home · Other · What about technical premises. Premises subject to categorization by explosion and fire hazard. How is division by purpose carried out?

What about technical premises. Premises subject to categorization by explosion and fire hazard. How is division by purpose carried out?

Working areas on each floor, designed to accommodate users' workplaces, in accordance with the data in Table. 9.1 is 380 m2. According to the norms given in section 3.2.2, the area of ​​the control room serving the workplaces of the building should be 10.6 m2. There is also a restriction on the minimum area of ​​the control room of 14 m2. To accommodate the control room, it seems most appropriate to allocate rooms 128 and 129, since they are located on the first floor, they are not walk-through, have no windows and are not adjacent to outer walls buildings located close to elevators, etc. Room 128 has an area of ​​12.9 m2, which is only 1.1 m2 less than the required norm, but exceeds the recommended control room area, obtained based on specific norm- 0.7% of the working area (Table 9.2).

When choosing the final decision in favor of a particular room, the following considerations were additionally involved. According to the first option, the location of the control room in room 128 is accepted. The area of ​​\u200b\u200bthis room can be quickly and simply brought up to regulatory transfer the front non-capital wall towards the corridor by about 50 cm. This operation carried out immediately or in the future when such a need arises, for which there are all necessary prerequisites. The second option is to organize a control room in an adjacent room 129, which meets all the requirements of the standards in relation to its dimensions. The area of ​​20.1 m2 of this room exceeds the standard. At the same time, however, the implementation of the main subsystems is somewhat more complicated, since a horizontal channel will be required to access the existing riser. Given this circumstance, in this specific case Let's focus on the first option.

The normative area under the cross room, based on the number of serviced RR according to Section 3.3.1, should be 6.2 m2, which slightly exceeds the minimum allowable value of 6 m2. Rooms 228, 328 and 428 are allocated for cross rooms on different floors with an area twice the standard. The location of these technical rooms directly above the control room greatly simplifies the design of interfloor passages and allows one riser to do without horizontal sections for laying the main cable. In addition, the presence of reserves in terms of space and the installation of IR allows in the future to place an additional network hardware collective use in the event of a significant modernization of the enterprise network.

In all technical rooms, in accordance with the requirements of section 3.2.5, the door is re-hanging, which must open outwards.

Technical rooms are a special group. They may not always be located in a single block, as they serve, as a rule, as auxiliary premises serving other groups of premises. Therefore, when placing them in the building plan, the requirement of convenient access to them and the presence of independent entrances from the production corridors or from the economic zone of the enterprise must be observed. They design technical rooms in the basement, basement and other floors of the building.

Cold room engine room placed in close proximity to the refrigerating chambers with access to the outside or to the production corridor. The width of the passages in the engine room must have the following values ​​(m): the main passage and the passage from the electrical panel to the protruding parts of the refrigerating machine - at least 1.5; between the protruding parts of the machines - at least 1; between smooth wall and cars - not less than 0.8.

In enterprises low power for the installation of a refrigeration unit, it is possible not to provide a special engine room. It is forbidden to place refrigeration units on stairs and landings, under stairs, in close proximity to entrance doors buildings, in the machine rooms of elevators and in the lobby. It is also not allowed to place refrigeration units in thermal locks (vestibules), cold rooms and in the corridors of refrigerators.

ventilation unit removes excess heat, moisture and harmful gases emitted from the premises of enterprises located on different floors. In this regard, in the production premises of enterprises Catering provide supply and exhaust ventilation units, which are separate systems located on different floors.

Ventilation chambers and the heating point is located at the outer walls of the building.

Repair and mechanical workshops perform Maintenance technological, lifting and transport, power equipment, carry out repairs of inventory and containers, a point of knives and straightening of saws, manufacturing various kinds hand tools to facilitate the work of employees of the enterprise.

air conditioning chamber placed next to the heat point (the heat carrier is superheated water from the heating network) and in convenient connection with the refrigeration unit (the coolant is chilled water). The area of ​​the supply chamber incomplete comfort air conditioning air together with the engine room refrigeration plant when designing, they are taken equal to 0.4 - 0.45 m 2 per place.

