FireNet Community
THE REGULATORY REFORM (FIRE SAFETY) ORDER 2005 => Guides and Legislation Links => Topic started by: ps on November 08, 2006, 02:16:16 PM
-
Hi - my first time on this site - found it by accident whilst trying to work my way through the RRO by googling some queries. I've downloaded the guides from the ODPM site, but, despite their clarity on most bits, I have a query.....
Probably a really silly question, but in a complex building, when does a corridor become an escape route, and when just an ordinary corridor? I want to give the go-ahead for people to put up pigeon holes in a corridor - but think this won't be allowed.
Do all corridors in a building have to be sterile, if so, I've been in 100's of buildings that flout this, and given their prominence, I'd be surprised.
Any help or pointing in the right direction would be appreciated....
-
Its all to do with the layout of the building, how far people have to travel to reach an exit and whether they have a choice of directions by which to escape.
If the corridor has escape routes at either end and the total distance of travel from any point in a room to the room exit and then down the corridor to a final exit or protected stair is within reasonable limits say 9m in the room and then around 9 to the nearest exit from the corridor then there is no need for any control over the corridor- it can be treated as an inner room/ access room situation the corridor being an access room.
On the other hand if from the room exit we then have to travel more than about 30 m if we have a choice of routes, or more than about 12-15 m if its a dead end corridor then the corridor needs to be a protected route and we would have to control what is put in there. Risk assessment rules using the travel distances set out in the guidance documents - as a guide!!!
Hope this makes some sense.
-
A corridor with stuff in it becomes a room. Thus rooms accessed from it are inner rooms. If my only escape is via another room (or corridor with stuff in it) then a fire in that room would leave me trapped.
Therefore I need to know about a fire in that room before it gets too big - providing AFD or suitable glazing will usually do the trick.
-
Thanks guys - much clearer!
Thank you.
Can I be a pain and now ask another question? Do managing agents of domestic properties need to do risk assessments. I'm thinking of places where say 6 domestic flat owners get together, form a company then appoint a managing agent. Do the common areas, ie stairs, corridors lifts need assessment even if no one works in the building and the flats are entirely separate living accomodation (ie not a house of multiple occupation)?
Many thanks in advance if you can help.
-
I suppose that the Body Corporate would be the Responsible person.
A risk assessment would be required but records are only required where there are 5 plus employees.
-
The simple answer again is yes. The RP is either an employer, a person in control, Managaing Agent, or the owner. Onlt single private dwellings are exempt from this legislation. The property you describe is an HMO under the terms and conditions of 1 of the standard tests in the 2004 Housing Act and therefore the shared accommodation/common parts are within the RR(FS)O.
-
purpose built flats post 1991 are not HMOs. However the common parts of all flats fall within the scope of RRFSO but there should be little needed other than keeping escape routes clear. Some consultants are recommending smoke detection and extinguishers in the common parts but this is not usually required.
-
I have never found things so clearly defined- in the local spa towns there are very many large country houses, former hydros and even former mills, often listed buildings, that are converted into flats.
For various reasons they do not or cannot meet the design standards such as CP3 part IV 1971 or ADB. Where travel distances or fire separation cannot meet the recommended standards we have two choices- leave the building to fall into a spiral of decay or to make the building as safe as can be achieved within reason.
I must point out we are not talking inner city flats or tenements with all the associated social problems. More the sort of premises ps is referring to. Until recently detection and alarm systems in the common areas have been one answer. Residential sprinklers now coming more to the fore.
I have often recommended fire alarms and smoke detection in common areas in these cases where the stay put policy would not be safe.
The agent and the management committee would be responsible persons ps. But the findings of the RA would not have to be recorded
-
kurnal
Ah yes CP3 Chapter 4 Part1.I know it well.....the old ones are still the best !!...........Especially the rubbish guides for the RRO!!
I will await your response with anticipation lol
Regards
Conqueror
-
One recent example of full evacuation recommended in flats was when I carried out a common areas risk assessment in a former mill (used in the famous Colditz film) which is now upmarket flats.
Seven floors single central staircase lobby protection excessive dead end condition 12.5 metres. But biggest issue was that the lift shaft fell outside the staircase enclosure, on one wing, the shaft rising through the dead end corridors and no protection other than the half hour sliding lift shaft steel doors- ie very little or no smoke control.
