FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Redone on January 19, 2007, 03:35:26 PM
-
To all inspecting officers regarding the care industry. How far will you or your Brigades policy go to ensure a home complies with the following requirements of the RRO?
Considering the cost implications are meant to be minimal, it's obvious to me that if full compliance is required the industry could collapse.
Following areas from the guide, what would you insist on?
What if the manager is happy with current conditions, standards in the building, after all, he's done the assessment and he's happy with the current conditions and dosn't what to do anything?
Page 60 - L1 system required where more than 10 residents above ground or significant number require assistance.
page 18 residents doors can be continually left open as long as fitted with suitable door closer... swing free - B1?
page 27 - evacuation plan, not reliant on rescue services. Already been threated with procecution at a home with two night staff!
page 71 - Delayed evac. Carer to stay with resident? Don't think so!
page 72 - FRA to show number of staff required to carryout the evacuation plan.
page 94 - Lifts
Would you accept a sprinkler system to BS9251:2004. installed for entire property. connected to a water storage tank and single electric pump for a care home as a compensatory feature?
-
To all inspecting officers regarding the care industry. How far will you or your Brigades policy go to ensure a home complies with the following requirements of the RRO?
Considering the cost implications are meant to be minimal, it's obvious to me that if full compliance is required the industry could collapse.
Following areas from the guide, what would you insist on?
What if the manager is happy with current conditions, standards in the building, after all, he's done the assessment and he's happy with the current conditions and dosn't what to do anything?
Page 60 - L1 system required where more than 10 residents above ground or significant number require assistance.
page 18 residents doors can be continually left open as long as fitted with suitable door closer... swing free - B1?
page 27 - evacuation plan, not reliant on rescue services. Already been threated with procecution at a home with two night staff!
page 71 - Delayed evac. Carer to stay with resident? Don't think so!
page 72 - FRA to show number of staff required to carryout the evacuation plan.
page 94 - Lifts
Would you accept a sprinkler system to BS9251:2004. installed for entire property. connected to a water storage tank and single electric pump for a care home as a compensatory feature?
I am sure you will get differing views but here would be my expectations/comments:
P60-L1 or L2? not a requirement, only a reccommendation.For new (large) would ask for a L1,For an existing Large, would probably not get the backing for an enforcement so would accept L2.
P18-no problem with swing free-better than BS wedge, balance of safety/living standards
P27-if resi care , occupants should be mobile., if nursing more staff to help.
P71- if you read the whole passage there is a much much higher level of Fire protection required to consider this as an option, so cannot automatically rule it out.
P72- would not ask for it as no point if fulfilling other requirements in passage ie minimum staff is sufficient for evacuation plan.
P94-would not accept as it does only recommends a seperate, not an additional, power supply.However if there was an easily way of lowering lift to floor (ie hydraulic controls in lift shaft) might consider it
Sprinklers-not a life system is it? so no.
I am sure there will b others that can justify other views, and unless some case law, will have to live with that!
-
Have a look at the cooments in the new building regs from april with regard to care homes. Pip is right the guides are recommnedations only. The FRA will assess the risk and consider the appropriate control measures. RP responsibility not the FRS. They can attempt to enforce what they like but the onus of responsibility is on the RP not the FRS. The major chnage in this legislation.
-
Cheers Jokar and Pip,
My BCO will accept the sprinkler system as long as the supply is reliable. Which to me makes a lot of sense as this is actually almost affordable for a number of homes. So if one BCO will accept this standard...
My LA inspecting officer will accept the lifts as is with out the seperate power supply, subject to a stringent procedure. I've only come across ONE home in the last nine years where the residents could walk out of the premises. Most are registered as Residentential, but are actually Nursing/EMI. And nobody is willing to increase staffing levels.
I know it's down to the RP, but the owner's are generally happy to soldier on as is, leaving the RP high and dry.
-
Pip: A BS 9251: 2005 residential/domestic fire sprinkler system IS a life safety system.
Redone: A fire sprinkler system installed by a LPC listed contractor WILL have a reliable water supply in accordance with the BS. The problem is that BCOs and Fire Officers are too often accepting anyone (and sometimes anything) when it comes to sprinkler installations in care homes.
