Fire safety regs for replacement windows

[Cupramax]

Anyone got any idea what the regs that dictate fire safety for windows are or where you can find the specs of what you can and cant do? My house was built in 1992 so fairly recent but was fitted with wooden frame double glaing all 50/50 split top to bottom with top hinged openers... like these.



Now Ive been getting quotes for direct replacement like for like UPVC as the wood frames are getting very tired now getting on for 20 years old, but everyone I've had in to quote says you cant have top openers upstairs due to Fensa regs, cant say I like the look of this as it not very practical. Any idea if theres a way round this? Looking at Fensa site its about as clear as mud and the more I reead on the net says its down to building regs, not Fensa, and if thats the case how come the house was cleared to built like this so recently in the first place?

Anyone got any ideas?

Edited to add a very important T I missed out

Edited by Cupramax on Tuesday 20th April 21:51

[Sam_68]

Approved Document B to the Building Regulations is what you're after.

Essentially, unless you've got a protected route of escape (ie. an enclosed stairwell that leads to a ground floor exit), then and window to a habitable room needs to meet the criteria for escape purposes (see paragraphs 2.4, 2.8 and specifically with regard to replacement windows paragraph 2.19 of the Approved Document).

In terms of replacement windows; the bottom line is that if your existing windows are suitable for escape purposes (and the escape provision is necessary because there isn't a protected satirwell), then the new ones must be at least as suitable... you're not allowed to make the situation worse than it was before.

[darronwall]

Sam_68 said:

Approved Document B to the Building Regulations is what you're after.

Essentially, unless you've got a protected route of escape (ie. an enclosed stairwell that leads to a ground floor exit), then and window to a habitable room needs to meet the criteria for escape purposes (see paragraphs 2.4 and 2.8 of the Approved Document.

Edited by Sam_68 on Tuesday 20th April 21:48

only applies to new build
if he is replacing windows the only real simple guide is the new windows must have the same opening area as the ones removed,if there is an existing route of escape it must be replaced in a similar configuration
it really is a load of old ste
if he wants the windows to match the existing ones he has no problem

[Sam_68]

darronwall said:

only applies to new build

Indeed.

You are not allowed to make an existing situation any worse but neither are you obliged to make it any better.

[Cupramax]

darronwall said:

if he wants the windows to match the existing ones he has no problem

Thanks for the replies chaps, some sense at last Darron, why then are all the double glazing companies saying I cant do what I want... are they all wrong/stupid?

[Sam_68]

Cupramax said:

why then are all the double glazing companies saying I cant do what I want... are they all wrong/stupid?

Yes, basically.

They're double glazing companies, not Architects, so their understanding of the Building Regulations is likely to be pretty shallow.

But also, to be fair to them:

• In terms of liability (and bear in mind we could be talking about the sort of legal claim that would result from a family burning to death), they're better off erring on the side of caution if they're not absolutely sure about their interpretation of the Regs. and;
• They have a legal obligation as the 'expert' 'designers' of the work to assess the risks involved and if they see solution that reduces those risks and they don't adopt it, again they could be held liable.

It may seem overly bureacratic and nannying, but that's the country we live in these days, unfortunately.

Edited by Sam_68 on Tuesday 20th April 22:33

[Dogwatch]

Think all this started with a bloke (cleric I think) who had replacement double glazing fitted to all windows but crucially all the upper storey windows only had small opening casements. When fire broke out the family were trapped upstairs with no means of escape.

This is the scenario no one wants repeated.

[Cupramax]

Sam_68 said:

• They have a legal obligation as the 'expert' 'designers' of the work to assess the risks involved and if they see solution that reduces those risks and they don't adopt it, again they could be held liable.

It may seem overly bureacratic and nannying, but that's the country we live in these days, unfortunately.

OK but if theres no obligation to improve when replacing existing thats not an issue though is it...

The windows are a part of what makes my house attractive, they're a bit different from the run of the mill stuff and I'd like to keep that, also having openers so low is not practical unless your a midget due to windows size/lowness of some of the windows sills.

