FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Ashley Wood on November 01, 2007, 10:50:57 PM
-
Perhaps someone can shine a little light on this one?
My client is extending a residential care facilty. The current home has accommodation at first floor level which includes four double bedrooms. These bedrooms each contain two single beds. The double bedrooms are retained in the new scheme, effectively unaltered, and againe each will contain two single beds.
The Building Inspector is insistent that, as we have double bedrooms at first floor level each containing two single beds, then the whole of the existing building must be sprinklered. If these double bedrooms were each to contain one double bed, then sprinklers would not be required. The relevant section of the Building Regulations is Approved Document B vol. 2, paragraphs 3.49 and 3.52. I have explained to the BC Officer that these rooms are under former control and we are improving the means of escape and fire detection but he will not relax this requirement. I believe therefore that our only way forward is to look for a fire engineered solution.
Any ideas as to why a double bed does not warrent sprinklers but 2 single beds in the same area does? The scheme is fitted with an L1 fire detection system throughout and has alternative means of escape from the 1st floor.
Thanks
-
Ashley these clauses have been worrying me since the publication of the new guidance.
Why so specific? why so simplistic? why so prescriptive? And how do the clauses relate to the functional requirement for means of escape? It just doesnt stack up.
The outcome is social engineering- effectively preventing eldery couples who have been together all their married life from sharing a bedroom in their twilight years, many due to care or medical needs will not be able to share a double bed.
Compare this with page 79 of the Res care guide that allows bedrooms to be inner rooms!
You could always use firecode as the design benchmark I suppose.
How do we counter it- put together a fire strategy proposal summarising the risk control measures to be applied, spell out the functional requirement as defined in the Regs,
1-clearly the focus is that two single beds represent a higher fire loading than a double bed, I suppose we could try a little modelling to investigate this but I guess the outcome will be that the room will be untenable in the same amount of time from ignition irrespective whether you set fire to a double bed or a single bed, two seperate single beds will be better than a double up till the point of flashover as the size of fire will be smaller. We could point out the beds and bedding will be fire retardant to the highest standards.
2-clearly with the compartmentation this is only to be an issue in the room of origin and the only relevant persons to consider are the two occupants and the staff who may need to help them, so why do we need to cover the whole building with sprinklers? We dont need to protect high risk rooms with sprinklers so by implication the code seems to be saying that two single beds to BS7177 in the same room represent a higher fire loading affecting the rest of the building than a catering kitchen or a lounge full of upholstered furniture?
Sadly we will have to spend a great deal of time producing a strategy document to try and justify something that is nonsense from the outset and your client will have to invest a great deal of time and money in appeals or determination. As the ADB is so specific it will more than likely be lost because the secretary of state will not question the reason for the clause in the guidance.
I wouldn't mind helping you to try to put a strategy together if you wish because this one will come and bite us all at some stage in the future.
-
Thanks for your reply Kurnal. It does seem nonsense to me. The building control officer is being totally prescriptive and not considering the overall strategy. I will see where this goes and let you know. I am proposing to do a strategy and to recommend a halfway measure i.e. put sprinklers in the rooms with 2 beds only and enhance the passive protection further.
-
This bed thing ties back to the effectiveness of sprinklers for people in the room of origin. If you are intimately involved in a fire (ie you or your bed is allight) then they aint much help.
They are of some use if you are in a shared room and its your neighbour who's on fire.
If the rooms are intended for shared use (liek a dormitory) then sprinks are needed. If its just the odd room here and there for the rare situation where a bloke has lived as long as his missus then let it go.
-
My sentiments entirely. These rooms are for couples who want their own bed. Has anybody come across something similar and fought it and won?
-
Ashley,
I think you're going down the right route. There are two rules that the building control officer is trying to impose, one of which is probably valid, the other may not be. These are, respectively, putting sprinklers in rooms with more than one bed and, secondly, extending the sprinklers to the rest of the building.
Wee Brian, above, has given the reason why sprinklers are desirable in a bedroom with more than one bed.
But then we come to the rule that says that sprinklers should be installed in the whole building. Clearly,in this case, the sprinklers are for a specific task - protecting an occupant of a bedroom when fire occurs in that room. If a fire were to occur elsewhere in the premises (an unsprinklered part) then, with appropriate fire separation, it makes no difference how many beds are in each room!
The reason that sprinklers should generally be installed in the whole building is because they are not capable of dealing with a fire over a certain size (for example, one that may develop in an unsprinklered part of the building) and they may be useless in such a case. Here, the sprinklers are required for a specific task in a specific part of the building and application to the remainder of the building is irrelevant.
