FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: stevew on September 18, 2018, 06:58:10 PM
-
A circa 1990 four storey scheme has been identified as having issues with fire stopping to ducting and pipe runs throughout.
Fire officer advised that a survey be carried out with remedial work undertaken.
The issue is that she advised that in the meantime the evacuation strategy revert from 'stay put' to full evacuation. She offered no further advice.
BS Part 1 fire alarm in communal function rooms, corridors and staircases. Only audible in those areas.
BS Part 6 detection in hall to each flat. Both systems satisfactory for a 'stay put' policy.
What did the FO expect to happen?
-
From experience they look for either a waking watch or an extension of the alarm system or a mixture of the two.
I assume the breaches are such that there is a real chance of rapid spread between flats or flats and common space?
-
Not sure what you're after - the FO identified that the premises arguably doesn't currently comply with the Law, & suggested one way of temporarily mitigating the risk whilst permanent remedial measures were applied. I'm not sure I see what the problem is?
-
Both systems satisfactory for a 'stay put' policy.
What did the FO expect to happen?
Yep i'm stumped - what is it youre not happy about?
Sort out the compartmentalisation and in the meantime implement full evac procedure
No stay put til compartmentation is correct-a-mondo Fishy....seems reasonable
-
She obviously thinks you can just hook the laptop up to the panel and tick a few boxes to interlink the whole shooting capoodle to sound everywhere.
-
Always difficult to explain the circumstances in writing.
The short version.
FO issued a deficiencies notice that referred to needing a survey of compartmentation, which I agree should
be addressed.
I expect FO's, when they choose to offer verbal advice to explain the possible temporary solution(s).
Not just suggest that the evacuation strategy should temporarily change and we may re-inspect in three months time.
-
She has given you an option - full evac policy til you know your compartmentation is suitable for stay put...how many other options do you want her to provide - besides that down to the RP to come up with options simples
-
Still don't see any sign that she's done anything wrong at all. She's offered advice, which could be implemented (no matter whether it's easy, or less straightforward, it's still possible), but it's the RP's legal responsibility to decide what to do, and to do it. If they believe there are alternative ways of achieving the same risk reduction at less cost, then they're perfectly at liberty to implement them, & they don't need the fire authority's permission to do so.
The RP didn't maintain their fire protection, & in resi/institutional compartmentation is pretty blooming important! Not much sympathy from me, I'm afraid...
-
Always difficult to explain the circumstances in writing.
The short version.
FO issued a deficiencies notice that referred to needing a survey of compartmentation, which I agree should
be addressed.
I expect FO's, when they choose to offer verbal advice to explain the possible temporary solution(s).
Not just suggest that the evacuation strategy should temporarily change and we may re-inspect in three months time.
Sadly, you are thinking of a time gone by, pre RRFSO, where fire officers explained their rationale. Not any more, either you comply or you don't and it's down to the RP to provide appropriate solutions.