-
Pip: A BS 9251: 2005 residential/domestic fire sprinkler system IS a life safety system.
Redone: A fire sprinkler system installed by a LPC listed contractor WILL have a reliable water supply in accordance with the BS. The problem is that BCOs and Fire Officers are too often accepting anyone (and sometimes anything) when it comes to sprinkler installations in care homes.
sorry, made the fatal mistake of an assumption-thinking only one supply did not equal a life safety system!
-
So why does a 5306 system need two water supplies for it to be 'life safety', but a 9521 system does not?
Relaxation for 5306 or 9521 system- yes I would like to see some -but there is a lack of national guidance- so yes some BCO's will accept, and possibly some FSO as well.
-
My BCO agree's that any sprinkler system with an adequate reliable water supply is superior to no sprinklers at all.
-
My BCO agree's that any sprinkler system with an adequate reliable water supply is superior to no sprinklers at all.
Which features would he relax?
-
I don't honestly know Pip, just that a domestic system would be acceptable rather than no system at all.
But the emphasis was on a guaranteed/protected water supply.
-
In Scotland all new Res Care premises must be fitted with Sprinklers.
The FRA will depend upon the construction of the building. If the evacuation plan is for horizontal phased evacuation and the staff can move the 7-8 residents from one zone to another in a reasonable time, should this not be acceptable? Remember you are only evacuating the affected zone first of all.
If the home is fitted with a reasonable AFD system L1/L2 then action by staff will be close to discovery and alarm giving them a chance to fight the fire in its early stages. (If safe to do so.)
-
The problem at the moment is, because there is no central advice on what would be acceptable relaxations to the B.Regs/ acceptable as a compensatory feature, different decisions are being made at a local level by Building Control authorities etc.
Therefore we are finding lots of inconsistencies.I would like to see some relaxations, as it could help promote sprinklers if there could be some offsetting of the costs.Until there is some central guidance it means many BCO's/FS0's will, although they may have sympathy, will not be able to endorse relaxations because they will not have the authority to do so, as their local policies and procedures will not allow it.
-
Pip: good question re 'life safety systems' when talking about fire sprinklers.
There is a problem (that the fire sprinkler industry recognise) in that because whenever people consider sprinklers for other than property protection i.e. life safety, there's an assumption that this means a 'life safety system' - which is not the case.
Life Safety Sprinkler Systems were originally designed for large risks such as shopping centres, where they had to be able to operate at all times and could not be totally off for any reason.
Same words but different meanings! This is something that BAFSA wish to clear up with BSi asap - especially in view of the increased use of sprinklers in accordance with building standards (Scottish Tech Standards and new ADB 2006).
-
Pip: good question re 'life safety systems' when talking about fire sprinklers.
There is a problem (that the fire sprinkler industry recognise) in that because whenever people consider sprinklers for other than property protection i.e. life safety, there's an assumption that this means a 'life safety system' - which is not the case.
Life Safety Sprinkler Systems were originally designed for large risks such as shopping centres, where they had to be able to operate at all times and could not be totally off for any reason.
Same words but different meanings! This is something that BAFSA wish to clear up with BSi asap - especially in view of the increased use of sprinklers in accordance with building standards (Scottish Tech Standards and new ADB 2006).
Exactly, so what standard of system should we accept before we look at relaxing other standards ie doors with S/C instead of Fire Doors etc.I must admit i feel a little uneasy with relaxing standards on anything less than a 5306 life safety system but I am open to being convinced otherwise.I know any sprinkler system is better than no system, but it has to be reliable if you are going to relax physical fire protection.In the case of shopping centres they are there to ensure the primary escape route is kept available for escape, so features a back up water supply.
-
Pip: BS 9251: 2005 for residential care homes. That is what it says on the packet! As per ADB and Scottish Tech Standards. But I would add that a 'third party' accredited contractor gives you a good degree of confidence that it's designed abnd installed properly (see, soon to be up and running, LPS 1301 scheme).
-
I think its funny that people keep asking for central guidance on when its OK to relax/vary the central guidance! How does that work?
