Fire Safety Capital Works: Building Safety Act Compliance Across Two Greater Manchester Developments

Mar 29, 2024

3 min read

Updated: Aug 18

When Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service served enforcement notices on two residential buildings, SURVPROP was appointed to project-manage a programme of capital fire safety works across both sites. The instruction covered 138 apartments across Stockport and Manchester. Both buildings had to remain occupied throughout. Neither instruction was straightforward.

The Regulatory Context

Fire safety duties on residential buildings have tightened substantially in recent years, through the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 as amended and the Building Safety Act 2022. Both schemes are residential buildings within the scope of that framework. Following fire risk assessments, GMFRS identified material deficiencies in fire compartmentation and fire door provision at each property. Formal enforcement notices were subsequently served on the asset owner at both sites.

One important distinction: neither building required an EWS1 assessment. Both are traditionally constructed, brick-built developments with no combustible external cladding. That distinction placed the remediation focus entirely on internal fire separation and means of escape rather than the cladding remediation that has consumed so many post-Grenfell residential programmes across the country. It also meant the scope was clearly defined from the outset, with no uncertainty around external wall system risk.

Scope of Works

SURVPROP managed a two-strand programme of capital fire safety works running concurrently across both properties.

Fire compartmentation throughout both buildings was surveyed, assessed and reinstated where deficient. This covered compartment walls and floors, service penetrations, cavity barriers and fire stopping across all residential floors. Passive fire protection is the mechanism that contains a fire long enough for residents to evacuate. At both sites, the level of remediation required reflected the construction period and method of each building, with penetrations that had accumulated over years of maintenance and fit-out works needing to be identified, remediated and certified.

A comprehensive fire door replacement programme was carried out across all communal areas and apartment entrance doors at both buildings. Fire doors remain the most heavily scrutinised element under current fire safety legislation. Ensuring correct certification, intumescent seals, self-closing devices and ironmongery specification across 138 apartments is a significant programme management exercise in its own right, and one that requires a contractor with the right qualifications and audit trail. SURVPROP appointed JW Simpkin Ltd to carry out the physical works at both buildings.

Programme Management Across Occupied Buildings

Both properties remained in full residential occupation throughout the works. Managing that constraint required detailed sequencing, resident communication and close coordination with the appointed contractor. Access to individual apartments for door replacements was managed on a floor-by-floor basis. Communal areas were worked in sections to maintain safe means of escape at all times throughout the programme.

Progress was reported directly to the asset owner and tracked against the enforcement notice schedule. GMFRS require a defined programme of works and interim updates as a condition of maintaining occupation during remediation. Keeping that programme on track at two buildings simultaneously meant there was no room for drift. Both sites were completed within the required timescale.

Why BTR Ownership Made a Difference

Both assets are held by a single asset owner operating on a build-to-rent basis. There are no long leaseholders, no Section 20 consultation obligations and no competing liability disputes between freeholder and leaseholders over remediation costs.

For practitioners working in fire safety remediation, this structural distinction is significant. In traditionally sold residential blocks, identifying responsible parties and apportioning remediation costs can stall programmes for months or years. Leaseholders have protections. Freeholders face challenge. Costs end up in tribunal. In a BTR structure, the asset owner carries both the legal responsibility and the commercial interest in resolving enforcement action quickly.

SURVPROP moved from instruction to contract within a defined programme, with no intervening legal delay.

That speed matters. Enforcement notices carry legal deadlines. Failure to comply can lead to prosecution. Getting the instruction right and getting the contractor on site is the job.

Outcome

Both properties achieved compliance with the enforcement notices served by Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service. Fire compartmentation and fire door replacement works were completed across all 138 apartments, with confirmation of compliance following GMFRS re-inspection. The asset owner holds a current, compliant fire risk assessment position at both buildings.

Do You Have Fire Safety Obligations You Need to Resolve?

If you own or manage a residential building in Greater Manchester and are facing enforcement action under the Building Safety Act, or want to understand your obligations before an enforcement notice arrives,

SURVPROP can advise on the most efficient route to compliance. We have direct, hands-on experience of managing capital fire safety works programmes across occupied residential buildings in Stockport and Manchester.