Heat or smoke detection in hotel bedrooms opinion please

[William 29]

Can anyone give current recommended guidance on the above.  I am aware of what BS 5339 says in clause 21.1.7 in that it recommends heat detection within bedrroms provided that persons do not have mobility imparements.  It also states that the objective of these dtectors is not to warn the person in the room but to warn others in the hotel before the integrity of the door to the bedroom is threatened by fire.

Is this still the case given that the RRFSO is for the protection of ALL revelant persons? (under the WP Regs the FSO's would not normally able to enforce anything unless staff where sleeping on the premises)   Is the BS saying that any smoke within the bedroom would not reach a level so that the occupant could escape by the time the heat detector has operated?  Or have I missed something?

[kurnal]

The BS was written to meet the needs and expectation of the time. The term relevant person was not an issue before 1/10/2006.

The old BS struck a balance between protection of escape routes and avoidance of false alarms caused by steam, smoking, aerosols.

There are numerous multi sensor detectors on the market that include smoke, heat and CO sensors that can give high sensitivity without false alarms- the technology has really advanced.

At the same time there is no body of evidence that I am aware of that shows that a smoke detector makes a significant difference to life safety if a fire occurs in the occupied room but common sense says it should.

We now also have general smoking bans so it is possible to clearly identify smoking and non smoking rooms.

As the BS still represents best practice Brigades cannot specifically enforce an upgrade specifically. But my opinion - and I do a lot of risk assessments- is that I cannot justify recommending continued use of heat detectors in rooms where new technology has provided a better solution. Failure to do this would go against the principles of prevention.

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

A good subject following recent events!

The requirement of the Fire Safety Order is to provide a suitable means of giving warning in the event of fire "to the extent that is necessary" as identified by the risk assessment. The responsible person must safeguard the safety of relevant persons, so, if there is no detection in the individual room, how is this achieved?

Smoke alarms actuate the alarm earlier therefore giving early warniong and potentially allowing the occupants to escape. By having a heat detector, I would assume that you are prepared to sacrifice the occupants to warn others ...... not acceptable.

The fire safety guide to risk assesment for sleeping accomodation clearly states that if the premises is being used as a hotel, then an L1 system should be in place.

The Fire Authority can get the system upgraded ...... by use of an enforcement notice if necessary. This can be reinforced by the appeal made by Sparrow Hawk Hotel in Lancashire against their notice, which they lost and the judge made reference to the guidance documents.

[messy]

William

An interesting point and one which will perhaps have to wait until an appeal or prosecution before the courts settle this one.

The use of heat detectors in hotels bedrooms has been discussed before and I for one feel uneasy in sacrificing two guests due to a management system - in the main designed to reduce UwFS!!

I like your 'all relevant persons' angle and will float it pass colleagues next week.

[William 29]

Thanks guys interesting points! I guess there is really no definative black and white on this one yet.  I have been involved with 2 hotels recently where the issue has come up.  One is a 7 bed guest house in Blackpool with current old style heat detection the other is a large 54 bed hotel with no detection in any bedrooms, althought the fire cert from approx 10 years ago shows detection!

[messy]

A good subject following recent events!


The fire safety guide to risk assesment for sleeping accomodation clearly states that if the premises is being used as a hotel, then an L1 system should be in place.

.

B/Man

Where does it say L1 for hotels in the guide? Have I missed it?

The table on page 55 states that for: Hotels, motels, hostels, large bed and breakfast and boarding house type accommodation:- L2 system

[Martin Burford]

Definately L2
Conqueror!

[kurnal]

Yes. L2 it is. But are these guides fit for purpose anyway?

I am getting more and more frustrated by code hugging inspecting officers some of whom do not even bother to read the risk assessment, and just measure the building against the pictures in the guides. Grrrr. Take figure 45 on page 93. Have a good look at the ground floor non sleeping area plan. Why all the fire doors and self closers? crazy. But I have been shown this diagram this week by an IO wanting my client to comply and he tells me that if we appeal the magistrates are using the guide as an ACOP.

I note that the key to the table on page 55 introduces another ambiguity- it says that a Grade D LD3 system should have detectors in escape routes (including rooms that open onto escape routes). This is completely different to the definition of LD3 in BS5839 part 6.

[Martin Burford]

kurnal
I would agree with your sentiments entirely about the Guides and th RRO................this legislation is flawed, ill thought-out and cannot compair to the FPA in away shape ot form. The guides are dificult to access for me as a professional, heaven knows what its like for the RP. I would be exremely interested to meet the person who wrote these Guides, as i'm sure an interesting discussion would ensue.
Conqueror.

[Ken Taylor]

I seem to recall that hotel rooms required heat detection to avoid residents regularly finishing up in the car park in the early hours of the morning due to the once-widespread habit of smoking in bedrooms. (A procedure, I understand, once practised by a certain residential educational establishment). If we can now avoid this scenario whilst providing sufficient warning of fire to every occupant it should be considered reasonable to do so.

It could be concluded from this and similar threads that, just like risk assessments, the guides are in need of 'review'.

[John Webb]

Conqueror,
Some, not all, of the Guides were written by my former colleagues at Building Research (BRE). But I have heard reports that considerable delay occurred after they left BRE due to others putting their oar(s) in from elsewhere. (There was, I believe, 'stakeholder' consultation.) . I therefore infer that if the Guides are sometimes less than clear this may not be due to the original authors' intentions! All complaints to CLG, I believe!

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

Humble aplogies ..... it is L2 .......

My eyes are going!!

[Dinnertime Dave]

I seem to recall that hotel rooms required heat detection to avoid residents regularly finishing up in the car park in the early hours of the morning due to the once-widespread habit of smoking in bedrooms. (A procedure, I understand, once practised by a certain residential educational establishment). If we can now avoid this scenario whilst providing sufficient warning of fire to every occupant it should be considered reasonable to do so.

It could be concluded from this and similar threads that, just like risk assessments, the guides are in need of 'review'.

How are we avoiding this scenario, not through no smoking legislation as hotel rooms are exempt - see below

"There are very limited exemptions from the smokefree law, as set out in the Smoke-free (Exemptions and Vehicles) Regulations. These regulations include exemptions for bedrooms in hotels, and for care homes, hospices and prisons. In most cases, exemptions do not apply to the entirety of premises, but to "designated rooms", that must meet requirements specified in the regulations. The law also includes a limited exemption for performers, which applies to the performer only during the performance, where the artistic integrity of a performance makes it appropriate for a person who is taking part to smoke"

Whilst operational I seem to recall that steam from showers seemed to be the main cause of unwanted fire signals in hotel rooms.

[Ken Taylor]

The 'scenario' is frequent unnecessary evacuation, Dave - not smoking in hotel bedrooms!

[lambie]

I am as confused as anyone with the IO's and the continued ignoring of the risk assessments, why ask for a risk assessment if the judgement of the audit falls back on the guidance and or theTechnical Annexes. If you work to PAS 79 for example and the R/A meets that criteria surely it should have some credence. I too have every sympathy with RP's who do their level best to conform and are met with the walk through, the building footprint and the miss-interpritation of the guideance. Bring back fire certificates!  First post, maybe last post.