The problem with care homes is always going to come back to staffing levels. Its a big failure that there is no guidance (other than the SHTM) that gives an indication of suitable ratios.
-
Could not agree with you more Brian, but even this could only happen if the industry was honest about the type of occupants actually involved, a true residential home is a rare beast today.
-
hi redone email me we are working with a very large carehome/shelteredhousing group at the mo and they have put a very good training package and risk assessment stratagy together email me i will fill you in
richard.earl@tecservuk.com
-
I think its funny that people keep asking for central guidance on when its OK to relax/vary the central guidance! How does that work?
The problem with care homes is always going to come back to staffing levels. Its a big failure that there is no guidance (other than the SHTM) that gives an indication of suitable ratios.
it works because there would be an acepted level of variations/choice,for example, for an inner room;or for an existing dead end.
-
But then it would be central guidance - thus not a variation.
-
But then it would be central guidance - thus not a variation.
me thinks you are just playing with words.
-
No I'm making a point - Dont ask for central guidance about varying central guidance - it is daft.
There are some options/ variations in adB for instance but that doesnt preclude somebody coming up with an alternative.
You can have flaxibility or prescription - you can't have both
-
No I'm making a point - Dont ask for central guidance about varying central guidance - it is daft.
There are some options/ variations in adB for instance but that doesnt preclude somebody coming up with an alternative.
You can have flaxibility or prescription - you can't have both
I wasn't after both, although there are a lot of people who do when it suits them.try 'acceptable alternatives'then if that sound better.it doesn't alter the basis of the question,which you seem to have misunderstood.
-
If you did have a list of acceptable alternatives then can you do things that aren't on the list?
-
Must agree with wee brian.
One of the principle advantages of risk assessment is offering the assessor a flexible approach to standards. The down side is unqualified persons carrying out RA's. I would go one step further and say potentially dangerous.
All comments confirm my feelings that only a person competent in fire safety should carry out a FR of life risk premises. The right person would have the level of knowledge and experience to look at each case on its own merits thereby only considering a variation if considered appropriate, without compromising safety.
-
sorry i was out today redone but should be in on friday, my client is the H&S manager for a large care/sheltered housing group i will ask her if i can send you her email, she is breaking ground on the whole aspect of fra incare/sheltered housing in a big way.
-
If you did have a list of acceptable alternatives then can you do things that aren't on the list?
of course, but we base these on benchmark standards.if you want total flexibility with some one making their own judgement on what is safe, why bother with such guidance such as BS or DCLG guides?If you are basing competence on experience and knowledge-where then does that come from?Ultimately of course it is the courts that decide what is 'acceptable', reasonable etc, but as few cases have gone before them we are left to get on with it.
All I am saying is, if there was a benchmark standard that said something along the lines of, for example,' if a sprinkler system is installed to such and such a standard.......... certain elements would not be required to be fire resisting' (or what ever).This is no different than other options /alternatives given in Building Regs/BS/DCLG etc.
This would give BCO's/FSO's the confidence to be able and accept different options, instead of the adhoc way it is done at the moment.You must remember many of them will have to follow their employers policy, and employers are slow to promote/reluctant to accept a policy that it outside benchmark standards.
I am trying to promote a particular client to install more sprinklers in buildings, but at the moment have very little to offer in terms of savings (they are self insuring).They have recently completed 10 large Resi care projects where they have put in a (non mandatory) near life safety system(the cost of making it a full 'life' system would have been minimal), but have taken the decision not to relax any physical measures because they do not want to take a chance without some form of central acceptance (Politics comes into it).So they have a very expensive property protection system that will have the spin off of making the home safer and easier to manage, but they won't rely on it,because they chose to have a policy of having them as a 'nice extra', and if they chose to stop maintaining it and switch it off, it has no effect on their procedures.
-
Theres already stuff like that in the building regs (AD B) and in other guides.
Theres more now than there used to be but people will always explore other options.
If your argument isn't good enough to convince people - perhaps it isn't good enough at all.
