Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 4 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 2427 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

CABLES IN PROTECTED ESCAPE ROUTES

John Peckham

Thinking about the the thread on metering for flats.

The DPC for Amendment 2 in 422.2 only allows cables supplying safety services, lighting and sockets for cleaning to be installed in a protected escape route.

I am thinking that it is usual for supplies to flats, in blocks of flats, to be run from a riser cupboard down the corridors and enter each flat above a demountable ceiling. 

So post AMD 2 how would the supplies to flats from a riser be practically installed. There is only minimal clearance from the demountable ceiling to the soffit , it would be difficult to enclose the cables in  Durasteel fire cladding. Lowering the ceiling is not a usual option.

Answers on a post card to ………………………..

JP

 

Parents
  • 0

    I am involved in the conversion of a 5-storey office building into a hotel. The building is listed with special historical interest of features in the corridors Which will give access to the bedrooms. All services are run in the central ceiling portion of the corridor and hidden from view by a dropped ceiling that does not fit wall to wall but allows a view to the decorative cornices on each side. Cables are on tray, all LS0H but  there is no dispute that they are in the protected route as the ceiling does not form a complete enclosure. Neither BC or the fire engineer have any concerns.

    I agree that cables in protected routes should be installed to minimise any risk from collapse and should be selected to minimise any detrimental effect should they be attacked by fire but I do not agree that cables should be totally precluded from being run along corridors. 
    I would like to know how the imperative for proposed regulation. Who lobbied for it, with whom did they consult and what was the evidence used to support the determination.
     

Reply
  • 0

    I am involved in the conversion of a 5-storey office building into a hotel. The building is listed with special historical interest of features in the corridors Which will give access to the bedrooms. All services are run in the central ceiling portion of the corridor and hidden from view by a dropped ceiling that does not fit wall to wall but allows a view to the decorative cornices on each side. Cables are on tray, all LS0H but  there is no dispute that they are in the protected route as the ceiling does not form a complete enclosure. Neither BC or the fire engineer have any concerns.

    I agree that cables in protected routes should be installed to minimise any risk from collapse and should be selected to minimise any detrimental effect should they be attacked by fire but I do not agree that cables should be totally precluded from being run along corridors. 
    I would like to know how the imperative for proposed regulation. Who lobbied for it, with whom did they consult and what was the evidence used to support the determination.
     

Children
No Data

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines