FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: kurnal on August 21, 2008, 07:38:21 PM
-
I have posted this on behalf of a potential new member - I will call him Lucifer. He cannot post himself due to the current embargo on new members and emailed me with the following question. ( I will phone you tomorrow Lucifer)
Dear Kurnal
I have seen some of your comments on www.fire.org.uk and have a query of my own (unfortunately they are not allowing anyone to sign up at the moment). I have a project that has just started on site (loft conversion) and the client wants to create an open stair at ground floor. However, there is no way of separating at first floor. The kitchen is separated. I have been trying to see if anyone has over come this scenario yet using the updated Part B. The client is keen to avoid sprinklers (but I don't think there will be a choice). Have you had any experience of this scenario yet? I saw a comment regarding HTM88 (being no expert I may have completely miss understood) and a view that it is ok to escape past a fire. Is this a strategy that could be adopted?
Thank you in advance for any help you may be able to offer.
-
I have posted this on behalf of a potential new member - I will call him Lucifer. He cannot post himself due to the current embargo on new members and emailed me with the following question. ( I will phone you tomorrow Lucifer)
Dear Kurnal
I have seen some of your comments on www.fire.org.uk and have a query of my own (unfortunately they are not allowing anyone to sign up at the moment). I have a project that has just started on site (loft conversion) and the client wants to create an open stair at ground floor. However, there is no way of separating at first floor. The kitchen is separated. I have been trying to see if anyone has over come this scenario yet using the updated Part B. The client is keen to avoid sprinklers (but I don't think there will be a choice). Have you had any experience of this scenario yet? I saw a comment regarding HTM88 (being no expert I may have completely miss understood) and a view that it is ok to escape past a fire. Is this a strategy that could be adopted?
Thank you in advance for any help you may be able to offer.
Sprinklers would not solve the issue of means of escape as the ecsape route could become untenable before the sprinklers operated. I assume it is a domestic property? Velux type window esacpe??
-
Loft Velux window escapes are no longer acceptable under ADB which now demands a protected route to the final exit.
However, I know of a case in a London Borough where the planning Dept insisted on a domestic sprinkler system for an identical problems (Victorian terraced house with a wall removed to make an 'open plan' design). The punters would have preferred a drop down fire curtain to create a virtual protected route, but the planners were obsessed with sprinklers
£8,500 worth of sprinkler later, the Boro Planners were happy and final cert was issued.
Mind you, as the system was installed merely to get 'permission' for the loft, the house owner has no plans to maintain the sprinklers and may actually disconnected them.
The householders reckoned that even with an £8,500 extra (unexpected) spend on the loft extension, with London prices, it's still much cheaper than moving
As so often with FS provision in dwellings, it's just an exercise - an example of red tape gone mad. As it's unenforceable, it's a complete waste of time and money which actually presents rise in risk for the householders.
It was the same with Velux windows in kids loft rooms (which were often locked) and self closers (I got mine third-hand for my loft extension and then passed them on).
-
Well for the first time Messy I find myself disagreeing with one of your posts.
An open plan stair is bad enough in a two storey building but I think they are dangerous as you go higher and the new ADB outlawing those stupid vellux roof rescue windows is a Good Thing. I also recognise that if a fire door is provided and then left open as many are then its all a waste of time and money.
In a couple of difficult cases like this we have found alternative solutions - though bending the rules to some extent. For example bringing the new stair serving the second floor down to the first floor where it terminates in a lobby.From the lobby there are two doors- one fire door leads to the head of the open plan stair to the ground. Another fire door leads to a first floor room with access to a useable window exit. This will not be universally acceptable to all building inspectors.
Another solution is a water mist installation in the ground floor rooms- this is more universally accepted.
If I encountered an existing 3 storey building with an open plan stair then I would probably recommend full automatic detection to LD1 for safety of the residents but this would not be accpetable in a conversion.
-
Kurnal
You already answered your friend in relation to loft conversions, with regard to HTM 88, it is a Health Technical Memorandum that has nothing to do with means of escape from loft conversions- it is to do with fire safety standards to support people living within the community with health problems- hope this helps.
-
A water mist system is a viable solution - however it is far from perfect because whilst they are capable of controlling flame spread they can't prevent smoke travel
As Messy points out another issue here is whether or not the householder would maintain the water mist system properly anyway.
Preferred solution in my opinion would be to protect staircase from attic to first floor level if possible, and then use escape windows.
-
Kurnal
I don't understand what part of my post you disagree with. I am not anti escape windows, and your solution of a 'cut off' door & lobby on the first floor would be the type of solution I would prefer.
The provision of complicated engineered solutions is often - if not always- reliant on the quality of the maintenance. In domestic terms, I see a (domestic) sprinkler system as rather complicated for the average householder to maintain, and perhaps a little expensive to have a competent engineer in periodically. After all, how many households fail to get their gas boilers and cars serviced properly?
So for a planning authority to insist on sprinklers, water mist or curtains in a domestic situation, is what I am referring to as 'red tape'. It looks good on paper, but will it work when asked to?
I (like most who frequent this board) would always go forthe most effective option. Perhaps water mist is the most efficient proposal, but would it be effective? Without servicing it's as much use as a chocolate fire door.
As punters will tend to keep their doors maintained (if not closed), doors and escape windows are much more effective (ie reliable)
-
Hi Messy
The only thing I disagreed with in your post was your honesty in accepting as inevitable that people would not maintain safety systems.