-
Yes but it has'nt been looked at again in ages-hence the ad hoc uncoordinated approach.The government recently bemoaned the fact that 350 million was the cost of school arson last year,and want schools to fit sprinklers-but they wont provide any money,alter legislation or suggest ways of off setting the cost.thats why there is such a poor uptake-big organisations such as county councils will not in general do anything unless it is contained in recognised guidance.I think you will find that most people think sprinklers are a good idea-the problem is funding them.
-
Part B has only just been published is that not recent enough for you?
-
has'nt changed a lot though in respect to sprinklers
-
Sprinklers "required" in 30m plus blocks of flats
Max comparment size for unsprinklered storage buildings
New Alternative approaches for
Multi storey flats
Four storey Houses
Loft conversions
Care homes
!!!
-
just tinkling-could have gone a lot further.
-
Could have - but maybe it didnt need to.
-
Government want more sprinklers,especially in schools.They wont be put in by L.A. unless there is an incentive or a requirement.little to ofer in the new ADB.
-
Then local authorities will continue to lose schools and complain that they cannot afford to rebuild them. As most LAs do not insure schools or have such enormous excesses they have to fund the rebuilding costs from within existing budgets. When will they finally wake up to the benefits of sprinklers and get the message?
The benefits of cost saved and continuity of the childrens education are surely benefits enough if only they would see it.
-
it is not so much they don't realise it, but there just is not the money to do it.My local County council voted to fit sprinklers in all schools,then when they were told how much it would cost they had to review that so that now hardly any new build will have them-exceptional circumstances only-maybe for instance a 'special' school for difficult children.The L.A I work with has over 500 schools- it just does not have the capital.The cost of doing it to every school would out weigh its potential fire losses, how ever costly/tragic that is for the individual school concerned.You also have to look at how schools are funded now-most of the money goes straight to the school,and not the L.A.- and they don't want to spend 50/100/150k (which they don't have anyway) on a sprinkler system-they want computers/staff/internal alterations etc etc.Thats why more needs to be done by the government if they want sprinklers in schools-provide the money/trade offs or legislate.
-
Politics wins-politicians talk the talk, but when told how much it will cost, and then think about the votes lost/increase in council tax etc they backtrack.There isn't enough money for the basics ie social care, so paying up extra money for items that are not statutory take a back seat if it isn't 'sexy' enough politically.
-
But you wouldnt look at all 500 schools- I bet there are probably 40 - 50 that should be a priority for sprinklers by risk assessment.
Retro fitting would be an expensive nightmare. But there can be no excuse for not including them in new builds.
So we cant blame the local politicians - there are too many demands on their already limited finances. And the funds dont go to the LA they go to the schools.
Following the same logic we cant blame national politicians for making it a priorty either. Or for changing the rules on LA funding. or for making toppling dictators or replacing nuclear subs or giving doctors huge pay rises a bigger priority than ensuring that new school building projects are adequately funded and properly designed.
Fires in schools. Yeh they cost us £50-£60million per year. Untold harm to childrens education. Adding sprinklers in all new secondary schools built nationally ( say 200 new schools per year) probably costing about 2 million per year. In 30 years time school fire losses would be unheard of. Sounds like good value to me.
Keep banging the drum Pip. Keep telling the politicians. One day they may just listen.
-
'But there can be no excuse for not including them in new builds.'
But they don't because they argue that 'new builds' have more compartmentation and fire resistance.quite often the quote for a system in a new build is proportionally quite high-and because of poor water supplies,putting in a tank etc increases it even more.everybody will tell you how great sprinklers can be and we should be putting them in-until they are asked to pay for them.
And yes politicians spend the money where they want to, not necerssarily where it is needed, and they are only interested in the short term gains.
-
please tell me who will fit 200 sprinkler systems for £2 million-even in new builds- if I could get them fitted for that price I might be able to pursuade the L.A. to fit more!!!!!!!
-
Just let me check my calcs on my fingers again....theres a 0 missing somewhere- and whose going to argue about £0....
Funny how it aint a problem if someone else has to pay. Its only cos they are mainly govt buildings that they argue. If the majority were public sector financed you can bet it would be in the Building Regs
-
Where do you blokes get all this from???
When did the Government ever say it wants more sprinklers?? Its certainly keen on better regulation and improving fire safety - not quite the same thing.
