FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: The Colonel on August 03, 2007, 10:57:40 AM
-
Can I seek your views on the subject of the correct standard of a fire alarm system please.
Picture a village cafe/bed & breakfast, ground floor has a cafe seating maximum of 30 people with servery, kitchen with usual cookers and deepfat fryers etc and a small office/storeroom off the cafe,means of escape at least two ways. First floor owners accommodation with one letting bedroom for a max 4 persons, stairs from 1st floor exits to open air but you can enter the cafe area via a door into the toilets lobby and then through another door into cafe. There is no sepertion between cafe and kitchen. Additional letting bedroom in ground floor annexe with seperate entrance door direct to car park. Currently there are only a few single point smoke detectors around first floor and annexe bedroom.
My initial thoughts were that a BS 5839 Part 6 system would be ok with mains powered interlinked detector/sounders however the standard is aimed at domestic type premises where this property is commercial on ground floor so my thoughts turned to a BS 5839 Part 1 system which seems to be a bit over the top possibly for this type of building.
As there is no one here for me to bounce ideas off I would be grateful for forum members input or ideas.
-
The important issue is the protection of occupants of the bedroom from something happening in the cafe area especially when the latter is unoccupied, eg. at night.
I would go for BS5839 Pt1 L2 system.
-
You can`t go wrong with a Part 1 system.
But my office (somewhere in the midlands) would be happy with a Pt 6 system. we are not worried by the lack of
seperation between the cafe and kitchen if you can turn your back on fire, but would want something protecting the escape route from upstairs.
Use Table 1 Page 55 sleeping accommodation guide - Table says Grade D LD2 or 3 However, i would recommend grade C because according to 5839 Pt 6 you can`t have break glass call points on Grade D. i`m sure sombody out there will shoot me down.
-
Well Dave no one has shot you down and having gone back to the standards and the sleeping guide i do tend to agree with you that a Part 6 Grade C LD2 could do the trick and taking into account findings in the risk assessment, the kitchen only operates between 9-5. As the premises are not much more than two converted cottages the thought of a Part 1 system still seems ott, however an L3 systems with additional detection in high risk areas (kitchen etc) has also been suggested from a friend.
I know which way one local fire alarm installer would go, he thinks Part 6 doesnt exist any more, how wrong.
Thanks for you views, any more out there
-
commercial premises with a sleeping risk L2 pt 1 is normally asked for up here
-
Could those who oppose the use of a part 6 system please explain why
-
A part 6 system will still provide the early warning required
-
Nothing against a part 6 system as far as it goes but a few other questions need to go into the equation such as standard of ceilings between ground floor and first floor, the standard of the two doors between cafe and residential which may inform the decision over manual call points and scale of detection. I would suggest that a two wire part 1 system will be cheaper than a part 6 system by 50% once you start to factor in additional detectors and manual call points.
-
Could those who oppose the use of a part 6 system please explain why
its not a dwelling
-
Could those who oppose the use of a part 6 system please explain why
its not a dwelling
True, but British Standards are not law & surely the point of Risk Assessment is that as long as you can justify that your control suits the risk and will function as required under all reasonably likely circumstances to protect all relevant persons then it should be OK.
Yes a Pt 1 system in most non domestic circumstances, but in certain circumtances why wouldn't a pt6 system (which can BTW include call points and even a central 'mini' panel) suffice other than 'the BS says so'? - thats what is being asked
-
Yes BS is not law but i will always stick to them in case the muck hits the fan and i was asked why the install did not meet the standards.
I am not into risk assessment,so we will all have different opinions
The mcp's on a pt 6 system are most suited to an HMO imo
-
Wow!!! that's an interesting statement Graeme. I don't see how anyone involved in our business cannot be into risk assessment. Yes I agree that we all have different opinions but those opinions hopefully are based on common sense and professional judgement........i.e. risk assessment.
-
what i meant is that i do not do risk assessment as an occupation.
-
Kurnal, I assumed that a part 6 system would be less expensive than a part 1 but then I dont deal with costings but certainly the clients would be. Will be rcommending that fire re4sitance between cafe and stairs is increased with a fire doors and that at some point the ceilings are checked. But I dont want to go over the top, the use of early warning is very important
-
All the defintions in BS 5839 part 6 are for dwellings and whilst I have no particular adverse reaction to the use of a Pt 6 system I think it should be clear what is being dealt with. British Standards are recommendations only and because of that are subject to challenge but it would be far better if the BSI came out and stated that they accept that Part 6 can be used in commercial premises. I would not like to be the person trying to justify part 6 to a member of the judiciary with the author of the document as an expert witness telling the judiciary that it was only meant for dometic premises.