So a fire in a ground floor flat or common area could send smoke up the lift shaft to affect the dead end condition on all floors above. The shaft was not ventilated at the top. I recommended a vent to the shaft and common areas fire alarm with smoke detection, not happy to trust the stay put policy in this case. Will the vent be effective? Probably not- smoke will most likely not be very bouyant. But didnt feel secure to leave things as they were.
By the way- this was a recent conversion with building regs approval.
-
So you send everybody out into the area that is full of smoke rather than leave them somewhere safe???
-
Am I missing something here. I thought the safety of occupants was what the whole thing is about. The 60 minute enclosure is for the occupants to stay put, no common fire alarm to rouse residents and put them into a dangerous situation. Then if a fire occurs and is extinguished others may never know or if the building is considerd untenable then the FRS alert and evacuate. Surely we do not want occupants coming down as firefighters go up. Hose and water on the stairway and interference with F/F operations. Best left where they are and moved as and when necessary.
-
That's fine in a purpose built block that hs the required structural protection. Kurnal is talking about a building where that is not the case (I think).
-
The stay put policy works and is the best solution where as Big A says the full structural protection requirements are met.
But if the full design requirements cannot be met what other safeguards can you put in place in compensation? (residential sprinklers apart)
The traditional approach in all buildings has been towards early detection of fire in compensation for shortcomings in other areas. In every other building the first place to provide detection has always been the means of escape- corridors and staircases.
Can you imagine any other building where the design strategy would be to leave people safe in their rooms, offices, workshops whilst the fire brigade put the fire out and make us all safe?
The stay put policy was a pragmatic response to the problem over the total lack of control over the tenants of flats, but if the fire resistance enclosing the units was the only issue why would limits be set on travel distances and requirements made for staircase protection, escape lighting etc?
I know that originally vents in stairs and corridors were for the use of firefighters (CP3 chapter 4 part 1) , but its interesting that there now seem to be contradictions in guidance. On the one hand the guides say that it is unacceptable for a wheelchair user to be left in a refuge to await rescue by the fire service, but its ok to defend in place in a care home. My local officers keep reinforcing the message that the responsible person cannot rely on the fire brigade attending within any set time or to any set standards anymore. But we still stay put in flats.
-
Thanks for the info here guys - one thing does concern me though - if people who do this for a living are confused and disagree - how on earth are mere mortals supposed to cope! My understanding, from the many replies is that
1 They do need to do a risk assessment, despite nobody working there and the premises being private domestic flats
2 Logic (but not necessarily the law) says it should be documented
3 It is classed as a HMO (contrary to my initial understanding) I thought you had to share facilities such as a kitchen to be classed as an HMO - or am I still wrong??
If anyone can tell me if I've got it right thus far I'd be eternally grateful!
Many thanks in advance
-
Yes,yes and no. The 3rd point is about the 2004 Housing Act and the new classification. Google it or I can send you a copy and some other bits.
-
Hi Jokar - if you could I'd be grateful - the only stuff I can find is really generic. Am I right in thinking it is common parts only of the building and no acount can be/will need to be taken of what tenants/owners get up to in their own flats?
Many thanks!
-
A corridor with stuff in it becomes a room. Thus rooms accessed from it are inner rooms. If my only escape is via another room (or corridor with stuff in it) then a fire in that room would leave me trapped.
Therefore I need to know about a fire in that room before it gets too big - providing AFD or suitable glazing will usually do the trick.
Wee brian, to expand on this; if there is a corridor with nothing in it that has more than one room coming off it with doors that can be left open, is the corridor an access room?
-
No, a corridor is a corridor.
-
Jokar has it in one.
Its only a room if theres a reasonable chance of a fire in it.
-
If there was a fire in a room coming off the corridor and the door was open then the smoke would fill the corridor.
If the corridor was a dead end then it could be protected by FR construction or perhaps smoke detection. But if it wasn't a dead end then the guides don't recommend any protection unless it links to sleeping accomodation.
If it is likely that a door will be left open then I would probably treat the corridor as part of an access room.
-
Thats all coridors mate. You making up your own rules?
-
Thats all coridors mate. You making up your own rules?
No nasty prescriptive rules anymore just good old risk assessment.
-
so in your risk assessments all coridors (other than protected ones) will be regarded as access rooms?