If they didn't care about costs to the private sector then they would have introduced more in ADB.
Schools aren't covered in the new ADB so maybe that's why it doesnt ask for sprinklers in them?
-
'Where do you blokes get all this from???'
Government minister quoted in the 'Times' about a week ago said sprinklers should be put in schools.-sorry can't give you exact reference
draft BB100-( I believe that the new ADB directs school design to the new still awaited BB100)only suggests consideration-points out it is not a statutory requirement.
-
You are right Wee B- they dont want more sprinklers. The whole point is that some of us think they should. And gradually if we keep grinding on about it and as more schools / care homes etc keep burning down we will eventually change their mind.
If the Scots can do it for Care homes and HMOs why cant we South of the border? Clearly the only effective form of persuasion is a multi death fire. A recent school fire in Derby cost over £11million and was a close run thing on life safety by all accounts.
-
The last time I looked, sprinklers were for property protection and not for life safety. If insurers and owners do not want the added cost fo property protection, who are we to argue. I do not see many lives lost in commercial premises from fire the high risks is in the home. Perhaps the argument should be for domestic sprinklers allowed to be fitted by plumbers and not accredited sprinkler engineers.
-
I thought fast response sprinklers were for life safety?
-
Like everything in this game - it depends. Sprinklers can serve iether or both functions depending on the premises and the design. But if they are "required" by ADB then they are being used for life safety.
As far as schools are concerned its hard to justify sprinklers on life safety grounds. The occupants are awake and supervised. Lots of schools do burn down though, so there is a strong argument for better protection on economic grounds.
I think the insurers are getting behind this issue so I expect we will see a lot more sprinklers in new schools.
-
I was a fire officer, my Dad was a school teacher many years before. In the early 1970s my Dads school was burned down in an arson attack. His diary account was was very atmospheric and moving as he detailed the impact and loss of key coursework and the devastating effect of the fire on the education of his pupils. Of course the ultimate decisions are based on ££££s but the lost opportunities and the impact on the community are really what counts. Sad thing is that it has to be in the politicians back yard to get that message home.
-
The last time I looked, sprinklers were for property protection and not for life safety.
I agree with you wee brian but I was questioning jokar first sentence.
-
How quickly do the heads operate and get people away from the premises? The fire alarm system should do this before ever a sprinkler head operates. Life safety systems are still the same system but with quicker operating heads, aren't they?
-
Of course that’s why they are called rapid response I am not arguing the pros and cons just that there are systems designed for life safety.
-
Pleased to say that under the Building Schools for the Future programme six schools are being built that I will be looking after, will all be fitted with sprinklers, also a new childrens home being built also being fitted with sprinklers. If you dont recommend or advise they will never be fitted
-
Dont get too excited about response time. Regardless of which type you use the people in the immediate area of the fire will be gone before the sprinklers operate.
The life safety impact is more relevant to protecting people elswhere in the building from the fire.
-
You may have also noticed that the old limit on compartment size for schools of 800sq m no longer applies- see table 12 of approved document B. It would appear that schools are now treated as assembly buildings with unlimited compartment size for single storey and 2000 sq m for multi storey buildings. Another safeguard that has saved a number of buildings bites the dust.
-
You may have also noticed that the old limit on compartment size for schools of 800sq m no longer applies- see table 12 of approved document B. It would appear that schools are now treated as assembly buildings with unlimited compartment size for single storey and 2000 sq m for multi storey buildings. Another safeguard that has saved a number of buildings bites the dust.
Possibly not so, and I am only quoting draft BB100 (which the new ADB says schools should be built to BB100) table B3 max compartment if on ground floor if unsprinklered-800m square, sprinklered -unlimited.
-
Thanks Pip. Thats better. Do you know if I can download a copy of BB100 anywhere?
-
Dont get too excited about response time. Regardless of which type you use the people in the immediate area of the fire will be gone before the sprinklers operate.
The life safety impact is more relevant to protecting people elswhere in the building from the fire.
Come come Wee B....that's not exactly what the 'Cleckheaton' tests or BRE Report found - certainly not regarding BS9251: 2005 systems.