Having said that, the installation of sprinklers in such premises should generally be encouraged. We are all aware of fire tragedies that have occurred in this sort of building. The BRE report on the effectiveness of residential sprinklers clearly indicated that the benefits of such installations outweigh the costs (when applied nationally).
And there could be benefits for the individual owner of a home fitted with sprinklers. Insurance premium rebates and attractiveness to prospective residents to name but two. There would definitely be benefits if he did have a fire!
There is a forum for battles such as you propose to be fought and that is at CLG by requesting a determination. I would recommend that.
Stu
-
Sorry to disagree but (in my opinion) this whole thing looks like cobblers to me.
I have been actively campaigning for resisential sprinklers for many years and am convinced of their benefits. But to make a prescriptive requirement for a specific scenario - because that is what it effectively is when committed to the ADB- without specific evidence or research is way out of order. In my view.
The BRE studies into the effectiveness of residential sprinklers did not include any scenarios or research into bed fires. Their main conclusions can be found here:
http://www.bre.co.uk/index.jsp
ADB does not bother itself with issues of how the building is used or the contents- quite rightly. ADB does not make any recommendations for fire performance of furnishings. So why does it now suddenly have to count the number of beds in a room and specifiy that a double bed is ok but two singles are not?
Please can somebody restore my faith in the system by explaining how this research - or any other work that I have missed - has led in a logical and justifiable process to the specific recommendatons in ADB that Ashley is now stuck with?
Or give examples of any fires that have occurred that point to this issue being a problem?
And the determination process is a hiding to nothing for the average punter. Invariably the Secretary of State finds in favour of the published document without questioning the content. And the individual care home owner is stuck with either a huge bill for consultancy, research and representation or complies with the whim of whoever wrote the document. Unless you are one of the huge National chains its not practicable to take it on.
-
It does seem crazy that if the double beds were remaining no sprinklers are required! Other areas in the building have higher fire potential than the bedroom but do not warrant sprinklers?
-
This is where I believe the guidance is coming from:
Sprinkler Effectiveness in Care Homes, published by the BRE in December last year.
Some quotes:
"Research from the USA ... shows that (in the US) "Nearly 50% of older people who die in fires are
intimately involved with the source of fire that kills them (e.g. their clothing or bedding has ignited).
Approximately 40% are asleep and 20% are bed-ridden at the time the fire is ignited"."
"Where a fire has occurred involving either the nightwear or bed clothes of an occupant of a bed, the fire
experiments have indicated that sprinklers alone are unlikely to operate soon enough to prevent the
occupant of a bed being fatally injured or suffering very serious injuries from flames and/or heat.
But in most situations where a sprinkler operates, other occupants within the room should survive, since the
heat and toxic gases within the room are kept within tenability limits by the sprinkler system."
Also note this:
"Fire Protection Association New Zealand, FPANZ Newsletter, Issue 119 October 2006.
This article describes a fire in a small residential community care building. The building comprised two
bedrooms, a bathroom and lounge. It was protected with a sprinkler system to the New Zealand standard
NZS4517:2003.
The two occupants secured themselves in one bedroom. One poured accelerant over them self and ignited
it; this occupant suffered 88% burns and died 12 hours later. The other occupant escaped with no injuries.
The fire was evidently severe enough to damage ceiling paint and melt a plastic light shade. It is estimated
that the sprinkler operated within 30 seconds of ignition. The room was sooted but had little other damage."
As for the determination, don't dismiss it out of hand. Of course, the best option is to have a fully informed and reasoned discussion with the building control inspector but, if the applicant considers that he is up against unreasonable intransigence, then it is an option that must be considered.
Stu
-
Incidentally, the BRE report, "Effectiveness of sprinklers in residential premises," did look at bed fires. Here is one of the bed set ups
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o128/slubberdegullion2/testbed.jpg)
and here it is on fire
(http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o128/slubberdegullion2/testbedonfire.jpg)
-
There have been two deaths in just these circumstances in the last month or so- One in the UK and one in Scottsdale Arizona. Elderly person intimately involved in the fire - gets fatal injuries before sprinklers are activated.
Sprinklers are great but they won't save everybody.
-
Sorry to show my ignorance, wee brian , where was the one in the UK in the last month or so ?
-
Looks to me that if two occupants are in a double bed and it catches fire a sprinkler won't save either of them, however if they are in seperate beds and one bed catches fire then a sprinkler may save the occupant of the other bed.
Half a loaf is better than no bread.
