FireNet Community
THE REGULATORY REFORM (FIRE SAFETY) ORDER 2005 => Q & A => Topic started by: Geoff on January 31, 2007, 10:09:52 AM
-
I've just had one of the schemes that I look after say that a fire officer has been in and said that if they do not have any afd in their roof spaces and that they are not comparmentalised then their stay put policy with regards to fire evacuation (or non-evacuation) is invalid.
Have any of you heard of this and is it becoming general policy for FSO's to say this sort of thing?
-
It depends on the circumstances of the case. For a care home I would say the officer was right, for sheltered housing it is not so clear cut.
If the roof space is large and undivided > 20m, if there is fire detection in the common areas in this case as part of an L1 or L2 alarm system, if there is any potential for fre in a unit to spread into another unit via a common unprotected and undivided roof void, if the void continues over what should be compartment walls between units or over fire resisting partitions without fire stopping then I would agree with the fire officer that a policy of non evacuation is not appropriate.
-
When I did risk assessments for sheltered housing (all made by one particular builder) I found that corridors and flats were not adequately separated as the walls above the false ceiling were incomplete, and the ceiling tiles were not fire resisting in around 2/3 of the properties. If the walls and ceiling do not prevent the spread of fire, how can the risk assessment conclude that the stay put policy is acceptable?
-
Thanks for the replies. This is one of my units that I haven't been able to visit yet (only been here a couple of months) so it hasn't got a risk assessment (and please no comments about what people where doing before I got here!) yet.
The only areas that are not fully compartmentalised are the communal corridors (i.e. the roof space above the top floor corridor) in the corridor the protection goes from floor to ceiling. No detection in the roof void though! All other areas of the accommodation though have automatic detection.
Though this is not perfect I had taken the view that a stay put policy in this case would be acceptable, it is common to many of the other sheltered accommodation schemes we have across the country of it's age and type. I was a little surprised as I haven't had such comments from other FSO's across the country.
I take it that there are differences in interpretation of what is acceptable in different areas of the country?
-
You will find some fire officers are "hotter" on this than others.
And for good reason. Sometimes you can't physically tell whats above a ceiling because there's no means of actually being able to get up and have a look inside it!
If however I'm in a property and can see that you are able to "pop" a ceiling tile and have a look at whats above then I will do so.
-
just been to a sheltered home with 68 flats. Refurbished 2 years ago and a new tiled ceiling installed along the corridors with new fire doors put in place along the corridors length. Lifted a tile in the New ceiling next to a fire door. The fire break that should have been in place was missing above the fire doors! This made me look closer and I found that all of the doors along the corridor were the same. I then looked in the service cupboards in the corridors, No Cavity barriers in place, so the fire could spread to the 1st floor and roof space with ease!
-
If there isn't adequate compartmentation for the stay-put policy to work, would there be an issue regarding the RRO - occupants being 'relevant persons', inadequte means of escape etc? Is this what the fire officer has picked up on?
-
Check out this link.
http://fse.cmp-info.com/q/11xMXOsQcy5Yorss/wv (http://fse.cmp-info.com/q/11xMXOsQcy5Yorss/wv)
Several interesting items. Select the item on sheltered housing. May want to check and double check on compartmentation, cavity barriers etc. before advising on a stay put policy!