-
Staying on the sprinkler thread I attended a meeting with a fire officer today.
The meeting was in connection with a three storey single staircase HMO. The view of the FA was that if a BS9521 system was installed there would be no need separate the risk areas from the staircase with fire doors.
It appears to me to be a good trade off for the client. The only thing nagging away in my head is the fire officers comment that we want the smoke to enter the escape route to activate the smoke detection system . With this type of premises I do not see occupants responding that urgently to an alarm. My concern is that by the time they enter the escape route may be compromised by smoke.
Does the arrangement work?
Comments please.
-
The fire officer is talking rubbish
-
It does sound as though the fire officer has got rather too carried away with enthusiasm. We would surely require detection in every room leading onto the single staircase in a 3 storey HMO sprinklers or not.
There has been talk of some relaxation on the standards of doors in such circumstances for many years. The new ADB gives some general advice and referral to a research document but is thin on specifics. The BRE research document on the effectiveness of residential sprinklers that was commissioned by the ODPM was criticised by many supporters of sprinklers, who felt rightly or wrongly that some of the methodlogy in the experiments was flawed. Many were hoping for greater and more specific design freedoms. Much work on this topic was done by the National Fire Sprinkler Network, and in particular an officer of the Hertfordshire fire and rescue
service produced a draft to this end. No need to mention the officers name- his work promoting sprinklers is well known within and outside the brigade.
Although this work has no official standing it is a useful insight into the way many serving fire officers view sprinklers and had many supporters nationally. I could dig a copy out if you cannot find it on the www.
-
Thanks wee brian, short and straight to the point.
Thanks kurnel I must however clarify that detection would be required in all rooms opening off as well as in the staircase. Does not change my concerns.
I will search the web for the draft, if unsuccessful can I come back to you.
I will be writing to the particular FA and request confirmation as to their policy on sprinklers
-
email me with a fax number or mailing adress and I will gladly post a copy.
-
Dont get too excited about response time. Regardless of which type you use the people in the immediate area of the fire will be gone before the sprinklers operate.
The life safety impact is more relevant to protecting people elswhere in the building from the fire.
Come come Wee B....that's not exactly what the 'Cleckheaton' tests or BRE Report found - certainly not regarding BS9251: 2005 systems.
Ok - I'll correct myself - If you are daft/drunk enough to stay in the room with a fire then domestic sprinklers could go off in time to save your life. The room will probably be full of smoke (less nasty but still no walk in the park.
Most people will just leave the room - its a fire they are bad for you. Of course you may be asleep - get a smoke alarm (less than a fiver these days).
-
Staying on the sprinkler thread I attended a meeting with a fire officer today.
The meeting was in connection with a three storey single staircase HMO. The view of the FA was that if a BS9521 system was installed there would be no need separate the risk areas from the staircase with fire doors.
It appears to me to be a good trade off for the client. The only thing nagging away in my head is the fire officers comment that we want the smoke to enter the escape route to activate the smoke detection system . With this type of premises I do not see occupants responding that urgently to an alarm. My concern is that by the time they enter the escape route may be compromised by smoke.
Does the arrangement work?
Comments please.
Sorry I didnt respond in my usual detail. I often hear people talking about leaving doors open to let smoke get to detectors quicker - This is very very very wrong, don't do it.
Whatever you think about sprinklers (I think they are great I'm just a realist). Its always best to have a closed door between the fire and the escape route. Yes leaving the door open will spead up detection but it speads up the loss of the escape route to. Thus the total time between detection and loss of tenability is much less.
-
Reasssuring to hear someone confirming my thoughts wee brian. I fully support the use of domestic sprinklers however having been brought up on protected staircases, certainly in high life risk premises, I need more convincing on such a dramatic trade off.
I have on occassions been accused of going deaf although I call it selective hearing. I will get my conversation with the FO confirmed in writing.
-
Lots of feed back on this topic, thank you very much everyone. Reply from WF&RS FSO below.
BS 9251 is suitable for domestic dwellings and for residential occupancies
(HMO, blocks of flats, halls of residence, etc.).