-
Looks to me that if two occupants are in a double bed and it catches fire a sprinkler won't save either of them, however if they are in seperate beds and one bed catches fire then a sprinkler may save the occupant of the other bed.
Half a loaf is better than no bread.
That means there must be a specific requirement to have the beds a certain distance apart. How would you calculate this distance?
-
Similarly if a fire occurs in a cupboard on a bedroom corridor and 14 people die the Scots Parliament bites the bullet and requires sprinker protection in all care homes.
But in England we fanny about with one set of guidance dcuments that requires sprinklers if my mum and dad want to continue to live together once in care and takes not a jot of notice of whether furniture is made of straw and the room contains an open fireplace!!!
and another set of guidance for care homes that allows bedrooms to be inner rooms provided theres a smoke detector in the access room?
-
I have met with the building control officer today and he is not going to change his stance, 'What it says in the AD B is what it says and that's that.' I think a bigger issue is the staffing levels and the quality of staff employed at a lot of these facilities. I would have thought that the smoke detector would have gone off way before the glass bulb breaks. In this case the sounder in the room would have activated (or vibration pads) and the occupants would be aware of the problem. Then the staff would arrive to evacuate the room/building. I see a problem when there are not enough staff on shift, yes the sprinkler may then help the poor s** in the second bed but that's only because the staff cannot evacuate them.
I discussed doing a fire strategy, increasing the passive protection and making sure that each bedroom had a sounder in it. Not interested. So as a result my client has to spend the thick end of £50k on sprinklers or keep the beds as doubles....
This will back fire (no pun intended) because what it will do is make owners of these establishments change to single beds after the works have been done, that way saving a lot of money. Morally its wrong but it will happen.
-
Ashley
Can I ask, what is the building control officer's reasoning? What is his logical argument for ploughing on with no regard to your reasoned proposal?
Just because it says so in the book is no argument.
ADB, remember, is guidance only. Yes, it is a standard that should normally be followed, but application of its guidance must be tuned to the context of that application. It Must be. It's such a woolly document, so much is left to interpretation, it's almost as bad as the Bible (and let's not go there).
Of course, we don't have anywhere near the whole picture and there could be good reasoning behind the building control officer's stance. But let's hear it. Don't let him get away with anything less than a solid demonstration that these sprinklers will be necessary to maintain the current standard of safety in the building.
I still think sprinklers are worthwhile to install (in any premises) but the burden of this imposition does seem out of proportion to the risk it is trying to address.
What's his argument?
Stu
-
Stu,
reasoning would be a polite description. basically he is quoting chapter and verse from the AD B. He also states that evidence from testing has proven that a person in the second bed would survive a fire if a sprinkler was fitted! I do not think that such a test would have taken into consideration the fact that a smoke detector was fitted in the room. He also believes strongly that sprinklers fitted throughout the building would be a good thing, I cannot disagree with that. I asked if he would permit sprinklers only being fitted to the 4 bedrooms, no, he wants it throughout the entire area including corridors, stairways & other bedrooms. My client could go to appeal but he does not have the time to do this.
-
He also believes strongly that sprinklers fitted throughout the building would be a good thing,
This indicates to me that he is bordering on asking for general improvements to the fire safety in the building, and he is not allowed to do that.
Of course, he can get away with asking for sprinklers throughout because of the guidance in the LPC rules. Doesn't help you much. What can you do?
1. Bite the bullet, put sprinklers in and be positive about it.
2. Go to a new bco
3. I think someone suggested the easiest option earlier - put in double beds until the irritating bco has gone away then change them for singles.
The last option you didn't get from me because, of course, changing the beds from double to two singles would be considered a material change and should be subject to a building regulations application!
Stu
-
Stu
Sorry to nitpick but here goes
LPC rules dont apply to residential sprinklers- BS9251 is the only guidance I believe
ADB gives an example of a situation whre it may be permissible to use a sprinkler system to cover part of a building to address a specific issue ( 3 storey houses unenclosed staircase at ground floor)
You cant go to a different BCO once one has been initially appointed- their protocols don't allow it- even approved inspectors adhere to this rule
If you can prove to me that changing beds constiutes a material change I will show my "unambiguous fire cue" in the High Street.
-
Kurnal, that's a damn good point about 9251. And Ashley, that may be your 'get out of jail free card'!
Stu
-
changing the beds from double to two singles would be considered a material change and should be subject to a building regulations application!
Stu
Would it? I don't know the answer, but it seems unbelievable to me that people need to check with Building Control when they move furniture about.
-
Does this apply to Bunk beds ?
-
changing the beds from double to two singles would be considered a material change and should be subject to a building regulations application!
