Office building ERP authorisation: the file that dictates your timeline

The category of an ERP depends on the total occupancy received, public and staff combined, except in the 5th category where only the public is counted. The thresholds derived from the Construction and Housing Code (articles R.143-1 et seq.) and the decree of 25 June 1980 read as follows:

• 5th category: up to 200 people received (group 2, declaration without commission review)
• 4th category: up to 300 people (group 1)
• 3rd category: up to 700 people
• 2nd category: up to 1500 people
• 1st category: above 1500 people

The thresholds drop on upper floors (moving to 4th category from 100 people) and in basements (50 people). Switching from the 5th to the 4th category changes the nature of the file: an ERP 4 with 250 people is more demanding to process than an ERP 5 with 200 people, because the 5th category avoids review by the departmental safety sub-commission. In group 1, bringing the premises up to standard concerns the entire building; group 2 considers only the relevant unit. The classification is qualified from the preliminary sketch stage, supported by plans and occupancy figures, to avoid late reclassifications.

For the Asset Manager: the cost of over-classification. Forcing an ERP classification on a building that does not welcome outside members of the public creates an unnecessary documentary burden (notices, commissions, register) and a significant additional cost per file, with no real safety gain. On a tertiary asset under VEFA or undergoing restructuring, this over-classification pushes back delivery by several months and delays the first rental income by the same amount. The useful rule: if fewer than 5 external visitors per day and no commercial or event use, ERP classification is not relevant. Unlike the widespread practice among inspection offices that classify by default as ERP type W at the slightest doubt, Kytom decides on a case-by-case basis, with documentary support.

The Cerfa 13824 authorisation file: 6 documents that tolerate no approximation

The Cerfa 13824 works authorisation is mandatory for any creation, fit-out or modification of an ERP, regardless of any building permit (article L.122-1 of the Construction and Housing Code). The file brings together six non-substitutable documents:

1. Fire safety notice (smoke extraction, alarm, sprinklers according to category)
2. Accessibility notice for people with reduced mobility
3. Dimensioned plans before and after works
4. Fire classification of materials (Euroclasses Bs2d0, A2s1d0 according to NF EN 13501-1)
5. Calculation of occupancy and exit width units
6. Descriptive note on technical installations

The file goes before the departmental safety sub-commission (SCDS) and the accessibility sub-commission. Processing takes up to 5 months (regulatory deadline, decree no. 95-260 of 8 March 1995); an incomplete file goes back to square one. Article R.4227-5 of the Labour Code sets the maximum capacity of a floor based on the exit width units of the egress routes: a single 1.40 to 1.50 m emergency staircase allows a maximum of 100 people per floor. Beyond this, a second staircase becomes mandatory, which alters the structural grid.

For the CFO: 5 months of processing, how many months of rent deferred? On a 1,200 m² floor leased at €450/m²/year, each month of delay on the authorisation represents €45,000 of lost rent. A file that goes back to square one after rejection for being incomplete means 4 to 6 months of additional overrun, that is €180,000 to €270,000 on the same asset. Kytom prepares these documents with a referenced inspection office and SSI coordinator, never second-hand.

Limit of the method. Preparing the Cerfa 13824 in-house without an inspection office or SSI coordinator may seem economical for 5th category ERPs with low occupancy. Our experience with files taken over after an initial rejection shows that the absence of an inspection office multiplies returns for incomplete files, whereas a file prepared with an accredited office generally passes first time. Below 50 people received and without structural modification, the trade-off may tip towards a streamlined preparation; beyond that, outsourcing to an inspection office remains the rule.

Accessibility: 2005 set the rule, 2017 closed the margins

The law of 11 February 2005 imposes universal accessibility on ERPs. The Scheduled Accessibility Agendas (Ad’AP) have been closed since the end of 2015, the public accessibility register has been mandatory since the decree of 28 March 2017. For offices subject to ERP classification, the numerical requirements derived from the decree of 8 December 2014 are as follows:

• clear pathways with a minimum width of 1.40 m
• steps below 2 cm (4 cm with a chamfer)
• accessible toilets for people with reduced mobility with a 1.50 m turning circle
• a lift compliant with the applicable requirements from the first floor up when occupancy justifies it, bearing in mind that the absence of staircase protection is permitted in a single-storey-plus building if the number of people on the floor is less than or equal to 150 people
• signage with visual and tactile contrast

Three cases of exemption exist (article R.164-3 of the CCH): proven technical impossibility, heritage conservation, manifest disproportion between cost and benefit. Each exemption is processed on the basis of a reasoned file, with the opinion of the departmental consultative commission. Circumventing the rule always costs more than addressing it upstream: an accessible toilet added during the works phase represents 3 to 5 times the cost of the same equipment integrated from the preliminary design stage (average gap €12k to €18k per toilet).

For the architect: the exemption, a false friend versus integration at the schematic design stage. Our reading differs here from the caution displayed by some accessibility consultants: on a post-2005 building or one that has already undergone major works, the exemption for economic disproportion is almost systematically refused. Local administrative precedent weighs heavily, and the exemption file takes 8 to 12 weeks for a very low acceptance rate on recent tertiary offices, the exemption for economic disproportion being almost systematically refused on this type of building. At the schematic design stage, integrating the PMR grid (1.50 m turning circle, 1.40 m pathway) costs less than 2% of the fit-out budget; reworked during the works phase, the same provision exceeds 8%. It is better to budget for compliance than to attempt the exemption.

Coordinating the building permit, prior declaration and works authorisation

An operation affecting the facade, the floor area or parking triggers a building permit (articles R.421-14 et seq. of the Town Planning Code), processed in 3 months for an ERP. An interior modification with no external impact falls solely under the Cerfa 13824, processed within up to 5 months. Work on a facade without the creation of floor area falls under the prior declaration (1 month of processing). The three procedures are cumulative and do not replace one another: a tertiary restructuring project with the creation of a public reception area, facade refurbishment and interior reorganisation triggers all three in parallel.

Coordinating the procedures determines the overall timeline.