Where sprinklers to this standard are fitted within residential care homes,
Warwickshire Fire and Rescue Service will accept this as a trade-off in
connection with difficulties found by responsible persons in the
requirement for the immediate moving of non-ambulant residents out of an
affected compartment in case of fire.
No other trade-offs in terms of material alterations to the building will
be allowed unless a BS EN 12845 system is fitted.
Just to recap folks, my issue was the delayed evacuation of residents from care homes only, due to poor mobility, degree of assistance required, etc.
-
Can we go back a bit, under RR(FS)O the responsible Person has to undertake a Fire Risk Assessment as can as part of this choose to use the guidance issued by the Government to assist. The outcomes of this FRA will be whatever the competent person has decided they are. A fire authority has to enforce the provision of the RR(FS)O and may have a differing viewpoint on the decisions being made but they cannot impose requirements on the responsible person, they can ony suggest alternative solutions. Therefore, the bit above with reagrd to WF&RS is absurd, they cannot dictate terms.
-
Firstly I support and encourage the provision of sprinklers in care premises.
The policy of progressive horizontal evacuation (phe) in care/nursing is workable. I accept that in existing premises there may be individual residents that may require special arrangements. To eliminate the premises phe policy on the basis of the inclusion of a sprinkler system concerns me.
In new purpose built premises structural standards to assist phe can and should be included, principly corridor and door widths. Certainly consider sprinklers however look at other trade offs, not a stay put policy.
Sounds to me that certain interested parties are looking at sprinklers to remove the need to review staffing levels for fire evacuation. A concern for many care providers in the run up to ther Fire Safety Order.
The fire authority are entitled to a view however to dictate/influence what they will and will not accept conflicts with the risk assessment approach. Get a competent person to carry out the assessment and let the FA accept or challenge. Unfortunately there are too many so called competent persons out there offering unreliable advice, however thats another subject.
-
I think to be fair, a fire authority has to set a benchmark standard for it inspectors to follow and for general guidance to the public, and if the RP does not like it and offers a suitable alternative,then that can be a process of negotiation between the two parties.
-
Stevew, Who's suggesting the removal of the PHE policy? Name any care premise or group that is actively looking to remove the need to evacuate.
I'm not interested in new builds here, I'm trying to make a silk purse from a pigs ear, whilst attempting to give the staff a fighting chance of having a policy showing that current staffing levels can EVACUATE the residents in reasonable safety from the zone involved (and the room above the fire).
You can have doors the width of a barn and corridors the width of the M6, I'm not dealing with hospitals with beds that can be wheeled into the adjacent zone. I'm talking of care homes where 50% - 95% of residents need assistance to get out of bed never mind leave the zone/floor/building.
In the homes I deal with there may be individual residents who can move without assistance, I'm talking VERY FEW, they don't stay put as policy, the stay because thats all they can do, bless them.
No home will function if it cannot balance the books, or make a profit, the people holding the purse strings will not increase staffing levels whatever the assessor or RP recommends, be it on their head. I do recommend an increase in staff where I believe it is appropriate, however the management deserve a greater selection of cures for their buildings ill's to choose from, there is no single cure all.
So.
A sprinkler system will hold the fire in check until the fire service arrives and possibly put it out - FACT. So why not recommend it? And why not take the trouble to find out if the system your recommending is a none starter because of the cost, looking efficient but wasting everyones time? And why not try to find a more cost effective system that will satisfy all parties Owner/RP/FSO/BC?
Obviously the decision to install is with the occupier/owner.
-
Pip
Thanks. negotiation is a better word.
Redone
Reference existing care premises. It is acknowledged that the registration authorities have for many years failed to question required staffing levels for fire evacuation needs. The Fire Safety Order now requires care providers to re-evaluate their fire evacuation strategy. If they are satisfied that it is appropriate taking into account benchmark standards then ok. However we must be careful not to readily accept double standards for those residents who dont fit readily into the general strategy.
You refer to those residents who only stay put because they have to. They have always been there with their individual fire safety needs.
I agree with your comments that the care provider has to balance the books. All I am saying is that there are a number of cures for existing care buildings without having to leave residents in their room. Cures that do not necessarily need additional staff.