Stu
Would it? I don't know the answer, but it seems unbelievable to me that people need to check with Building Control when they move furniture about.
That's not a material change of use or building work but I would pay good money to see Kurnal expose his unambiguous fire cue in the High Street so please prove me wrong Stu!
-
Statutory Instrument 2000 No. 2531
The Building Regulations 2000
Part II
"3(2) An alteration is material for the purposes of these regulations if the work, or any part of it, would at any stage result -
(a) in a building or controlled service or fitting not complying with a relevant requirement where previously it did;"
Stu
ps I know I'm on thin ice here, but anything for you Phil
-
Just looking at 9251 again and 5.2.3 does say that sprinklers should be fitted to all parts....
-
Statutory Instrument 2000 No. 2531
The Building Regulations 2000
Part II
"3(2) An alteration is material for the purposes of these regulations if the work, or any part of it, would at any stage result -
(a) in a building or controlled service or fitting not complying with a relevant requirement where previously it did;"
Stu
ps I know I'm on thin ice here, but anything for you Phil
Thin ice??? you're treading water but I'm all in favour of the Bluff & Persuasion Act of Ninetey Umptty Frew!!!!
Come on Kurnal show us your unambiguous fire cue!
-
Statutory Instrument 2000 No. 2531
The Building Regulations 2000
Part II
"3(2) An alteration is material for the purposes of these regulations if the work, or any part of it, would at any stage result -
(a) in a building or controlled service or fitting not complying with a relevant requirement where previously it did;"
Stu
ps I know I'm on thin ice here, but anything for you Phil
This isn't my area of expertise........But if the operators of the place, believed that (depiste the building control opinion differing) that as ADB is simply guidance on one way to meeting Building Regs, that therefore that moving about furniture did not cause them to fail to meet the relevent standards, it would therefore follow that they would not be expected to get any approval.......?
-
Why not accept that you cnnot put single beds in the double room until after BCO signs it off, then once it is replace them with single beds as your clients wishes. Re Fire risk assess the building and make the adjustments you have stated above, fire strategy, compartmentation etc.
-
Phil B
I am not sure that you are yet able to cope with the sight of something of such wondrous beauty. Anyway i aint convinced- and neither are you.
-
This may sound silly but, if the beds are for couples and have wheels, could they be temporarily secured together (to form a double bed) and simply separated and wheeled apart by staff for bed-making and personal care matters when required?
-
All these ingenious ideas for getting round the Building Control Officer are fine but is the ADB right to make the requirement for sprinklers in a twin bedded room or not? What is the right standard of fire safety for the occupants of the room and the rest of the care home? That is the standard I want to see.
I have no doubt that the provision of sprinklers CAN save lives. But I think if it is to be a requirement of the Building Regulations for a particular scenario then it should be as a response to a higher than acceptable fire risk, implemented to bring the residual risk back down to the accepted norm.
There is a chance that any of us may die in our beds as a result of a fire. There is an acceptable level of risk that we are happy to accept and this is represented by the benchmark standards in the ADB and the guides. Similarly there is therefore an acceptable residual level of risk for a care home bedroom.
What the Building Regs advisory committee have not done as far as I am aware is to show any evidence that someone sharing a twin bedded room in a care home would face a higher level of risk of dying in a fire than someone in a single bedroom or sharing a room with a double bed.
If there is no evidence that the occupants of a twin bedded room face a higher risk than anyone else then there is no reason to require additional risk control measures.
It is not relevant to say that in the event of a fire sprinklers may increase chances of survival so are a requirement in all twin rooms. Because there may be more risk from a fire in a linen store or boiler room or lounge or kitchen so why are we not asking for them in all care homes- like the Scots?
Similarly there is no structured argument to show that the sprinkler system must be extended throughout the home. If the argument is that the increased risk is only in the twin bedroom then that’s where the risk control measures should be focussed. And the most practical way of doing this would be a small domestic BS9251 system based on storage cylinders or a self contained water mist system in the room affected.
-
I'm inclined to agree with the thrust of your argument kurnal.
It is nonsense that ADB would accept that, if double beds were put in, both occupants would die and that's that; but, if single beds are put in, it recommends that the occupants have sprinklers to help protect them. It's double standards.
Here a thing. We've probed this conundrum a reasonable amount but I know what those responsible for ADB would say if we asked for their opinion - "It's only guidance."
They would expect logical and reasonable application of the guidance, and of the associated guidance of BS9251, so far as is required to address all relevant fire safety issues. No more, no less. That may or may not be what's happening here, we don't have the facts.
