FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: messy on June 17, 2008, 06:58:18 PM
-
A 5 storey Hotel's only alternative escape route on the upper floor is via a neighbouring adjoining terraced domestic dwelling!!!.
The resident in that dwelling is happy enough with the arrangements (I wouldn't be!), but is less than enthusiastic about weekly or monthly checks on the access door to their premises.
A solution has been suggested to test/operate/open access door quarterly. The RP and the fire engineer would conduct this quarterly test on alternate ocassions. (The FA engineer would test the magnet mechanism during his/her 6 monthly test of the AFD system).
Whilst far from ideal, this MOE has been in pace for years and is recorded in the old fire cert. The testing procedure isn't ideal either, but it's far better that the testing procedure which is currently in place - ie nothing!!
What's your view?
Is a 3 monthly test of this door reasonable??
-
Its hard to call if you aint seen it but my personal view is its a rats arse...The present occupier might be ok with it but what happens when the next one isn't? or they don't let the hotel know of the change of occupancy?
Human nature being what it is storage could be left behind the fire escape door and beyond obstructing both the opening of the doors and the MOE out of the building...is there emergency lighting and signage in the dwelling?
I don't think old fire certificates should come into it....there were some very old ones about
Just a personal view mind ;)
PS That must be a high dwelling and escape route if the escape is from the fifth storey!...what is the MOE like in the dwelling?
-
It sounds a nightmare scenario but if it works, if it can be shown to work and if the only practicable alternative is the enforced closure of an existing well run and well established business then perhaps it is acceptable. Whats the level of protection to the primary escape route? Is the secondary route a true alternative from all floors? Are all doors and detection up to scratch?
-
Is the domestic building a protected route, does it have EL, risk assessment, is it available 24/7????
Should not have been accepted under FP Act and most certainly not now
-
Why does it need to be a protected route? It's horrible but if it works, it works.
-
A 5 storey Hotel's only alternative escape route on the upper floor is via a neighbouring adjoining terraced domestic dwelling!!!.
The resident in that dwelling is happy enough with the arrangements (I wouldn't be!), but is less than enthusiastic about weekly or monthly checks on the access door to their premises.
A solution has been suggested to test/operate/open access door quarterly. The RP and the fire engineer would conduct this quarterly test on alternate ocassions. (The FA engineer would test the magnet mechanism during his/her 6 monthly test of the AFD system).
Whilst far from ideal, this MOE has been in pace for years and is recorded in the old fire cert. The testing procedure isn't ideal either, but it's far better that the testing procedure which is currently in place - ie nothing!!
What's your view?
Is a 3 monthly test of this door reasonable??
Sounds like a throwback to the old days of travel distances to final exit door, protected stairways and, what seems to be in this case, to a door in a compartment wall. The escape route from that point on was irrelevant which was a bit strange but nevertheless was in accordance with the old codes. The door had to be half the FR of the wall which meant a 2hr fr door.
Talking about old standards, as I light my pipe, I can remember doing an inspection of a multi storey city building and came across a self rescue device. It was on the Fire Certificate. This operated by putting it around ones chest and, very importantly having one end fixed to an anchor point, launching ones self out of the window.
Think of the fun during an evacuation - weeeeeeeeeeeeee.
-
London is littered with arrangements like this - They are pants but its hard to justify doing somethibng else when there is an existing arrangement in place.
I would advise the client to consider changing the arrangement at the next oppurtunity (a refurb etc)
3 months sounds fair enough to me. Is there a risk that the householder will stick a wardrobe over the door (this is what they usually do)?
-
Thanks for your views
The issue of access to next door is far from perfect and indeed is best described as Wee Brian puts it - 'pants'.
I canot believe any householder would agree to such a system as any hotel guest (and these are not tourists) can gain access at any time. Particular circumstances dictate that it's not possible to obstruct the door
My view is that it appears to work and FS infratsructure improvements already underway should help. As usual the success is all down to management and that's perhaps the weakest part of this plan.
I intend to audit 6 monthly plus an unannouced peak activity at night per year to ensure that all thats promised is delivered.
There are plans to extend this Hotel (upwards!!) and I have already tipped the RP off that he should consider a engineered solution from the outset in place of (or in addition to) this 'pants' alternative MOE (his interim plans propose no such FS Eng solution)
-
I think you are absolutely right messy. Thats where we need to put the brakes on. Tolerating existing conditions is one thing but condoning an increase in the number of persons at risk is unacceptable in my view.
-
what about serving an alterations notice on the hotel...?
-
what about serving an alterations notice on the hotel...?
What would that achieve Centurion?