
smoke alarm(s) should comprise a single independent circuit at the
dwellinghouse's main distribution board (consumer unit) or a single
regularly used local lighting circuit. This has the advantage that the
circuit is unlikely to be disconnected for any prolonged period. There
should be a means of isolating power to the smoke alarms without
isolating the lighting.

1.20 The electrical installation should comply with Approved Document P
(Electrical safety).

1.21 Any cable suitable for domestic wiring may be used for the power
supply and interconnection to smoke alarm systems. It does not need any
particular fire survival properties except in large houses (BS
5839-6:2004 specifies fire resisting cables for Grade A and B systems).
Any conductors used for interconnecting alarms (signalling) should be
readily distinguishable from those supplying mains power, e.g. by colour
coding.

Note: Mains-powered smoke alarms may be interconnected using
radio-links, provided that this does not reduce the lifetime or duration
of any standby power supply below 72 hours. In this case, the smoke
alarms may be connected to separate power circuits (see paragraph 1.19)

1.22 Other effective options exist and are described in BS 5839-1:2002
and BS 5839-6:2004. For example, the mains supply may be reduced to
extra low voltage in a control unit incorporating a standby
trickle-charged battery, before being distributed at that voltage to the
alarms."

The logic being that alarms
alone are highly unlikely to trip a circuit,

No I very much doubt they would, and seeing there're not earthed
even..

Indeed.

whereas a shared circuit
might be tripped by something else and lose the alarms.

Yes but that would be noticed very quickly..

Perhaps, although on a summers day you could go many hours unprotected...

Most mains
powered alarms also have a "mains on" LED so you can see at a glance if
they are not powered.

Yep so they might .. but take the case of a HIMO do you really think
that say some 20 odd year old house sharers would even look?..
Under the 16th edition regs one would have likely placed alarms on a non
RCD protected circuit. IMO they are probably still better powered that
way when a dedicated circuit is in use, but with a suitably screened cable.

Screened against what?..

Screened so as to provide earthed enclosure of the cable. i.e. to meet
17th edition requirements for the protection of cables, where you can
only have a non RCD protected cable hidden in the fabric of the
building if it =50mm from the surface, or run in a cable like MICC,
Earthshield, SWA etc.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article , John Rumm
writes
tony sayer wrote:

1.19 The power supply for a smoke alarm system should be derived from
the dwellinghouse's mains electricity supply. The mains supply to the
smoke alarm(s) should comprise a single independent circuit at the
dwellinghouse's main distribution board (consumer unit) or a single
regularly used local lighting circuit. This has the advantage that the
circuit is unlikely to be disconnected for any prolonged period. There
should be a means of isolating power to the smoke alarms without
isolating the lighting.


I'm just doing 1st fix on the current job and was reading about this
just the other day. I was puzzling over the "There should be a means of
isolating power to the smoke alarms without isolating the lighting". I
am not sure how this may be achieved?

Cheers

Martin


--
Martin Carroll

"Martin Carroll" wrote in message
...
In article , John Rumm
writes
tony sayer wrote:

1.19 The power supply for a smoke alarm system should be derived from
the dwellinghouse's mains electricity supply. The mains supply to the
smoke alarm(s) should comprise a single independent circuit at the
dwellinghouse's main distribution board (consumer unit) or a single
regularly used local lighting circuit. This has the advantage that the
circuit is unlikely to be disconnected for any prolonged period. There
should be a means of isolating power to the smoke alarms without
isolating the lighting.


I'm just doing 1st fix on the current job and was reading about this
just the other day. I was puzzling over the "There should be a means of
isolating power to the smoke alarms without isolating the lighting". I
am not sure how this may be achieved?

Cheers

Martin


By putting the detectors on their own supply. If the power to the detectors
fails, you still have lighting to see where you're going in an emergency.
If the lighting circuit fails, you still have fully functioning detectors to
warn of danger.

Separating the supply lets you work on the detectors without turning lights
off as well.

In article , BigWallop
writes

"Martin Carroll" wrote in message
...
In article , John Rumm
writes
tony sayer wrote:

1.19 The power supply for a smoke alarm system should be derived from
the dwellinghouse's mains electricity supply. The mains supply to the
smoke alarm(s) should comprise a single independent circuit at the
dwellinghouse's main distribution board (consumer unit) or a single
regularly used local lighting circuit. This has the advantage that the
circuit is unlikely to be disconnected for any prolonged period. There
should be a means of isolating power to the smoke alarms without
isolating the lighting.


I'm just doing 1st fix on the current job and was reading about this
just the other day. I was puzzling over the "There should be a means of
isolating power to the smoke alarms without isolating the lighting". I
am not sure how this may be achieved?

Cheers

Martin


By putting the detectors on their own supply. If the power to the detectors
fails, you still have lighting to see where you're going in an emergency.
If the lighting circuit fails, you still have fully functioning detectors to
warn of danger.

Separating the supply lets you work on the detectors without turning lights
off as well.



That's not what it says.

"...or a single regularly used local lighting circuit ........ There
should be a means of isolating power ..........."

I understand that if it is on a separate supply then it is can be
isolated. However the point of putting it on a lighting supply is that
it will not be disconnected for long or if there is a fault then it is
obvious (the lights go out!).

Cheers

Martin
--
Martin Carroll

"Martin Carroll" wrote in message
...
In article , BigWallop
writes

"Martin Carroll" wrote in message
...
In article , John Rumm
writes
tony sayer wrote:

1.19 The power supply for a smoke alarm system should be derived from
the dwellinghouse's mains electricity supply. The mains supply to the
smoke alarm(s) should comprise a single independent circuit at the
dwellinghouse's main distribution board (consumer unit) or a single
regularly used local lighting circuit. This has the advantage that the
circuit is unlikely to be disconnected for any prolonged period. There
should be a means of isolating power to the smoke alarms without
isolating the lighting.


I'm just doing 1st fix on the current job and was reading about this
just the other day. I was puzzling over the "There should be a means
of
isolating power to the smoke alarms without isolating the lighting". I
am not sure how this may be achieved?

Cheers

Martin


By putting the detectors on their own supply. If the power to the
detectors
fails, you still have lighting to see where you're going in an emergency.
If the lighting circuit fails, you still have fully functioning detectors
to
warn of danger.

Separating the supply lets you work on the detectors without turning
lights
off as well.



That's not what it says.

"...or a single regularly used local lighting circuit ........ There
should be a means of isolating power ..........."

I understand that if it is on a separate supply then it is can be
isolated. However the point of putting it on a lighting supply is that
it will not be disconnected for long or if there is a fault then it is
obvious (the lights go out!).

Cheers

Martin


It is just my preference to keep them separate. Of course, you could take
the supply with other regularly used lighting, something that isn't going to
leave you in the dark on the staircase or other escape routes, and faults
would be more obvious.

But it's just my own preference.