Purpose Built Flats - Now rented apartments .....

[David Rooney]

Hi

We have a situation in a tower block in London that we have just taken over with regard fire alarm servicing.

The tower block is around 20 stories, and is a purpose built "block of flats".

There is an automatic smoke ventilation system throughout - no alarm sounders anywhere.

At some point in the past a company has taken over many of the flats - circa 168 and lets them out as serviced apartments either long term or for weekends etc.

There are still circa 100 private flats dotted in and amongst the apartments throughout this block.

There is a 24 hour manned reception.

So "obviously" this was originally designed as a stay put building but does the fact some of the apartments are now booked out like a hotel mean there should be a fire alarm system or at least an indication in reception of a fire in a flat??

Does the company renting the rooms have a duty of care or is this not necessary?

Thanks

[Mike Buckley]

In my view it would depend on how the apartments are booked out. The acid test would be can a person walk in off the street and immediately book an apartment for the night? If so you are looking at a business very similar to a hotel and you would need a centralized fire alarm system and a suitable evacuation procedure.

If a person has to book ahead then you are looking at a business much like a holiday apartment let and the stay put procedure may still be acceptable.

[David Rooney]

I don't know for sure but seeing as they have manned reception I'm sure if they had an apartment free they wouldn't turn down the business ...... I can find out for sure.

But why would the "booking system" determine the need for a fire alarm system?

I could book an apartment via the internet now for this evening or I could turn up at 5.00 pm and ask face to face?

[LeeM]

If the flats were deemed safe for defend-in-place then the company who rents out the flats should inform any occupiers to evacuate the flat of fire origin or stay where they are if in another flat until FRS states otherwise. Having two evacuation policies in same building is bound to lead to problems and people putting themselves at risk or interfering with FRS operations.

[David Rooney]

Exactly that ..... so regardless of whether it's a "Hotel" or not because of the allegedly superior compartmentation and the fact there are a hundred or so domestic residencies as well ... we accept the stay put.

But should the Reception not be made aware of a fire within a room??

What is the occupant is overcome (or the room is empty) and the fire breaks out onto the escape route?

[colin todd]

Mickey, what you describe is tricky.  If it were all short term lets throughout the block, you would probably want a common fire alarm system, because it is difficult to explain to people who might just pick up their keys (a la Air B&B) without any induction, that they should stay in the flat if there is a fire elsewhere.  On the other hand, why is fire more likely to break out into the common parts simply because you have replaced a permanent resident with a temporary one.

I would be disinclined to abandon stay put in a tower block and you cant really have two separate procedures in the same building.  Also, how are you going to get signals from detectors in flats to the concierge without significant cost.  Interesting point is the potential application of the FSO to some of the flats.

Do you really need to advise them on this.  Is it not outside your contract, albeit that I appreciate you want to give them advice.

[Fishy]

Do you really need to advise them on this.  Is it not outside your contract, albeit that I appreciate you want to give them advice.

Sage advice.

[David Rooney]

Tis true it's probably outside our remit, and we can always tell them to check it out with the risk assessors etc etc ...... but it just seems a "lazy way out" and would have been nice if there was a definitive answer.

I guess I'm hung up on the fact it is being used as a hotel - even though the rooms are self contained flats - which would dictate a fire alarm system is necessary as opposed to the fact these are also purpose built flats that wouldn't require a fire alarm system.

Adding detectors connected to the Reception within flats is going to be costly.

I guess all we can really point out is the requirement for a pt 6 system within each rented apartment - but should this not provide 75db at the bed head as a "hotel scenario" ??

[colin todd]

Sage and onion advice in fact.

[kurnal]

If the building is designed to support a stay put strategy, and therefore has  the necessary compartmentation and no communal fire alarm to meet this end, why would you want to tip everybody out just because you consider they are staying as a hotel basis?

One assumes the communal areas remain sterile and that there is an appropriate fire action notice in each room/ apartment. The fire is most likely to start in a room / apartment, will the fire know the difference between permanent and temporary residents? Would the fire behave any differently? What benefit would an evacuation serve? Do we know how many people are in the block at the time of the alarm? We must remember that standards of construction in a stay put building are / should be much higher than in a conventional hotel building.

Most universities let out their accommodation blocks during vacations; I have never had any difficulty in persuading fire services to agree to the retention of the stay put strategy where this is in place during term time, subject of course to appropriate justification and briefing for guests.

[Tom Sutton]

Kurnal,s post, the rational makes a lot of sense but what about new build hotels, concrete floors, full FD30s doors, full 60 min compartmentation, does this mean we can adopt a stay put policy, no fire alarms, or do we adopt a principle use concept? Could this be the thin edge of a wedge?

[kurnal]

If the design fire strategy for the new hotel supports a stay put policy then I see no problem. There will, in a conventional hotel, be areas such as bars and restaurants where a general alarm and full evacuation will remain appropriate. The growing trend for aparthotels reinforces this approach.

I don't see it as the thin end of the wedge, but an appropriate and safe standard for fire safety. Little is gained by tipping people out into the street at 3am and many guests ignore the alarm - unless staff run round banging on doors and physically rousing them. More commonly the alarm is silenced then staff go to investigate the cause. I have often asked staff how, having silenced the alarm they would re-activate it if necessary, only to be met with a blank look. 

[Tom Sutton]

Thanks Kurnal I wasn't aware of aparthotels and take back the remark, thin end of the wedge. This must mean the RP has control over the flat as well as the common parts, would this mean in the OP the RP would have control of some of some of the flats and all of the common area?

[kurnal]

Tom I am not advocating anything that should be used as new design template, just discussing issues around problems encountered in existing buildings in what I hope is a pragmatic way. As for the responsibilities of the RP in such circumstances it might be that the hotel apartments might be considered domestic premises as per existing Case Law, the most recent judgement on this being the WMFS / Victoria Halls case.

For new builds with all the options offered by modern addressable fire alarms and suppression systems there is no reason not to apply a conventional approach to the design of a new hotel.

[David Rooney]

So forgive my ignorance of the various standards but what is the reasoning behind the differentiation between these purpose built flats that can be let out from one night to maybe 2 months or more and can have four people or more sharing a two / three bedroom flat, to the building next door that is a purpose built block of flats used for student accommodation - two to three bedroom self contained flats but that required an L2 system in the common parts including a sounder in each flat?