Suppression So No Self Closers!

[AFD]

I see that Kent fire and Rescue service have awarded a building ( resi care I think) a special fire safety award for fitting suppression.  The owner thinks it is good because they say he does not need self closers on his fire resisting doors.  My understnding is that although suppression is fantastic and will compensate for many areas, I still believe that there needs to be cold smoke control, so even if you have none fire rated doors and older construction eg. lathe and plaster.  The suppression would compensate for that, but cheap self closers and smoke sels would still be needed to keep escape routes clear of smoke, and in resicare keep it out of other rooms where there are frail people sleeping eg. Rosepark ( are the final results of that enquiery out yet ?).  It also helps the heat in the room build up quicker to actuate the suppression.  What are your views on this ?

[David Rooney]

What sort of "suppression".... do you mean along the lines of FM200 or Inergen or some kind of sprinkler system ??

[AFD]

Sprinklers , in this case I think it was actually mist.

[Paul2886]

AFD:
I totally agree with your comments. The suppression system would need an established fire to become activated which would therefore bleed its products into the corridors and other areas. In care homes it is vital that containment of a fire and its products is maintained owing to the removal of residents from the compartment and sub-compartments by staff members. The RA should reflect this and people need to realise that there is nothing carried by BA wearers to protect those being rescued from inhaling hostile contaminants. For this reason I believe closing device are absolutely essential

[AFD]

I hope someone from Kent FRS can give us there reasoning for this, to educate us all.  I thought it might provoke a few more comments from the fire safety community.

[Ricardo]

I have recently read that although sprinklers are not mandatory for res care homes in England and Wales,  certain design freedoms in res care have, since 2007, been accepted under the guidance that supports the relevant building regulations: an example is that bedroom doors need not be automatically self closing.

However in Scotland since the tragedy at Rosepark, the Scottish Building Regulations stipulated for the first time,
that  all new build res care homes need to be protected by an automatic fire suppression system, and all bedroom doors in such places also need to be automatically self closing in action.

The last I ever heard about the Rosepark enquiry was that the PF had appealed the decision re the charges being dropped against the owners, and it was likely that an appeal would be held at some stage in the future, and that possibly, in the long term, once criminal proceedings are completed, there might well be an inquiry.

see also  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6383845.stm

[AFD]

We must assume the silence from Kent FRS means it was a career developing decision by a none fire safety trained middle manager, to be seen to be encouraging suppression in his patch without the full package.  It does not help the profession or the fire service credibility at all !  Come on Kent FRS speak up !  or is this web site for fire safety professionals only ?

[jokar]

It's a Charlie publicity stunt surely.  As Rosepark quite clearly demostrated self closing devices whether held open or not are necessary to save life in these type of premises.

[MSD]

I serve in Kent Fire & Rescue and am a new member to the forums so forgive my amateurish first attempt at posting but.....firstly i do not know the details of the building etc but the approach that appears to have been taken here should be applauded. The belief that fire doors with self closing devices in a residential care home actually provide unquestionable protection is misguided. Fire precautions are only as good as the management attitude and understanding of fire safety. The functionality of the fire precaution measures put into the building must also be matched to the functional use of the building or they will not be used. Residents in a resi -care home generally are frail and self closers hamper their daily activities. In addition they do not generally like to be in their rooms with the door closed so what is generally found on inspection is doors wedged open...... For these reasons the new approved document B identified that where fire doors may cause an obstacle to residents other self closing hardware can be considered such as free- swing door closers!!! These freeswing devices do close the doors on actuation of the fire alarm. So in this case it appears that it is a good solution. In addition the same document states that where a sprinkler system is fitted 'fire doors to bedrooms need not be fitted with self closing devices'. If the management of a resi -care home could prove effective management linked to risk assessments and procedures it may be permissible not to have any closers at all ..... i bet that would cause a few posts on this site!!

This is my view only and i have not been paid by Charlie to say it.... well i have been paid by him but not for this....you know what i mean

[Paul2886]

MSD:
Hmm, I spend a lot of my time in care homes undertaking fire awareness training and RA's. My time in fire safety in the KFB made me think along your lines of thought but to get out there in the real world makes you realise that code hugging and staff training may not be enough. It relies on early detection, staff knowing how to use the time of any fire alarm actuation and containment enhanced by closing devices. There are alternatives to wedging doors open so I don't see that item as a problem. I don't care what the regs say regarding relaxation as they often don't consider the types of persons that require protection such as the elderly frail. Whilst sprinklers may have a very important function lets remember that their actuation is when a fire is probably developed, then it may be too late to enter the compartment to make rescues.
Sorry but the words 'browny points' comes to mind regarding Mr C

[jokar]

Do we not consider that the tpye and style of evacuation has a part to play here?  If the defend in place scenario is utilised then surely we want the doors to rooms closed by a device perhaps connected to the FA system.  If it is PHE then surely we wan the fire doors to the compartment to close.  It just seems  a misguided attempt to have sprinklers fitted, they might keep the fire size down but the smoke will spread and cause panic in a care facility.

[redbadge]

What's the point in having a fire door that doesn't self close? It may as well not be there.

[kurnal]

The new ADB 2006 para 3.52 page 43 does actually recommend that where sprinklers are installed that self closers may be omitted from bedroom doors, and allows a larger number of bedrooms in protected areas but goes on to point out that doors need then to be manually closed whilst residents are asleep.

It would be interesting to know the rationale behind this recommendation.
Swing free self closers to bedrooms are the ideal answer but it isnt always so straightforward-  the requirement for the installation of self closers has come about as U turn in National policy and there is often a limit to the number of devices that can be easily connected to an existing  fire alarm system. In addition in a 40 bed home the cost will probably be around £20k in a single hit. Dorgards could be installed for about £5k.

Sometimes quality of life for the service users is a major consideration. Many do not like to feel closed in their room- in these cases the care home owner has no choice but to install the swing free closers. Its always surprising how service users views can differ from those of us who think we are looking after their best interests. One of my clients recently installed showers and jacuzzi as a result of an opinion survey of residents families. The service users themselves- all elderly people- generally are not used to showers and think they are being drowned and panic in the jacuzzi thinking that they are being boiled alive. The new equipment is very little used.

[FSO]

I see that Kent fire and Rescue service have awarded a building ( resi care I think) a special fire safety award for fitting suppression.  The owner thinks it is good because they say he does not need self closers on his fire resisting doors.  My understnding is that although suppression is fantastic and will compensate for many areas, I still believe that there needs to be cold smoke control, so even if you have none fire rated doors and older construction eg. lathe and plaster.  The suppression would compensate for that, but cheap self closers and smoke sels would still be needed to keep escape routes clear of smoke, and in resicare keep it out of other rooms where there are frail people sleeping eg. Rosepark ( are the final results of that enquiery out yet ?).  It also helps the heat in the room build up quicker to actuate the suppression.  What are your views on this ?

Where is this reference?

[FSO]

would this be it?

http://www.kent.fire-uk.org/KFRS/pageid/518/offset/0/releaseid/787/Press/Press.html

I think MSD is correct. There are self closers, they are just 'free swinging'.