Switchboard it is desirable to place it near the outer walls and in the immediate vicinity of the production facilities with the highest installed capacity of the equipment. Switchboards are placed above the level ground water, and in areas prone to flooding - above the level of flooding. It is not allowed to place switchboards under washing, bathrooms, showers, hot and other industrial premises where there are sinks and sewer drains.

At harvesting enterprises, electrical switchboards should be separated from premises for other purposes. fireproof partitions and overlays. Feed lines to distribution points for cooling or freezing food products installations must be independent.

Distribution points, cabinets and shields should be located outside the premises for punching bags, washing, cooling chambers, pantries and warehouses for potatoes and vegetables.

Distribution points, cabinets and shields are placed in the corridors, recessed in niches made of fireproof structures. Their installation in meat, fish, vegetable, confectionery and culinary shops is allowed only in metal cabinets with seal.

The doors of the electrical room must be at least 0.75 m wide and open outwards.

charging station, transformer substation, the pumping ATS is placed in the yard of the procurement enterprise in a separate building attached to the building of the procurement enterprise, in the basement, basement or first floor.

In the group of technical premises of canteens for 150 seats or more and restaurants, it is necessary to provide a room for a mechanic - a mechanic with an area of ​​6 m 2.

The main signs are as follows:

Classification by type of permitted use

Non-residential premises can be used for any activity. If we take into account all types of permitted use, then all premises are divided into the following types:

Auxiliary and main

Reference! It is customary to consider an auxiliary object used for operation or consumer services (entrance hall, pantry, staircase, corridor).

The main ones are the premises in which the processes are carried out functional purpose. This includes premises, auditoriums and classes in state institutions, offices, chambers. There are also rooms common use, namely - cinemas, theaters, halls in museums, clubs, assembly and reading rooms, administrative offices, trading floors.

How is division by purpose carried out?

The intended purpose is understood as the activity for which this or that premises can be used. On this basis, the premises are classified into:


The functional purpose of the premises is the presence design features And specifications, which allow it to be used as a standalone object. The classification could be:

  • Basic.
  • Technical.
  • Communication.
  • Auxiliary.
  • Serving.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is worth noting that there are a lot of non-residential premises, which can be used for different purposes. Their size is also very different. Such objects can be purchased for reference own business or for industrial use. They can also be rented by concluding an agreement with the owner. It is important to choose the right type of premises and make sure that it meets your needs and has everything you need for non-residential use.

ROOM TECHNICAL room designed to accommodate engineering equipment building

(Bulgarian; Bulgarian) - technical room

(Czech; Čeština) - prostor technického vybavení; mistnost technického vybavení; technicky prostor

(German language; Deutsch) - technischer Raum

(Hungarian; Magyar) - műszaki helyiseg

(Mongolian) - technical bir

(Polish language; Polska) - pomieszczenie techniczne

(Romanian; Român) - încăpere tehnică

(Serbo-Croatian; Srpski jezik; Hrvatski jezik) - technical prostorija

(Spanish; Español) - local tecnico

(English language; English) - engineering and utility services room

(French language; Français) - local des installation techniques

Construction dictionary.

See what "TECHNICAL ROOM" is in other dictionaries:

    technical room- A room intended for the placement of engineering equipment of the building [ Terminological dictionary on construction in 12 languages ​​(VNIIIS Gosstroy of the USSR)] Topics of the building, structure, premises EN building mechanical roomengineering and utility ... ...

    store technical room- Part of the store premises intended for the placement of technical services and / or performance of maintenance work on workplaces, trade, technological and mechanical equipment. Note As part of the technical room ... ... Technical Translator's Handbook

    Shop technical room- 47 TECHNICAL ROOM OF THE SHOP: Part of the store premises intended for the placement of technical services and / or maintenance work on workplaces, trade, technological and mechanical equipment ... Source: ... ... Official terminology

    Housing fee- The rental fee is paid by the tenant to the landlord and includes a fee for the use of residential premises belonging to the state and municipal housing stock. Payment for housing and utilities for the tenant of residential ... ... Housing Encyclopedia

    Machine use and maintenance- 9.6. Use and maintenance of devices: 9.6.1. Availability: design and operational documentation on the radiation source (on the premises for work and apparatus) and the program for its decommissioning (GOST 23154 78, p. ... ...