-
Hi all - thanks for all your help on this issue. From the different opinions expressed - it seems there are no rights or wrongs anymore! On that basis I'll attempt to use common sence and logic and see where that takes me!
Jokar - if you could point me in the direction of the guide you were talking about, I'd be grateful.
Thanks again.
-
The old BB7 for schools accepted corridors were used to some extent and called them Dual purpose areas ie the "corridor"was a used space and as such was an access room to class rooms which were by definition ,now inner rooms and safety issues were in place by virtue of ,glazed classroom walls etc.
-
Oh dear ......looks to me like some of us are missing the point about corridors! Why is/was corridor approach...not protected corridor....regarded as a suitable alternative to lobby approach to a stair? Answers on a postcard!
Steve I totally agree that there should be no prescriptive rules and risk assessment should be the way forward, however it appears that many making those risk assessments do not have an understanding of the general principles of fire safety.
-
so in your risk assessments all coridors (other than protected ones) will be regarded as access rooms?
No, not all.
-
If it is likely that a door will be left open then I would probably treat the corridor as part of an access room.
Just the ones with doors in?
-
We seem to have some difficulties with first principals here. A corridor is a means of going from one place to another, it is not and never will be a room. A room is somewhere where people work, sleep, store or do anything else. A room accessed from a corridor is still a room, a room with access only from the first room is an inner room. Some corridors, sleeping risks, require FR protection others do not. Not all dead end corridors require afd or FR protection. If we remove all corridors then we have rooms that may or may not need protection dependent on where the doors go to. Rooms off of these will ne inner rooms.
-
I can agree with both sides of this argument to some extent.
My view on it is this. As far as the designer of the building is concerned Jokar has it spot on. But then someone occupies the building and chooses to use a nice wide corridor for storage, furnishings, mail room, rest area, waiting room or whatever. In these circumstances the decision is then:
1- If its a protected corridor its not acceptable. remove fire loading.
2- If its not a protected corridor could the building still comply with guidance (travel distance, vision panels, smoke detection, obstructions and escape route width, and rules for staircase protection) if the corridor were to be treated as an access room and all rooms off the corridor treated as inner rooms?
If it can meet the guidance in other respects I too, like Steve, in that particular case would probably treat the corridor as an access room.
-
Ah - this is now full circle! Kurnal - you've hit the nail on the head! But, back to my original question - when is a protected corridor a protected corridor?? What makes a corridor protected and in what circumstances does a corridor need to be protected?
If you can answer these couple of questions, I'm sure Santa will be good to you this year!
-
Basic principles used to be a protected corridor i.e. one that provides 30 minutes fire resistance between the corridor and all rooms except low risk wcs required in dead end conditions and sleeping corridor.
Most now agree that for dead ends not the best solution, especially if no AFD.
Sleeping corridors should also be protected routes to buy time for escape.
Also single stairs, tall buildings or those using phased evacvuation usually would require protected lobby or protected corridor approach to stairs.
But I agree with the earlier points that a corridor is a corridor. A corridor that has no fr provides additional protection to a stair case even if the doors are open. The premise being that fires occur in rooms, not corridors, thats why they should not contain significant fire loading.
Smoke pressure is reduced as it moves from room into corridor so corridor performs same function as a lobby.
-
I found this in ADB:
"Enclosure of corridors that are not protected corridors
4.22 Where a corridor that is used as a means of escape, but is not a protected corridor, is
enclosed by partitions, those partitions provide some defence against the spread of smoke in the
early stages of a fire, even though they may have no fire resistance rating. To maintain this defence
the partitions should be carried up to the soffit of the structural floor above, or to a suspended
ceiling, and openings into rooms from the corridor should be fitted with doors, which need not be fire
doors."
" ... in the early stages of a fire ..." It needs to be considered how long the smoke and heat will stay in the room and when escape through the corridor is feasable.
I think that the likelyhood of the door being left open is significant and should be considered in the risk assessment.
Phil,
I can accept that, especially in the early stages of a fire, the smoke pressure should be lower in the corridor than in the room containing the fire load. However I would hope that a proper fire resistant lobby provided significantly better protection.
-
Phil,
I can accept that, especially in the early stages of a fire, the smoke pressure should be lower in the corridor than in the room containing the fire load. However I would hope that a proper fire resistant lobby provided significantly better protection.
