FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: BG on July 04, 2008, 08:29:48 AM
-
I am having one of those senior moments and I am mulling over - is their a need to recommend or enforce SD in bedrooms to small B&B establishments ( under three floors and 200m) ? The benchmark system is a grade d LD2 system . Which is in the common areas + high fire risk rooms.
Would the average bedroom constitute a high risk room ? I doubt it
-
Do the bedrooms lead directly onto the staircase as some little 'converted house' style B&B's do? is it single staircase condition?
-
Yes there is a need for SD. We need to attempt to protect the person in the room of origin, and also give the other relevant people early warning. There could be an argument over replacing existing HD with SD, but I would enforce SD every time. CLG sleeping accomm guides give an idea of what would be expected. The system should be more akin to an L2 as far as detector coverage goes, and some people would argue that a part 1 L2 system should be in place anyway..
-
Civvy that is not what the guidance states, LD2 is covered in post 1. Mind you the guidance is not that in BS 5839 part 6. Wait for the 23 July and see what the LACORS document states.
-
The Fire risk assessment should have the risk of the rooms in it already and the alarm installation engineer should be more than familiar with the requirements of any premises.
Senior moment? You aren't, by chance, the same person who (as alarmuelectrician) was asking on fireservice.co.uk whether an L2 system should have room SDs? If so I really think that you should eb looking for the correct training and qualifications, or another job.
-
The Fire risk assessment should have the risk of the rooms in it already and the alarm installation engineer should be more than familiar with the requirements of any premises.
Senior moment? You aren't, by chance, the same person who (as alarmuelectrician) was asking on fireservice.co.uk whether an L2 system should have room SDs? If so I really think that you should eb looking for the correct training and qualifications, or another job.
won't suprise me and these are the "professionals" that i loose jobs to every week....
-
Civvy that is not what the guidance states, LD2 is covered in post 1. Mind you the guidance is not that in BS 5839 part 6. Wait for the 23 July and see what the LACORS document states.
My main point being that LD2 should have detectors in bed rooms, which would make the coverage more akin to L2.
-
CivvyFSO said CLG sleeping accomm guides give an idea of what would be expected.
Jokar Said Civvy that is not what the guidance states,
Certainly the guide north of the border for "small premises providing sleeping accommodation" are advocating the following as a benchmark.
Regardless of system type, fire detection should include at least one:
• Smoke detector on each upper floor landing;
• Smoke detector in the ground floor hallway;
• Heat detector in each kitchen;
• Smoke detector each lounge;
• Smoke detector in each bedroom;
• Smoke detector in any basement; and
• Smoke detector in any other room off an escape route.
-
Gents - many thanks
In reply to "fireftrm" I am not the person who wrote into the other site .
My concern is as an enforcment officer I am applying/enforcing the guidance in the CLG guide and I accept the argument to protect the person in the room etc .
However ( for discussion purposes) when you compare the standards proposed in the Lacors guide for a range of premises it does make you wonder if the Lacors guide came out before the CLG guide that the approach to SD in "Small B&B" would be different. It apears that have made a blanket statement of smoke detection throughout the premises with a pt 1 sysyem for larger hotels and a part 6 for small premises. With the same provision of detectors within rooms.
When comparing the two guides regarding risk - what makes a small B&B two three bedrooms a greater risk than that of a "three storey shared house" or a "two storey bedsit" where in both cases there is no provision of detection in the bedrooms and where I feel the risk is greater than in a family run small B&B .
Regarding the standard - LD2 the BS states that additional detection should be provided in other rooms on the basis of risk assesment - the CLG guide has determined (made a blanket statement) that any room adjacent to the staircase enclosure should be provided with a detector , which is not the philosophy of a pt 6 systems.
-
This is all very Fascinating . I'm a hotelier. I really really really wish you people would get your act together and
stop using the industry as some sort of experimental work experience. Get back to a common sense practical approach that we can ALL understand and work with. Thinking about "enforcing"smoke detectors or worse Scoring goals with gleeful horaays against 'ordinary people (ie owners and managers of properties who don't earn a living working for the fire brigade) caught out by this or that regulation is unedifying and unhelpful in the extreme.....Yes I know people can die in a fire...but you know they can die in many other ways.
and I tell you with absolute certainty your wives would not appreciate being forced out of their warm hotel bed on a cold November night because some idiot decided he wanted to smoke in his non smoking room..and you sir had made the hotelier change his HD to a SD (Yes you people are doing that...........!!)
