FireNet Community
THE REGULATORY REFORM (FIRE SAFETY) ORDER 2005 => Q & A => Topic started by: paul21 on March 13, 2008, 09:08:07 PM
-
I have been asked to carry out upgrade works to a church hall which at present has an old manual sytem but no control panel, just sounders and manual call points. The FRA has recommended the addition of one smoke detector within the lobby area which has the mains room, boiler room and kitchen opening onto it. The FRA requests that this is connected to the existing system. Given that a panel would be required for the said detector I have advised that the existing system needs replacing to add it to the new panel and this makes the cost of one detector very high and I have suggested fitting a system to L2 as we would be cabling the whole building anyhow. I can think of ways of connecting the existing as is to the new panel and making it work but do not see that it would comply. Would appreciate any advice before I rule out all the other options.
-
totally OTT in my humble opinion, but a good money spinner!!!
-
My reply would be a little more tactful than the previous posters comment but "compliance" shouldn't be an issue if the premises are properly risk assessed. A Category L5 system is in effect what has been specified by the FRA. BS 5839 is only a guide and is not law.
I feel your sentiments aren't to try and get more money out of your client but simply to ensure that they are compliant which is perfectly understandable. In all honesty I wouldn't be too worried with what they have suggested with their FRA. One question though, why do you need a panel in this situation?
Part 6 systems dont always get specified with panels although I appreciate you might not be fitting a part 6 system. Why would you need to wire the place out?
-
My reply would be a little more tactful than the previous posters comment but "compliance" shouldn't be an issue if the premises are properly risk assessed. A Category L5 system is in effect what has been specified by the FRA. BS 5839 is only a guide and is not law.
I feel your sentiments aren't to try and get more money out of your client but simply to ensure that they are compliant which is perfectly understandable. In all honesty I wouldn't be too worried with what they have suggested with their FRA. One question though, why do you need a panel in this situation?
Part 6 systems dont always get specified with panels although I appreciate you might not be fitting a part 6 system. Why would you need to wire the place out?
Firstly thanks for the reply, You are correct with your views on my sentiments, as it is not a part 6 system then how would a detector link to the existing manual installation and comply with BS5839?
-
Sounds like an old 240V system if it is manual & you can't find a battery box and it's not a part 6 system, in which case it has to come out regardless of how many detectors you need- not a BS matter, but a statutory one.
You can jerry-rig the two together (see another of my threads) but I wouldn't advise it, it's not the competent thing to do really.
You could in theory use a Part 6 system for economy (mainly as you don't always need fire resistant cable) and they don't have 'panels' as such, but a silence & reset switch, sometimes integrated into a 'master' call point, but consultation with the FRA assessor would be advised. It may be the robustness of a Part 1 system & all it's trappings is indicated, in which case a twinwire system should reduce the cost.
-
A safety warning system with no battery back up is illegal under the signs and signals regs.
-
My point exactly. No battery back up is illegal now.... so why not install a part 6 , part 1 would seem too onerous here
-
My reply would be a little more tactful than the previous posters comment but "compliance" shouldn't be an issue if the premises are properly risk assessed. A Category L5 system is in effect what has been specified by the FRA. BS 5839 is only a guide and is not law.
I feel your sentiments aren't to try and get more money out of your client but simply to ensure that they are compliant which is perfectly understandable. In all honesty I wouldn't be too worried with what they have suggested with their FRA. One question though, why do you need a panel in this situation?
Part 6 systems dont always get specified with panels although I appreciate you might not be fitting a part 6 system. Why would you need to wire the place out?
Why do you want a panel, and why do you want detection in this situation, that is the point I was trying to make and no-one has answered that question!!!!
-
Panel not required
AFD would only serve as an element of building protection in my opinion
-
Hold on, are we saying that a Part 6 system is acceptable in a non dwelling premises. I understand the implications but as far as the BSI are concerned and the author of that document, Part 6 is applicable to dwellings only. As this is a commercial premises then surely a Part 1 system is the only acceptable one.