    OWNERSHIP OF RESIDENTIAL PREMISES- aggregate property rights to a living space. A citizen - the owner of a dwelling can use it for personal residence and residence of his family members, as well as rent it out for residence on the basis of an agreement. Owners of apartments in ... ... Big Economic Dictionary

    This term has other meanings, see Trap. Ladder (English drain box, German Regenwasserablauf) element of sanitary technical equipment buildings. It is a water supply various designs. As a rule ... ... Wikipedia

    I Disinfection (French prefix dés destruction, removal + Infection is a set of measures aimed at destruction in environment pathogens of infectious diseases. Included in the complex of anti-epidemic and sanitary preventive measures ... ... Medical Encyclopedia

    RD 25.03.001-2002: Security and safety systems for facilities. Terms and Definitions- Terminology RD 25.03.001 2002: Security and safety systems for facilities. Terms and definitions: 2.36.8 emergency lighting (at a protected facility): Operating in the event of an accident at the facility only at the moment the main lighting is turned off, allowing ... ... Dictionary-reference book of terms of normative and technical documentation

    system- 4.48 system combination of interacting elements organized to achieve one or more stated objectives Note 1 to entry: A system can be viewed as a product or the services it provides. Note 2 In practice… … Dictionary-reference book of terms of normative and technical documentation

The status of basements still worries the owners of the premises apartment buildings(MKD). It would seem that the issue of recognizing the right of common shared ownership of the “technical underground” (as basements are sometimes called) has already been resolved at the level of the Constitutional Court (Determination of May 19, 2009 No. 489 O-O).

However, practice has shown that not all apartment buildings basements are to be included common property. This article will discuss how to determine the purpose of the basement and its legal regime.

MKD premises and possible legal regimes

According to paragraph 1 of Art. 290 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation the owners of apartments in the MKD on the right of common shared ownership own the common premises, bearing structures home, mechanical, electrical, plumbing and other equipment outside or inside the apartment serving more than one apartment. Article 36 of the LC RF gives a better idea of ​​what is common areas Houses.

According to this norm, the owners of premises in an MKD own, on the basis of common shared ownership, premises that are not parts of apartments and are intended to serve more than one premises in this building: inter-apartment landings, stairs, elevators, elevator and other shafts, corridors, technical floors, attics, basements in which there are engineering communications, other equipment serving more than one room in this house (technical basements).

It follows from these norms that a premise belonging to common property cannot be part of an apartment or other premise that is in individual ownership, and a part of a premise that is not separated from a premise owned by a sole proprietor cannot be in common ownership. In turn, the premises as an object of law may be subject to the legal regime:

Common property in the MKD, and then the participants in the common property
property are all owners of premises in the house with the size of the share of each in proportion to the area owned by each owner of the premises;
- independent property that is in sole or common ownership, but on grounds not related to the purpose of the property as auxiliary and serving other premises.

Clarifications of the Constitutional Court

As stated in Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of May 19, 2009 No. 489 O-O, Premises that are not part of the apartments are referred to the common property of the owners of the premises in the MKD (including) if they contain equipment intended to serve the needs of the owners of the premises. Such premises do not have an independent purpose; they, like the equipment located in them, are intended to serve several or all premises of the house.

At the same time, the judges noted that, in addition to non-residential premises belonging to common property, the MKD may have other non-residential premises intended for independent use.

Such premises are immovable things - independent objects of civil rights. Their legal regime differs from the legal regime of premises established Art. 290 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and Art. 36 LCD RF. Looking ahead, we note that in houses of Soviet construction (and older) to distinguish non-residential premises, endowed with an exclusively service function, from non-residential premises self-appointment is not easy. Solution this issue requires consideration of actual circumstances and falls within the competence of arbitration courts and courts of general jurisdiction. The Constitutional Court has repeatedly drawn attention to this (see definitions No. 137 O-O of 24.02.2011, No. 1587 O-O of 16.12.2010, No. 814 O-O of 17.06.2010, No. 472 O-O of 22.04.2010, etc.).