Look we all want the same thing. Safety for the punter. But please remember this.. Fire Regs (although very important) are just one of the many many AND I MEAN MANY regulations and red tape we in the real
world have to deal with...and still make a living to pay the taxes to pay you all.
One last thing. I have the greatest respect for firemen. But reading the various submissions in this form is scary.
and the result of the unintended result of a change of legislation that did not need changing.
-
Who exactly is your rant aimed at? Fire fighters don't make legislation.
-
This is a completely voluntary forum for discussion between all sides hopefully for the benefit of all and promotes understanding. We cannot do this without forthright discussion. It does not represent the views of the fire service- the contributors range from poachers to gamekeepers and the grouse themselves. So many of us are not in the fire service, some are in the insurance industry others are in the service industries, business owners and landlords. All sides are coming to terms with the most significant change to legislation and the way it is enforced ever. We are not helped by tranches of different and contradictory guidance issued by HM Government.
Did it need changing?- well the European Parliament thought so and so did the CBI and FSB. Are we pleased wth the changes? Some sectors welcome it - especially the Blue chip sector- whilst small businesses struggle to come to terms with new duties and responsibilities. Much cost and burden of compliance has been shifted from the fire service to the employer. The employer creates the risk- it is right that the employer should manage this risk.
So if you dont like the system let us know and please air your grievances freely. But please also take them up with yur local fire authority and your MP, or any other pressure group.
In terms of heat detectors in bedrooms please take a look at previous postings exploring the history of this- it goes much further than the control of false alarms- it is all about whether we are seeking to use detection to protect the escape routes for the majority, or whether we have a duty to also protect the occupants of each individual room from fire. And the best way of doing this.
In terms of your smoke seals on fire doors there is no doubt that if you fit seals the doors will perform better in a fire than without them. Whether you need to do it or not depends many factors such as how good your doors were when new, how they have been maintained, how good a fit they are, tempered with where they are in the building and the character and layout of the building .
The fire Officer has not enforced you to do it- many years ago Chief Justice Popplewell in his review of the Bradford City Football disaster said that fire brigades have a duty to give their best advice at all times. It sounds like that is what they have done in your case. Whether you follow it is up to you.
It appears to me that perhaps you dont want to take the responsibility of making the decision. Perhaps you would rather have an enforcement notice served so you can appeal and let someone else take the decision for you?
As a private consultant I too am very frustrated with the new legislation, the confusing and conflicting guidance and the prescriptive approach to enforcement by some inspectors. Especially when I am told "No it doesnt matter what your risk assessment says, the guidance book shows x so that is what you must do"
But I welcome the chance to air these grievances on this free forum.
-
Get back to a common sense practical approach that we can ALL understand and work with.
Which approach was this?
Yes I know people can die in a fire...but you know they can die in many other ways.
And are any of these likely to happen in your hotel? Strangely enough this is not http://www.yougotdrunkanddiedinyoursleep.org.uk, it is a forum about fire related issues, so we will tend to talk about fire related issues.
and I tell you with absolute certainty your wives would not appreciate being forced out of their warm hotel bed on a cold November night because some idiot decided he wanted to smoke in his non smoking room..
I am sure they would like even less to be trapped in their room by a fire because some hotelier couldn't be bothered upgrading his fire alarm because "they can die in many other ways" (c) Davidrh 2008
and you sir had made the hotelier change his HD to a SD (Yes you people are doing that...........!!)
'you people'? There are many people in this forum who would argue from your side of things. Maybe if you came in with some comment about your experience as a hotelier, and enlightened me to your 'plight' of ensuring that people who pay to stay in your hotel are safe, then I may see your post as being more constructive and I could use that information to balance out the options in some future decision I may make.
Look we all want the same thing. Safety for the punter.
We do? And that would be achieved by having HD instead of SD? What do you think is the FRS motivation to have you install SD? Would we profit from it? Do you think we do it just to be clever?
But please remember this.. Fire Regs (although very important) are just one of the many many AND I MEAN MANY regulations and red tape we in the real world have to deal with...and still make a living to pay the taxes to pay you all.
We all pay taxes. We all live in the real world. There are many here who have worked for FRS's for many years, and what they consider to be the 'real world' may be a world where they have seen what happens when it all goes wrong, which to them will seem much more 'real' than trying to run a hotel.
-
Get back to a common sense practical approach that we can ALL understand and work with.
Which approach was this?