-
In my opinion (and without seeing the FRA) a Part 1, L5 system should be adequate. I assume the object of the exercise is to protect the lobby (an escape route) from an incident in one of the three rooms.
But if the mains (intake I presume) room, the boiler room and the kitchen are separated from the lobby by 30min doors, it's not going to be easy for smoke to escape into the lobby from any of these rooms in sufficient quantity to raise an alarm in the early stages of the fire. Further more, if external doors are left open there is the potential for false alarms to be generated from wind affecting the detector in the lobby. If the place has to be rewired to a new panal I would be inclined to put the smoke detector in the mains intake room and a heat detector in the boiler room and the kitchen. These would probably give a quicker alarm of anything untoward in each area than one smoke detector in the lobby and also minimise the potential for false alarms.
Knowing only too well how such rooms, despite advice to the contrary, get used for miscellaneous storage detection in the rooms is a better option to cope with a fire arising from improper storage. (I've come across no less than three examples of petrol-driven lawn-mowers stored in boilerhouses in the last few years!)
The present system may well be battery-driven - I'd look in the mains intake room to see if there is charger/battery box tucked away.
And did the FRA include reference to installing beacons in consideration of the DDA requirements?
If the hall is used regularly by a playgroup, OFSTED require a part 1 FA system to be present. In my own church hall the local F&RS who inspected the premises for OFSTED first asked for an upgrade of the installed system to L1, but I was able to argue that an L5, with detection in storage areas and the kitchen to protect escape routes, was more sensible.
-
The saying you cant have your cake at eat it , is always relevant. We reached the moon (allegedley) in 1969 , and all the technical advances since , and yet we have old systems still in place. Its all about the Yankee dollar , there is no excuse to have such antiquated equipment around in the first place.
Who would want to stay in a hotel etc with a system like this.
To much time is spent in trying to circumnavigate around problems like this .
I would advise your client in the best way forward to help him in the future years ,he has to bite the bullet sooner or later.
Give him the options and let him make the decision.
As we know its getting like America , and as soon as the Public is involved and anything happens , you will get an ambulance chaser on the case.
By default your advice will be seen as a money making scheme.
You wont see an old vehicle in London soon under the emission scheme , and there nothing being contested , so why on earth should the trade pander to or worry about
systems that should be on the scrap heap long ago.
You will either get the job , or you wont , don't waste to much oxygen or wear your Biro out .
-
If there is a satisfactory passive alternative means of escape then why is AFD being asked for as part of the FRA? I could understand it in a sleeping risk but would not the manual call point system be adequate.
-
Who would want to stay in a hotel etc with a system like this.
Hmmm true but the Church isn't a sleeping risk (unless you count the chickens used for underfloor heating)
As PhilB and TW point out, what is the AFD actually protecting? Why is a manual alarm system unacceptable?
In my opinion all that AFD would do is protect the building, it certainly wouldn't be of much benefit for life safety.
The inner room condition which John S Webb points out may only holds true if the lobby is of a certain size and you class it as being an access room, and even then there are more cost effective ways of dealing with inner room conditions.
-
My point in general , is the age of the equipment and its ability to perform , not the specific risk , whether manual or auto system .
-
As we know its getting like America
If you are talking about people sueing for damages, then we are quite different from the USA and our judges are consistently taking quite a different approach to their American counterparts.
-
As we know its getting like America
If you are talking about people sueing for damages, then we are quite different from the USA and our judges are consistently taking quite a different approach to their American counterparts.
Im very pleased to hear that! There has to be a balance between genuine claims and common sense
-
I have been asked to carry out upgrade works to a church hall which at present has an old manual sytem but no control panel, just sounders and manual call points. The FRA has recommended the addition of one smoke detector within the lobby area which has the mains room, boiler room and kitchen opening onto it. The FRA requests that this is connected to the existing system. Given that a panel would be required for the said detector I have advised that the existing system needs replacing to add it to the new panel and this makes the cost of one detector very high and I have suggested fitting a system to L2 as we would be cabling the whole building anyhow. I can think of ways of connecting the existing as is to the new panel and making it work but do not see that it would comply. Would appreciate any advice before I rule out all the other options.