Ignorance of the building for this discussion is good because the imagination is not stifled by facts. But, at the end of the day, those who know the building and how it is run will be the ones who have to address the fire safety issues.
Anyway, the length of time we've been arguing about it, it's probably had the sprinklers installed by now.
.
.
.
.
.
I'm just wondering whether to start probing the suggestion of water mist......no, it's a bit late.
Stu
-
As usual, I agree with you, Kurnal, but the problem is that we have to deal with the situation as at present in addition to asking for better - and that often means getting things accepted by BCOs, FOs, HSE, etc who may not be too keen in operating outside the 'standard text'.
-
Thanks guys for your valuable input on this. I did get one concession from the BCO and that was that he would consider a water mist system! I have a lot of experience with water mist systems and having seen the tests that were carried out under the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) A800 for cabins on cruse ships, I have no problem with the effectiveness.
-
Can anyone give me the names of large residential care providers who have gone down the sprinkler route ?
-
Clive,
I cannot say for certain what the outcome was but I discussed this at length with a representative of BUPA and we jointly came to the conclusion that sprinklers were probably the only way to comply with the requirements of the fire safety order. Or rather it was the only way that would avoid endless arguments with enforcing authorities.
This is a slightly different argument than the old 'bluff and persuasion' approach because there is an arguable case, though not necessarily an economic one, that risk reduction is best served by fitting of sprinklers.
-
Thanks, for that Val.
I was just interested if any large groups have taken the plunge ( wrong pun they don't all go off, I know ), and any unforseen problems or benefits they may have come across. I know one or two local authorities are fitting them and some smaller groups, its just more feed back I'd like .
-
A bit late but.....
A second Building Control Surveyors perspective (Please bear in mind without the full details of the scheme this is only an interpretation on the :
In the seminars held by DCLG on the 2006 version of the ADB, there were comments to the effect that additional measures had been placed on resi care due to a high amount of mismanagement and unrealistic escape strategies due to low carer/patient ratios. The BRE research was mentioned in the seminar discussing the two bed scenario and the fact that potentially where two single beds were in a room sprinklers would do very little to save the person in a bed if it was the source of the fire, but potentially a person in a second bed in the same room could be protected. I believe dead pigs in pyjamas were used for the research!!
This was there approach to the situation and many BCO's/AI's attended the seminars so I assume this may be the reasoning for the response you have received.
I think following the guidance in the ADB the BCO is justified in the approach he has put forward, but I would add that in my opinion sprinklers would only be required to the new areas (obviously this would be dependant on suitable compartmentation arrangements/building layouts). There is no increased risk to the existing areas of the building, because the sprinklers are being installed to enhance the life safety of the new areas.
Secondly I would also add that the ADB is only guidance as others have mentioned, if an alternative strategy can be provided that addresses the risks, then why should it not be potentially be accepted.
Thirdly a note to Kurnal to say that whilst there are obvious delicate issues involved in dealing with an application that has already been submitted elsewhere, if an alternative Building Control Body accepts a solution, they would hopefully be doing so because they are satisfied with the proposals and could justify their approach. Just because one inspector does not accept a proposal, it does not mean it is an unsatisfcatory solution, or that it is wrong for others to accept it if they have a different opinion. Legally as long as the works have not commenced a client is free to choose alternative providers.
Finally changing the double bed post completion for two single beds would definitely not be a material change of use (these involve chnages in the buildings use or an increase in the number of bedrooms, but it could be perceived as a "material alteration" in that the means of escape will have a lesser level of compliance following the alteration, but as Kurnal says, it is rocky ground on whether Building Regulations can be applied to furnishings, and I would be interested to see the outcome in court!!
-
The BRE research was mentioned in the seminar discussing the two bed scenario and the fact that potentially where two single beds were in a room sprinklers would do very little to save the person in a bed if it was the source of the fire, but potentially a person in a second bed in the same room could be protected. I believe dead pigs in pyjamas were used for the research!!
Does anybody know if this experiment is recorded anywhere? It would have been very surprising if the dead pigs had survived. I am interested in which tenabilaty factors were measured and how- the dead pigs would appear to be a very limited measure but one must assume there was a good reason for it. I thought most fire deaths are caused by inhalation of toxic fumes and smoke?
I dont doubt that someone sharing a twin bedded room may be saved in a sprinklered bedroom if the other bed catches fire.
But I stand by my point that the only justification for sprinklers as set out in the AD in a twin bedded room can be if it is proved that otherwise the occupants face a higher risk than those in single bedded or double bedded rooms.