Presumably the one where the owner & occupiers sent off a form to the FRS, waited for an FPO to come along with their sketchpad and blue/red/yellow book, the owner/occ got a list of doors to upgrade and fire warning to provide, they did as told, got a lovely pack called a 'fire certificate' and other than a very basic level of ongoing maintenance never had to do anything ever again unless they started knocking the place down and changing the layout big time.
For the owner/occ you can see how the current regime is a massive shock and an additional hassle with a lot of grey as oppose to the clear cut requirements (or so it will have seemed) of the FPA.
Although they should have got eased into the FRA approach via the Workplace Regs, most either ignored it or didn't even know it existed and there seemed a desirability by both industry and the enforcers to hang onto the FPA instead, aided of course by it still running alongside the Workplace Regs.
If I for a moment forget I have anything to do with fire safety and try and put myself in the place of the smaller company I can see how they may feel aggrieved. Not that I'm saying dump the RRO for the FPA, just that I can see their point. Some premises that were not covered by the FPA, but are now covered by the RRO are facing massive works even using the most realistic risk based solutions causing obvious reactions from those in control.
The fact we have several contradicting guides doesn't help of course and something that should be cleared up urgently.
-
risk assessments have been needed since 1974 for all health and safety risks, specific fire safety risk assessments since 1997.
-
This is all very Fascinating . I'm a hotelier. I really really really wish you people would get your act together and
. Thinking about "enforcing"smoke detectors or worse Scoring goals with gleeful horaays against 'ordinary people (ie owners and managers of properties who don't earn a living working for the fire brigade) caught out by this or that regulation is unedifying and unhelpful in the extreme.....Yes I know people can die in a fire...but you know they can die in many other ways.
and I tell you with absolute certainty your wives would not appreciate being forced out of their warm hotel bed on a cold November night because some idiot decided he wanted to smoke in his non smoking room..and you sir had made the hotelier change his HD to a SD (Yes you people are doing that...........!!)
Look we all want the same thing. Safety for the punter..
From experience Hotels and B&B's have some of the worst outdated poorly maintained fire alarm systems which i would not feel safe in at night.
The owners are not remotely interested in hearing the reports of an inspection especially when there is a cost involved but they are quite happy to spend money elsewhere on WI-FI decortaing etc.
I find that when a part of the Hotel is upgraded,the fire alarm is always ignored and only comes to light at the end when an engineer comes to do a test and there is still a plastic bag over the smoke detector left by the painter.Nice new rooms but an old manky smoke detector and panel from the seventies which does not work correctly.A smoke detector incidentally which has a working life of 10 years.
Changing heats to smoke in hotel rooms- why not point out the fool who chose to smoke to all the guests standing outside(if they even bother to get out of bed) instead of blaming the fire alarm system as usual.
Technology has improved vastly and the use of multisensors in hotel rooms are ideal for cutting down on unwanted alarms but if someone did not give your industry a kick up the backside you would all still have your 240v manual systems with one bell which is really puting the saftey of the punter first.....
-
Thanks for the comments
As I said what we all want is safety. Not confusion.
It looks like we have all been dumped on by whitehall.
Nothing new there then !!!
-
risk assessments have been needed since 1974 for all health and safety risks, specific fire safety risk assessments since 1997.
Which is why lots of places have done H&S RAs. Indeed on inspections they can readily pull out dozens of various RAs for the endless subsidiary bits of law under the HASWA, but always have trouble when it comes to fire.
Yes FRAs were technically required in 1997 but for non certified premises, which were rarely visited anyway for 9A compliance and so there was little education or enforcement, certified premises happily continued under the FPA. Very few FRAs existed at this time - I remember doing one as part of my 3rd year in Uni on placement in 96 using the rather rudimentary draft guidance that was about. Our client base 97-99 only required Fire Certificate Compliance Audits and the small number of non certified multiocc's didn't want FRAs, just H&S stuff.
99 as we know saw FRAs extended to certified premises - but the FPA was retained and in our experience most Fire Authorities clung to certification, with the odd leaflet drop being made to mention the existence of the requirements for FRA, and few occupiers seemed to be doing FRAs and even less fire authorities enforced it (most prosecutions & notices we saw reported or were involved in resolving from 99 to 06 were under the FPA).
Many FRAs we did see were tick boxes or similar and showed little appreciation of what was needed and if it weren't for pre-existing (albeit outdated in some premises)measures required under a certificate standards in premises would have been dangerous with little compartmentation , minimal EL, poor fire warning but lots and lots of extinguishers.