Quite so Steve, of course a FR lobby would give better protection and that is why it is required in the examples I quoted.
-
Ah - this is now full circle! Kurnal - you've hit the nail on the head! But, back to my original question - when is a protected corridor a protected corridor??
In the old days it was simple - because the fire certificate plan said so!
Good comments by all the above, very useful
-
many many thanks to all who contributed, I will now go and lie down in a darkened room!
I think reading on, in and between the many lines is that corridors are never rooms if they lead somewhere. Protected corridors are only needed where there is significant risk of fire, sleeping accommodation, and for the enclosures onto stairwells. Other corridors that could be used as escape routes need to be kept clear and fairly free of fire loading in case they need to be used in an emergency.
If someone could just say yes, I'd be sooooo happy!
Thanks in advance.....
-
If you were to ask me on a monday I'd say yeeeeeees..........
Add to your list of protected corridors:
corridors where there is only one direction of escape possible
corridors forming part of an escape route where parts of the accommodation are further than the maximum recommended travel distance from the nearest exit- ie excessive travel distances
-
Thanks Kurnal - I've been distracted by other things since, so haven't been back to the site - but just found your reply...many thanks again perfect!
-
A corridor is just a corridor when it provides a means of intercommunication between habitable rooms or those where a function is undertaken. An area which is the same shape as a corridor but is used as a place of work or habitation is a long narrow room. A long narrow work room where people work or where a function is undertaken can be an access room to a square shaped office off it.
Lets say someone who has three offices off a corridor needs more room and decided to move a receptionist with all of their equipment into the corridor. The corrider then becomes an office, albeit long and narrow, and the three offices then become inner rooms to the now long narrow access office. Providing the travel distance is met and there is a VP between the inner and access room or AFD in the outer room whats the problem?
-
nearlythere.....Is this a dead-end corridor in your imagination ?
Conqueror
-
Conqueror
No. It is a long narrow access room which has an inner room and the travel distance is up to 18M from the innermost point in the latter to the exit from the former. A room does not have to be a particular shape or size. Are all single exit rooms dead end conditions? Yes but an acceptable dead end if the travel distance is met.
-
I'm just about with you in principle nearlythere- but there are some significant caveats. You are right that there is no defined shape for an access room but the rules for dead end corridors have always been stricter and for good reason. And that gives us a pointer as to why there may be a small problem with your suggestion.
First thing is that it all depends on the risk you are putting in your long narrow access room. You will have to pass close by the risk to reach the exit. In a more regular access room you could give the fire a wider berth.
In a more conventional access room situation the room would have a much greater volume into which the smoke and heat could spread in the early stages of a fire, thus maintaining tenable conditions for far longer than would be the case in a long narrow corridor shaped access room. I would take this into account and think very carefully about the time it would take to detect, respond and move away from the fire to reach a place of safety, and how quickly untenable conditions would develop that could prevent egress.
I think the outcome for me would be to minimise the risk, or move the risk out of the access room as far as possible and to look at the time to exit vs tenability- perhaps a reduction in travel distance may be justified as the access room narrows?
finally vision panels are rubbish most of the time and ADB allows them to be miniscule - but remember that a vp may not give much of a view of your long narrow access room especially if its configured like a corridor- you may not see more than across the width of the corridor. Smoke detection is a much better bet.
-
Funny how such a simple issue can lead to so much discussion. But it is good to exercise the mind on simple things for a change.
You are quite correct in rubbishing VPs because of the many, many conditions which would have to be met for them to be practical, eg. position of inner room occupants, any visual impairment, location of furniture, size and position of VP etc.
The matter again of the long narrow access room and your suggestion on the removal of any risk from it. COPs will say that the access room should not be an area of special or high fire risk. I wouild not neccessarily consider normal office equipment as being of a special or high risk catagory.
For code compliance I would suggest that my arguement holds water but for RAs your view is quite valid.
It's good to talk.
-
There's me thinking I asked a simple question!
Can I ask another - I'd like to get into this fire safety a lot more as I'm increasingly getting drawn into debates. Other than swallowing the guides - what else should I be looking to do to become "competent"? In addition to regularly logging onto, and getting expert views from you lot of course! Is there a generally accepted good all round qualification respected by all?
-
To All
Guide 9 is out!
Conqueror