We’re working on a project involving a building originally constructed between 1910 and 1915, last refurbished in the 1990s. It’s now being prepared for a new tenant — but, as with many heritage buildings, the path to compliance is far from straightforward.
During strip-out works, the contractor removed a raised access floor and revealed the original timber floor beneath. No fire battens. No fire separation. And crucially, no approved detail to reference or replicate.
Strict compliance would require designing a new build-up, commissioning full-scale fire testing, and waiting for certification — an option that is both time‑consuming and costly for the client.
Instead, we’ve proposed a robust and pragmatic alternative:
- A composite flooring system with a one-hour fire rating
- Fire-rated battens installed below
This represents a clear improvement on the existing condition — both functionally and in terms of safety.
We’ve now taken this proposal back to the RBCA, and we’re working closely with them to demonstrate that:
- We are providing the safest practicable solution
- The situation has not been made worse
- Every step has been properly documented and risk assessed
Our approach is the same for every project: deliver the best possible fire and life safety outcomes, even when full compliance with modern standards isn’t achievable due to legacy construction.
So here’s the real question: How do we balance strict regulatory compliance with real‑world constraints in older buildings?
Because in cases like this, it’s not about cutting corners — it’s about demonstrating that we’re going as far as is safely and reasonably possible.
