In this case I suggest that the designer is critically incompetent. The problem should be reported to HSE at once, because this "deviation" puts the building at risk of a life threatening situation. We do not know which safety service is involved, if it is just alarms then battery backup is fairly simple, if firefighting lifts or smoke extract fans etc. we need an additional "real" supply from another substation or a generator. I suspect that pressure has been put on the designer, but he is very stupid to comply. The regulations are there, he has no choice. The others should not sign the EIC, simple, and as there is good reason it should not be difficult to still be paid. This is at the heart of the problem with the QS system, I suspect that the QS has not checked the design, or is even aware of this problem, and he probably doesn't even know the regulations for safety services! Overall there is a serious lack of competence in the industry.

In this case I suggest that the designer is critically incompetent. The problem should be reported to HSE at once, because this "deviation" puts the building at risk of a life threatening situation. We do not know which safety service is involved, if it is just alarms then battery backup is fairly simple, if firefighting lifts or smoke extract fans etc. we need an additional "real" supply from another substation or a generator. I suspect that pressure has been put on the designer, but he is very stupid to comply. The regulations are there, he has no choice. The others should not sign the EIC, simple, and as there is good reason it should not be difficult to still be paid. This is at the heart of the problem with the QS system, I suspect that the QS has not checked the design, or is even aware of this problem, and he probably doesn't even know the regulations for safety services! Overall there is a serious lack of competence in the industry.

"In this case I suggest that the designer is critically incompetent. The problem should be reported to HSE at once, because this "deviation" puts the building at risk of a life threatening situation. We do not know which safety service is involved, if it is just alarms then battery backup is fairly simple, if firefighting lifts or smoke extract fans etc. we need an additional "real" supply from another substation or a generator"

I totally agree. It was designed that way, it isnt a problem with the Contractor doing their own thing to cut costs. Another one I found last week was a DB schedule saying numerous cables should be in FP cable. They have been run in with LSF T+E. They supply various smoke dampers and extractors. The argument could be that once the dampers and fans have received their power/had power cut, they will be in their fire safe position until reset, so power is not needed all the time. However, if they have been designed as to be in  FP cable, then the Installing Company is liable for disregarding the Designers instructions.

I dont know who would inspect this installation. I would have thought an Independent Inspector would have a good look, but in reality, I suspect someone will look at the drawings, have a quick look around, and pass it. Which is wrong, but, unfortunately seems to happen.

Another one we found last week, another Company has been contracted to I&T the dead install in the individual flats. A lot of faults were found, which were put right. Then we happened to look at some of the lighting circuits ourselves. And found even though the EIC showed a good R1+R2, when we took the lights down, there was no feed to them at all!

Clearly a 'drive-by' inspection, and he has been caught out.

Alan

I am appalled by the content of your post. I am seeing the same type of stupidity on the YouTube videos of the Grenfell Tower inquiry from the so called professionals!

Firstly both the electrical and mechanical designers cannot put finger to keyboard unless they know what the fire strategy is for the building.

The fire strategy will be developed from the fire risk assessment for the building. The fire strategy will state what Safety Services  are required for the building, how and when they will operate and for how long. 

Chapter 56 of BS 7671 sets out the requirements for Safety Services. Probably the key parts of this Chapter are;-

BS 7671 does not have a provision for "Deviations" unlike some other standards.

BS 7671 does have a provision for "Departures"  A Departure is defined in Part 2 as:-

Note what the designer has to declare!

So supplying a safety service only from the primary supply is not a Departure it is a crime. See CDM Regulations 2015 for starters.

Also BS 9999, BS 9991 and BS 8519 will apply.

The inspector  cannot certify the installation complies when it clearly does not is also a crime, "by way of trade produces a document that is false or misleading" carries up to 2 years improvement and an unlimited fine.

BS 8519 says the primary and secondary supplies should look like this.