[rovermorris999]

Consider timber again. Plastic looks so naff in comparison. Magnet do a good range either standard sizes or made to measure. You can get them factory glazed and pre-painted with microporous paint. I've just bought some for a cottage renovation and I'm very pleased with them. They'll easily outlast pvc windows and the microprous paint should go 5 years before a recoat. Dead easy to repaint as well, little prep needed as the old paint doesn't peel like conventional paint. If you can find get trade price at Magnet, they are very competative.

[Cupramax]

rovermorris999 said:

They'll easily outlast pvc windows

Thanks for the info but judging by the state my windows are in after 18 years that doesn't ring true... my parents had UPVC windows fitted in 1986 and they still look fine, only problems being a few handles have needed replacing.

[rovermorris999]

I bet they've not been maintained properly. Modern pressure-treated timber painted with microporous paint will outlast you if you maintain it. Don't compare with older untreated timber painted with conventional paint which will peel off. Times have changed. PVC will knock the value of a period property too.

[darronwall]

Cupramax said:

darronwall said:

if he wants the windows to match the existing ones he has no problem

Thanks for the replies chaps, some sense at last Darron, why then are all the double glazing companies saying I cant do what I want... are they all wrong/stupid?

they all should know what they are on about really,but a lot dont! (read stupid sales rep) we have a few of our installations inspected every year to make sure we are doing it right
as somebody else has said the regs for newbuild and replacement are a lot different

[Sam_68]

Cupramax said:

Sam_68 said:

• They have a legal obligation as the 'expert' 'designers' of the work to assess the risks involved and if they see solution that reduces those risks and they don't adopt it, again they could be held liable.

It may seem overly bureacratic and nannying, but that's the country we live in these days, unfortunately.

OK but if theres no obligation to improve when replacing existing thats not an issue though is it...

Yes, potentially. Just because there are no specific regulations to force you to do it doesn't necessarily mean that it's a good idea, or that a company can't be sued if a death results becuase of their judgement.

And before you ask the next obvious question: No, it doesn't absolve them of responisbility in legal terms if you as the customer give them a written intruction/disclaimer to say that you are aware of the risks, because they can be held to be the 'experts', who should know better than you.

Don't get me wrong - I think they're being overly cautious if this is their reasoning (and it may be that they simply don;t understand the Regs - or it may be that they are adhering to a code of practice that I'm not familiar with; FENSA, perhaps?), but in the modern culture of litigation and corporate manslaughter charges, you can hardly blame them.

[Cupramax]

Ok, this has been resolved chaps, after a meeting with the local building control officer and the glazing company they have agreed to what I was after.

Thanks for all the constructive help on here...

[carmadgaz]

Sam_68 said:

Cupramax said:

why then are all the double glazing companies saying I cant do what I want... are they all wrong/stupid?

Yes, basically.

They're double glazing companies, not Architects, so their understanding of the Building Regulations is likely to be pretty shallow.

Nope a good double glazing company should be able to tell you, if nothing else they should have the guidelines to refer too.

Simplified (alot) - FENSA says you cannot make the existing situation worse (smaller / removing casements etc) but you can replace like for like (fire escape and ventilation). Ground floor fire escape isn't quite so urgent as long as there is a route out (another window / door).

IMHO Should always aim for the min 450mm clear opening where possible (even if it means the windows have a floating mullion like a French Door.)

[Sam_68]

carmadgaz said:

Nope a good double glazing company should be able to tell you, if nothing else they should have the guidelines to refer too.

The thing about the Building Regs is that the Approved Documents themselves (ie. the document that stipulates escape windows) are only guidance documents giving a possible set of solutions. You are not legally obliged to conform to those solutions (though if you adopt an alternative solution there is a greater onus on the designer to prove that it is satisfactory).

The best you can say is that a good double glazing company should have guidelines to the guidelines...

[carmadgaz]

Sam_68 said:

carmadgaz said:

Nope a good double glazing company should be able to tell you, if nothing else they should have the guidelines to refer too.

The best you can say is that a good double glazing company should have guidelines to the guidelines...

Fair point. A quick call to the relevant Local Authority usually tells us what they expect, although most of our stuff comes under FENSA