When people don't know what to do they ask for some form of detection probably hoping that it will be sufficient to cover their butts.
I would suggest your clients try to get their money back and get a proper RA carried out.
-
Hopefully the risk assessment will be specific and justify why the additional smoke detector is required. The Guidance document is no too helpful to inexperienced responsible persons in this respect because it simply recommends that any areas such as storerooms where fire may start and develop unseen should be covered. Obviously this could be the case in any unoccupied room with a potential ignition source and combustible materials.
The guide does not specifically make the point that if people may be put at risk as a result of this potential fire then it will be necessary to provide detection but if there is adequate means of escape for relevant persons without using the lobby involved then there should not be a problem and a manual alarm may suffice.
-
If the hall is used regularly by a playgroup, OFSTED require a part 1 FA system to be present. In my own church hall the local F&RS who inspected the premises for OFSTED first asked for an upgrade of the installed system to L1, but I was able to argue that an L5, with detection in storage areas and the kitchen to protect escape routes, was more sensible.
Please don’t tell me this is true, how can anyone justify an L1 system in a church hall. If you can turn your back on the fire, there isn’t a sleeping risk then the most that is wanted is a manual system.
On a number of occasions ofsted have stated after their inspection that smoke detection is needed. When I as an FSO have challenged them they have admitted that it is a recommendation only, not a requirement.
-
If the hall is used regularly by a playgroup, OFSTED require a part 1 FA system to be present. In my own church hall the local F&RS who inspected the premises for OFSTED first asked for an upgrade of the installed system to L1, but I was able to argue that an L5, with detection in storage areas and the kitchen to protect escape routes, was more sensible.
Wouln't it be nice if there could be a much simpler approach to fire safety legislation, that someone could use a regulatory reform order and bring all elements of fire safety enfocements under a single umbrella and the responsibility of a single enforcement agency??????? just another pipe dream I suppose. :)
-
I'd be interested to know how much bigger the AFD market has become in the last couple of years. Sales must have gone through the roof!
-
For those of you who have few (or no) dealings with church halls and churches, it is perhaps worth pointing out that until the RR(FS)O, most churches and halls did not fall under any fire safety legislation unless they were licenced for public entertainments. So the arrival of the FSO has meant that a large number of these premises are having to 'wake up' to modern requirements. I've been busier the last two years giving out advice than I was the previous seven since taking my (voluntary) post up!
-
In my opinion all that AFD would do is protect the building, it certainly wouldn't be of much benefit for life safety.
The inner room condition which John S Webb points out may only holds true if the lobby is of a certain size and you class it as being an access room, and even then there are more cost effective ways of dealing with inner room conditions.
Absolutely agree Retty, no problem with spending money on property protection but the assessor hopefully is competent enough to point out that detection is not required for life safety purposes....if it isn't of course.
-
The only guidance I am aware of for this situation is the CACFOA guides 1 & 2. They are in need of updating in light of the RR(FS)O but the principles are reasonable evident.
www.firesafe.org.uk/assets/docs/childminder3.pdf
-
In my opinion (and without seeing the FRA) a Part 1, L5 system should be adequate. I assume the object of the exercise is to protect the lobby (an escape route) from an incident in one of the three rooms.
isnt protection of escape routes an L4 system?...not being pedantic or questioning the experts...just checking :)
I've just read this article
http://www.wyfp-panel.org.uk/groups/Bradford/bs5839-02.htm
-
Mushy,
you are correct but an L5 system is a bespoke one which is suitable to any situation.
-
Thanks Jokar
-
Ok heres my go,
AFD not required, it isnt a sleeping risk. The best form of fire detection is the people within the premises, assuming travel distance is ok and sufficient exits are available, (post discounting the largest exit), then why consider AFD it in the first place, it may be a property protection / insurance requirement/ issue, so I would add, (if this is the case), is the alarm system remotely monitored, odds on it isnt, save the local taxpayers money, keep the MCP system, ensure the wiring and panel are in correct working order and tested, (and recorded), and "Jobs a Goodun"!