Arbitration practice that has been developing for almost two years since the adoption of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation Definitions No. 489 O-O, to the surprise of the owners of the premises in the MKD and their representatives, showed that the basements, historically intended for shoe shops, pharmacies and other organizations and institutions, at first glance, do not differ in any way from the same basements not occupied by similar objects, for the most part do not belong to the common property of the houses. In new buildings, on the contrary, the legal regime of basements is more transparent and is most often determined by arbitrators as common shared property.

Position of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court

The basement of the house is not technical by definition

The first major failure of the HOA, which represents the interests of part of the owners of premises in the MKD on the issue of recognizing the basement as common property, suffered at the end of 2009.

Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of December 15, 2009 No. 12537/09 all judicial acts previously adopted in favor of the partnership were canceled, and the case on recognizing the right of common shared ownership of the disputed basement, formed on the area of ​​​​former apartments and used for decades as an independent real estate object (to accommodate various institutions), was sent to a new consideration. The reasons for this decision were the following circumstances.

Key moment:

The right of common shared ownership automatically arises only for technical basements, and not for any basement premises of the house.
By direct indication Art. 36 ZhK RF the right of common shared ownership of homeowners does not arise for any basement part of a residential building, but only for technical basements. The qualification of a basement as a technical room is predetermined, for example, by the need for constant open access to the equipment located in it.

In itself, the presence of utilities and equipment in the basement or its corresponding part does not give sufficient grounds to consider this property as a technical basement and, as a result, as a common shared property of the homeowners. In addition, the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court took into account that the disputed basement was formed from former apartments (due to which the question immediately arose of the possibility of access to communications located in the said premises, and the need for such) and was used as independent object real estate even before the creation of the HOA and the emergence of ownership of apartments and rooms from the residents of the house.

Signs of the "technical underground"

Here we will talk about decisions that are positive for the owners of premises in MKD, based on the position of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court presented above. Yes, in Decree of the FAS SZO dated March 21, 2011 No. A56-30206 / 2010 the judges took the side of the registration authority, which refused legal entity in the registration of ownership of the basement, in which there was an electrical panel, related to the common property of the house. Despite the fact that the organization acted as a shareholder during the construction of the house, including financing the construction of the basement, the court indicated that all participants in shared ownership should apply for state registration of the right to the common property of the house, in particular to the disputed basement.

Decree of the FAS SKO dated December 20, 2010 No. A53-6270 / 2009 the claims of the HOA for the basement were satisfied, the construction of which at the stage of building the house was financed by the entrepreneur and which was registered in the ownership of the entrepreneur upon completion of construction. The judges stated the fact that the disputed premises were not intended to accommodate offices and were not put into operation as such.

The examination established the presence in the basement of sanitary equipment serving the MKD, the use of which is impossible without constant access to the disputed premises. According to project documentation the disputed premises were recognized as a technical basement that did not have an independent purpose.

Key moment:

The basement is recognized as technical:
- designed as a technical basement, which does not have an independent purpose and is not intended for independent use;
- equipped with engineering systems and their control units, maintenance of which requires constant open access of technical specialists;
- not isolated from engineering systems and control units.

Another example of recognizing the right of common shared ownership of the basement, which was leased out without the consent of the owners of the residential premises of the house, is Decree of the FAS SKO dated August 10, 2010 No. A32-4632 / 2008.

The court, having examined the materials of the case, including the plan of the basement of a residential building, found that it contained main pipelines heating systems, hot and cold water supply systems, risers, inlets of pipelines supplying the house heating system, shut-off valves and taps, pipelines of the sewage system, and came to the conclusion: such a basement was not originally intended for independent use. It should be classified as common property of the homeowners.