-
All the defintions in BS 5839 part 6 are for dwellings and whilst I have no particular adverse reaction to the use of a Pt 6 system I think it should be clear what is being dealt with. British Standards are recommendations only and because of that are subject to challenge but it would be far better if the BSI came out and stated that they accept that Part 6 can be used in commercial premises. I would not like to be the person trying to justify part 6 to a member of the judiciary with the author of the document as an expert witness telling the judiciary that it was only meant for dometic premises.
I see where you are coming from Jokar but I don't quite buy that!
At the end of the day a Part 1 or a Part 6 could be utilised in the premises quite justifiably.
The idea is to protect those at sleep. A Part 6 would be fine. Infact Ive just required one be fitted in a HIMO with a taxi office underneath (the part 6 will be extended to cover the taxi rank).
In terms of a part 6 provision probably going to amount to a BS5938 Part 6 LD2 Part C possibly.
Lets forget what the guidance says for a moment, can anyone actually give me a damn good reason why a part 6 wouldnt work in this situation?
Cheers
-
Lets forget what the guidance says for a moment, can anyone actually give me a damn good reason why a part 6 wouldnt work in this situation?
Cheers
I can't Retty and surely the code huggers can take comfort that page 55 of the Sleeping Accomodation guide recommends LD2 systems for small B&Bs.
-
I can't Retty and surely the code huggers can take comfort that page 55 of the Sleeping Accomodation guide recommends LD2 systems for small B&Bs.
Absolutely Phil - it helps me sleep soundly at night
-
I would not like to be the person trying to justify part 6 to a member of the judiciary with the author of the document as an expert witness telling the judiciary that it was only meant for domestic premises.
In my defence I would like to call the author of HM Government guide to sleeping accommodation. Let them fight it out then we will all have an answer.
Hope this doesn`t make me a code hugger!
-
A part 6 system of grade C and below doesn't seem to have a requirement for the cabling to be fire resistant.
I am all for using pt 6 systems in smaller premises and recommend them quite often, but will sometimes ask for FR cabling to be used as an extra precaution.
So in this example, chances are it will be a heat detector in the cafe, so conditions are "quite poor" before the alarm is going to sound. I would say that FR cabling would definitely be preferable in this scenario, but this with a part 6 should do the job it is supposed to do.
-
Perhaps Colin will break his silence on this forum and give us a definitive as he was the author of part 6.
-
I know a sparks who when installing Part 6 systems uses Firesure cable as when using 4 core it supplies power and interlinking and only has to feed one cable through therefore reducing work and cable. When taking into account costs the Firesure is only maginaly more expensive than two pvc cables but he spends less time feeding cables through and reduces labour cost.
I agree that the cables from kitchen and cafe will need that bit extra protection so the whole lot may just as well be FR cable.
-
Perhaps Colin will break his silence on this forum and give us a definitive as he was the author of part 6.
Ah,...... Dear Colllin yes Jokar that would be useful.......come on Toddy where are you hiding?
-
In my defence I would like to call the author of HM Government guide to sleeping accommodation. Let them fight it out then we will all have an answer.
Hope this doesn`t make me a code hugger!
So then... why is Part 6 mentioned in the guide ... is it a mis-print ?
And do you really think the B&B owner could be held liable if there was a fatal fire at his premises for the heaneous crime of following a guide? A government guide?
-
I believe the argument went along these lines.
Part 6 says quite clearly on the front cover "Code of practice for the design, installation and maintenance of fire detection and fire alarm systems in dwellings"
Bed and breakfast are often just that...dwellings with a couple of letting rooms?
But they are commercial establishments?
The risk is only marginally higher?
Oh hell...this guide is meant to adopt a 'REASONABLE' approach
Would a well fitted and maintained Part 6 system do the job?
Probably
Ummm!
Not exactly a finely argued engineering approach, based on extensive empirical evidence but heh, at the end of the day everything, in all the guides, seeks to adopt a reaonable solution based on pretty extensive experience and the government has signed them off.
Would I accept a Part 6 system in a dodgy, poorly managed three storey bed and breakfast? No.
Would I accept a Part 6 system in a well managed, with good doors three storey bed and breakfast? Probably.
Ain't non prescriptive risk assessment grand?
-
Unfortunatly the spanner in the works is the ground floor cafe with kitchen but even then the rsik should only be during the day, in theory the risk should be reduced when guests are sleeping unless they like an afternoon nap. Am I getting old or what
-
Unfortunatly the spanner in the works is the ground floor cafe with kitchen but even then the rsik should only be during the day, in theory the risk should be reduced when guests are sleeping unless they like an afternoon nap. Am I getting old or what
Not a very big spanner Colonel,as you correctly point out.......the greater risk....if you consider a B&B kitchen to be a greater risk, is at a time when persons are awake.
Yes Val, non prescriptive risk assessment is grand.......the alternative is code hugging and that just costs money but does little to enhance safety.........risk based solutions are the answer but they require a certain degree of competence on all fronts.