The fact that the RRO has finally destroyed the safety net of fire authority led specification and certification will have come as a massive culture shock, especially as it is being enforced and publicised - many owner/occupiers will be bewildered and confused.
-
The HD thing is pretty scarry really. Had the pleasure of visiting Apollo a couple of weeks ago and witnessing a test in their fire test room. I forget the test reference but it basicly consisted of 3 polyurethane foam blocks A3 paper size, inch or so thick.
Within 30 or so seconds the ions/ opticals had started in pre-alarm / fire and the multi's in their various modes started to react. Fire burned itself out after 4-5 minutes whole room was smokelogged down to 300mm from the floor and the heat detectors had failed to even go into pre-alarm.
Probably common with other manufacturers, but they had a room full of kettles that they were using to simulate the steam escaping from a hotel bathroom into the sd/hd which always seems to be located right outside, to enable testing of their multi sensors in various modes.
So, multi sensors, or even opticals with some kind of managed delay if its really a problem, but by the time the heats have gone off its probably gonna be to late (unless of course all of the doors / other fire separation is really up to the required standard ?)
-
That was alwyas the stance that was there for HD in hotel bedrooms, that the occupants were dispensible. Now the order talks about relevant person and not just about employers or employees, the case for HD has weakened and the protection of all relevant persons means that other forms of fetection should be considered.
-
There are many here who have worked for FRS's for many years, and what they consider to be the 'real world' may be a world where they have seen what happens when it all goes wrong, which to them will seem much more 'real' than trying to run a hotel.
And I'm one of them. From personal experience, I have seen on numerous occasions the results of it all going wrong. It's very real, harrowing at times and not pleasant.
Perhaps that's why I now work as an Inspecting Officer .... hoping that other fire-fighters don't have to experience what I have in my career.
It's all very well moaning about the requirements of law, the numerous inspections, paying taxes etc etc, but that's what you do as a business operator.
Perhaps all hoteliers should reflect back a year and think about the situation at Penhallow in Newquay and whether they would like to have that experience before moaning about having to replace some detectors to protect the sleeping guests that keep them in a living.
-
If Penhallow is found to be deliberate arson - as is suspected pending court hearings- then perhaps smoke detectors would have very little bearing on the outcome?
Now turn it round the other way- how many people have died in their hotel bedrooms as a result of accidental fires?
How much would conversion of all heat detectors in thousands of hotels cost and how many lives are likely to be saved by it?
-
Hello Everyone
I hope you don't mind if I give a quick reply to some of your comments all of which I appreciate
1. CivvyFSO ......BS 5839 -2.
2. Chris Houston...The problem is interpretation. and from our angle (the hotelier) it looks like Fire brigades are sending out enforcement officers who interpret (or their brigade do) guidlines in their own particular way. I site two examples of inspection to two similar hotel and officers coming up with completly different interpretations of the rules. So its not much good blaming the government
also....and I have read this from your form...hotel room deaths are I beiev rare !!
3.CivvyFSO ...I go back to what i said before it has to be a common sense approach. Gievn that the new rules mean that completely untrained people are now apparenlt in charge of fire safety, it has to be a system that will work, is logical and has common sence attached. As per my comment above at the moment that is not the case as fire brigade officers are running around the country "enforcing" rules in all sort of different way. You know this is the case. Just read your own forum.
4. My experience as a hotelier does not help when it comes to fire safety...Can you run a hotel?....
I do know that people smash fire safety glasses after weddings "for a laugh"..I do know they pass out in their rooms and pee their beds after smoking in their non smoking rooms. I do know that customers will lite mathes under smoke alarms (and heat) as a " laugh. I do know that they won't move out of their rooms when the fire alarm goes off for the umptenth time...I know a lot about hotels.
and don't get me going on taxes...we are just a small hotel...and out taxes VAT, Local etc etc amount to over £100.000.00 per year. So lets not go near that one please.
I have some grunts. I object strongly to the implied assuption that I am just another hotelier trying to save money.
What I am is a hotelier trying to make a living under a high welter of red tape.
One thing to you all. I put fireman up there with the best. But please try to see things from our point of view..not just what "the rules say" ...or don't say
-
I have no doubt that there is alot of red tape, rules and regulations attached to running a business. We all get fed up with being taxed to the hilt, even those of us who do not run a business.
My reference to Penhallow was not in relation to the difference smoke alarms would have made, nor the cause. It was merely an example of a severe fire which did scost lives and destroyed a business.