Well, the last court decision on recognizing the basement as common shared property, which I would like to draw your attention to, is Decree of the FAS UO dated March 15, 2011 No. F09-1144 / 11 C6. The judges were presented expert opinion, according to which the disputed basement of a residential building had:

Entering with metering devices of the cold water supply system of all premises of the first floor and basement;
- input with metering devices of the hot water supply system and heating system, designed to provide hot water and heat of the premises of the first floor and basement;
- mounted system supply and exhaust ventilation, which provides an organized flow of air (and its removal) to the premises of the first floor and basement;
- a freight elevator and an elevator hall to it for moving goods between the first floor and the basement.

Based on the information received, the judges came to the conclusion that such a cellar could not be used independently. Its design and actual purpose is serving, since it contains all control units for engineering networks of the first and basement floors of the building, located in the basement, where unhindered access should be provided. The basement itself performs a service role, has an inextricable link with the building as a whole, since it is not isolated from it.

The absence in the basement of a looped system of power supply, heating, water supply and separate metering devices utilities, according to the judges, predetermines his auxiliary appointment.

From the content of the above judicial acts, it can be concluded that each dispute regarding the recognition of the right of common shared ownership of basements by the owners of premises in an MKD has its own nuances and its own reasons for resolving it in the interests of homeowners. A generalizing feature of all the cases discussed above is, firstly, that the disputed basements were not designed or subsequently formed as separate (including from communications and control units) objects, and secondly, that in all disputed basements except engineering networks control nodes were also placed. Note that the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court in Decree No. 12537/09 did not draw any fundamental conclusions in this direction. They appeared later, in another of his decrees. (dated 02.03.2010 No. 13391/09).

The basement is a separate property

IN Decree No. 13391/09 on the example of the basement of a house of pre-revolutionary construction, the signs of such a room as an independent object are formulated. So, when determining the status of a basement in similar apartment buildings, it must be taken into account that, according to Clause 1 of Appendix 3 To Decree Supreme Council RF dated December 27, 1991 No. 3020 1 such objects of state property as residential and non-residential funds, originally belonged to municipal property, the property of Moscow and St. Petersburg. Since the beginning of the implementation by citizens of the right to privatize housing, provided Law of the RSFSR dated July 4, 1991 No. 1541 1, a residential building in which at least one apartment (room) was privatized lost the status of an object that is exclusively in municipal ownership.

Therefore, the legal regime of basements, whether or not related to the common shared ownership of several owners of premises in such residential buildings, should be determined precisely on the date of privatization of the first apartment in the house. The right of common shared ownership of common property in such a house (in particular, the basement) arose only once - the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court indicates: at the time of privatization of the first premises in the house. Subsequently adopted federal legislative acts (including the Law of the Russian Federation of December 24, 1992 No. 4218 1 “On the Fundamentals of the Federal Housing Policy”, the Temporary Regulations on the Condominium, Article 290 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and Article 36 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) only confirm that homeowners have an already arisen right common shared ownership of the common property of the house and clarify it, but do not generate the named right anew.

According to the conclusions of the arbitrators, if, as of the date of privatization of the first apartment, the basement premises of the residential building were intended (accounted for, formed) for independent use for purposes not related to the maintenance of the residential building, and were not actually used as common property by the homeowners, then the right of the common share There was no landlord ownership of these premises. The rest of the basement, not allocated for the purposes of independent use, passed into the common shared ownership of the homeowners as the common property of the house.

Key moment:
An independent real estate object is a basement designed or formed by the time of privatization of the first apartment in the house as an object intended for independent use.

This criterion, in the opinion of the arbitrators, does not contradict the statement that the premises in which engineering communications are located are a priori the common property of homeowners. To determine the legal regime of such (separate) basements, it did not and does not matter if they have engineering communications, since they are located in each basement and do not in themselves give rise to the right of common shared ownership of homeowners to premises already allocated for independent use, do not related to the maintenance of a residential building.
We managed to find several interesting examples applications Decree No. 13391/09 in the practice of federal arbitration courts. So, Decree of the FAS SZO dated March 21, 2011 No. A56-48167 / 2009 HOA the claim to the KUGI for recognition of the right of common shared ownership of the basement was denied, which, according to the certificate of the design and inventory bureau, has been recorded in the accounting documentation since 1977 as the premises of a shoe shop ( former apartment). In 2003, this object was reconstructed (its area was reduced due to the allocation of a water metering unit to an independent room), as a result of which a secondary property was registered, in which there were no technical premises (ventilation chambers, water meters, switchboards, elevators, etc.). d.). Similarly, the fate of secondary real estate objects (basements) was resolved in resolutions of the FAS SZO of March 21, 2011 No. A56-36543 / 2009, FAS MO of December 9, 2010 No. KG-A40 / 14250 10.