That in my opinion is the problem we all face.
-
I am at a loss to understand why some assessors believe that we should be in the business of trying to provide fire safety on the cheap. Codes of Practice are not the law but they are a means of ensuring that, if applied properly, owners and occupiers comply with the law.
The debate of whether a Pt1 or Pt6 system is appropriate is just one of those issues which makes me cringe. The code is quite clear as to the type of premises relevant to each and I for one much prefer to sleep soundly knowing I gave the best advise, and yes, as per the codes. I consider myself a closet code hugger and proud of it.
If others want to live by the seat of their pants, thats their business but I wish they would not try to convert everybody to their way of thinking.
One has to remember that the purpose of fire safety is not to make a building look safe but to ensure that people do not die if it goes on fire.
-
I am at a loss to understand why some assessors believe that we should be in the business of trying to provide fire safety on the cheap. Codes of Practice are not the law but they are a means of ensuring that, if applied properly, owners and occupiers comply with the law.
The debate of whether a Pt1 or Pt6 system is appropriate is just one of those issues which makes me cringe. The code is quite clear as to the type of premises relevant to each and I for one much prefer to sleep soundly knowing I gave the best advise, and yes, as per the codes. I consider myself a closet code hugger and proud of it.
If others want to live by the seat of their pants, thats their business but I wish they would not try to convert everybody to their way of thinking.
One has to remember that the purpose of fire safety is not to make a building look safe but to ensure that people do not die if it goes on fire.
Some assessors and some FSOs can interpret codes of practice and then apply common sense and professional judgement to make the building safe without placing undue burdens on business. Some clearly cannot or will not.
I take it you only hug certain codes as the CLG guide recommends LD2 for small B&Bs.
-
Your Honour, I studied the Code of Practice prepared by the Technical Committee represented by the following :-
British Fire Protection Systems Assiciation Ltd,
British Fire Services Association,
Britiah Telecommunications PLC,
Chartered Institute of Building Services Engineers,
Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers' Assiciation,
Department of Health and Social Security,
Dept of the Environment (British Research Establishment, Fire Research Station),
Dept of the Environment (Property Services Agency),
Dept of Transport (Marine Directorate),
Electrical Contractors' Association,
Electrical Installation Equipment Manufacturers' Association (BEAMA Ltd),
Fire Insurers' Research and Testing Organisation (FIRTO),
Fire Officers Committee,
Fire Protection Association,
Home Office,
Institute of Electrical Engineers,
Institute of Fire Engineers,
Ministry of Defence,
Royal Institue of British Architects,
National Inspection Council for Electrical Installation Contracting,
Society of Fire Protection Engineers and
Trades Union Congress.
and thought that it was too onerous and expensive so here's what I did............
-
Unfortunately Nearlythere no guide will give you all the answers and some guides give answers that we now know are not entirely correct or that better solutions have been identified since they were published.
Perhaps those in FRS fire safety departments, BCOs and consultants should welcome that fact because if the codes/guides gave all the answers there would be little point in their jobs.
Anyone can stick rigidly to a guide some can understand not only what they say, but why they say it and apply a little common sense.
Please see Kurnals last post on the layout of the flat and tell me what the guide says about that one.
-
Do you mean Post 8?
Safety Advisors and Consultants will always be able to justify their jobs because it can be difficult for people to interpret codes of practice. I know this from experience.
Despite the fact that all Rules and Regulations relating to Inland Revenue are available to the public we still have plenty of Tax Advisors and Accountants.
Despite the fact that all the laws of the land are published there is still a need for solicitors.
Where professional judgement and common sense comes in is when there is little or no guidance on an issue.
-
Safety Advisors and Consultants will always be able to justify their jobs because it can be difficult for people to interpret codes of practice. I know this from experience.
I thought the point you were trying to make was that we shouldn't be interpreting the codes/guides but just applying them precriptively because a list of clever pleople were consulted when they were being written.
Also are you suggesting that FSOs dont need to justify their jobs, just blindly follow guidance?
-
Safety Advisors and Consultants will always be able to justify their jobs because it can be difficult for people to interpret codes of practice. I know this from experience.
I thought the point you were trying to make was that we shouldn't be interpreting the codes/guides but just applying them precriptively because a list of clever pleople were consulted when they were being written.
Also are you suggesting that FSOs dont need to justify their jobs, just blindly follow guidance?
I do believe that we are interpreting codes or parts of codes. Many van be quite complex documents and need an experienced eye and specific line of thought. You can only go by what you understand of your reading of a code. You might be spot on. You might be way off the mark.
The list of clever people, whether you agree or not, are still representative of professional organisations and institutions and will be deemed expert witnesses by a court.
No. When I mean Safety Advisors I mean whether they are F&R Service or otherwise.