For your information:
The owners of basements allocated as independent objects and used for shops, cafes, pharmacies, etc., are obliged, on an equal basis with other owners of the premises of the house, to bear the costs of maintaining common property, regardless of whether they use such property. After all, these premises are also a constructive part of the MKD (Resolution of the FAS SZO dated March 21, 2011 No. A56-7732 / 2010).

Regarding the placement in the basement - independent real estate - utilities, there are also several interesting cases. In particular, in Decree of the FAS SZO dated January 18, 2010 No. A56-9227 / 2008 it is stated that the location in the basement of engineering communications for cold and hot water supply and the heating system cannot serve as a sufficient basis for classifying this room as an auxiliary one, especially if there is a need for constant use And maintenance equipment located in the premises for the needs of other premises of the house has not been proven. Similar conclusions were made by the judges of the FAS UO in Decree dated 12.05.2010 No. F09-3319 / 10 C6 regarding the fact of being in the basement of communications laid in transit (pipeline central heating With heating appliances, cold water pipeline, risers with shut-off equipment).

It should be noted that in practice there are cases when basements, visually identified as independent objects, are in fact not properly formed as such and therefore are subject to transfer to the common shared ownership of homeowners. A similar situation was examined by the Presidium of the Chelyabinsk Regional Court in Decree of November 24, 2010 No. 44 G-99/2010. As can be seen from the case file, the basement of a residential building, as, in fact, all premises this object, in the 1990s were taken into municipal ownership (according to the above-mentioned Decree of the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation No. 3020 1). However, at that time the basement was technical, independent use it has not been defined. The disputed premises were reconstructed and put into operation as non-residential only in 2004, so the homeowners had every chance to register it as a common shared property. Given trial did not reach its logical conclusion only because the case file did not provide documentary evidence of when the first apartment in this residential building was privatized and what the status of the disputed basement was at that time (by indirect signs - “technical underground”), however, the precedent created, which is very important.

The basement is an independent service property

The use of basements in MKD is so diverse that it is sometimes very difficult to determine its legal regime, in particular, in the case when the object is isolated and has an independent purpose - servicing the living quarters of the house and nearby buildings (for example, heat supply). Such premises, according to the judges of the FAS UO (Resolution dated 02.03.2010 No. F09-982/10 C6), cannot be in the common equity
validity. The controversial basement has been used to service several houses since the house was built. It initially had an independent purpose, was the object of technical accounting and registration and did not belong to the common areas of one residential building. In connection with these circumstances, the HOA was denied a claim for recognition of the right of common shared ownership of the basement premises, where the central heating point was located, to the equipment of which the heat consumption systems of several nearby buildings were attached.

As mentioned at the beginning of the article, the basement, depending on its characteristics, purpose, etc., can be both common and sole property of the owners of the premises in the MKD. When determining the status of the basement of a house, it is necessary to take into account many factors: the features of its design, the dates and nuances of reconstruction and the formation of secondary real estate, the availability of communications, control units, etc. It is obvious that in the process of establishing these facts, the owners of premises in an MKD will need the help of experts and inventory services. But that's not all. If grounds for filing a lawsuit statement of claim about the recognition of the right of common shared ownership of the basement will be found, the owners of the premises in the MKD should take a responsible approach to preparing for the trial. It is necessary to carry out general meeting owners and obtain their consent to file an appropriate claim with the court, as well as authorize the partnership (management organization, other person) to represent the interests of the owners when considering the claim in court.