I guess in reality experience has proved you to be right - I still naively cling to a belief that If I recommend a fire safety solution for someones home then its there for their safety and nothing whatsoever to do with pleasing the building inspector. And I will use every avenue to convince them of that fact- and understand the reason for it. Of course when they sell up and move on its unlikely that this will be passed on to the next occupier.
Ever the eternal optimist I admit to being regularly dissapointed but keep on bangin my head against that wall. And an open door is no more effective than a chocolate sprinkler system and in the most deprived areas window exits are likely to be nailed up to deter burglary. Tis a hiding to nothing.
-
Not a lot to maintain though - especially if the sprinklers are fed from Towns main. And what's 'complicated' about a BS 9251 domestic sprinkler?
-
What's complicated about picking up the phone to arrange an annual service on your domestic gas boiler?
Millions should and don't. At least with the boiler, if it stops working (usually on the coldest day of the year) you know - straight away and get it sorted.
The same could not be said for dom sprinklers, which may have failed years ago but as Mr & Mrs Householder have forgotten about servicing it, they won't know until their backsides are getting a touch warm.
That's why I reckon that relying on domestic sprinklers as an engineered solution is iffy at best
-
Much better to rely on open doors then eh?
For your information (and London have some good statistics on this) failures of sprinklers is very rare (and we don't want to say this too loud - but a lot are not maintained!). Also, many projects where sprinklers are installed are run by housing associations who have suitable contracts in place. One local authority 'up north' even have their own people trained to maintain sprinklers as it is not that difficult.
But of course, for the private householder it is down to them (mind you, they often sort these things out when they want to sell) - and no solution is perfect.
Finally, if you are still a serving officer in London, I might point out that your views must be personal - as I can assure you they are not the views of LFEPA.
-
Dear Ian
Do you work in the sprinkler industry by chance? :)
I can't argue with anything you have said, however generally members of the public are more aware of keeping their doors closed at night as a common sense precaution to mitigate the effests of fire.
Take a family living in a house for a good 5 to 10 years who during that time forget to get their sprinklers checked will you guarantee those sprinklers will work when required?
The other point here is money. People will always find more urgent things to spend their hard earned cash on rather than fork out to service their sprinkies. But doors are always there.
Im not deliberately trying to be argumentative, but there's no point in having super dooper protective measures if they're not maintained properly, atleast by having regular maintenance you can be pretty sure that the device in question will work.
-
Yes I do work with the sprinkler industry (although not exactly in it). However, I've seen enough fatal fires in domestic buildings (usually as a result of a flashover) to know that 'fire doors' are not as simple and reliable as some might think. And before the 'passive folk' get upset I emphasise the word 'domestic' - fire doors often do excellent jobs in commercial buildings.
Can I suggest you go and look at some 3 storey dwellings in parts of the West Mids where you can expect fires and see how many doors are likely to be closed at night - that's if they are still there in their frames!
-
Yes I do work with the sprinkler industry (although not exactly in it). However, I've seen enough fatal fires in domestic buildings (usually as a result of a flashover) to know that 'fire doors' are not as simple and reliable as some might think. And before the 'passive folk' get upset I emphasise the word 'domestic' - fire doors often do excellent jobs in commercial buildings.
Can I suggest you go and look at some 3 storey dwellings in parts of the West Mids where you can expect fires and see how many doors are likely to be closed at night - that's if they are still there in their frames!
No need to suggest Ian, I do see plenty of 3 storey dwellings in the West Mids area
I both inspect them and see many post fire - mainly HMOs rather than private domestic dwellings - During inspections I find most of the doors are closed because they access tenant's bedrooms and they want privacy or security, granted the door accessing teh common living areas (living room and kitchen) are often a jar when I walk round.
In private dwellings the doors are more likely to be left open and I have no arguments with that Ian.
But lets not forget that sprinklers dont stop smoke spread (especially not in the incipient stages) and even with a sprinkler system fitted householders should still be closing doors at night regardless.
-
Finally, if you are still a serving officer in London, I might point out that your views must be personal - as I can assure you they are not the views of LFEPA.
Point of order chairman!
Ian, nobody is talking on behalf of their employers here and your comment was perhaps a little out of order. And I'm sure you would be the last person to say that the views of any particular FRS are without question.
-
Retty: Once again, I would suggest that your views are not in accordance with your fire authority's. Indeed, I don't know of any fire authority that would suggest a BS 9251 sprinkler system is a "super dooper protective measure" or, as someoene else has stated, "an engineered solution iffy at best." Ask your Chief if you doubt me here.
Quite frankly I don't think you know enough about domestic sprinklers and the engineering involved - which is quite simple with little to go wrong (unlike a fire door). Of course there is a cost but that is down to the client and their contractor. I deal with many calls for help where owners want to install sprinklers rather than passive protection because 'open-plan living' is how people want their homes designed. I firmly believe sprinklers are an option and people should have the choice.
Frustratingly, so many 'fire experts' keep insisting: on the one hand (domestic - where the deaths are) on doors of dubious standards and quality, they know will likely not be shut; but then on the other, harass the life out of commercial owners/occupiers etc (where deaths are very few) to fix smoke seals and intumscent strips to every door possible - in addition to self-closers etc etc. All upon threat of prosecution if they do not!
Also, let me deal with the incipient stages and smoke spread. What is the problem with this - provided smoke detection is present? If the fire is slow growing and the person awake why can't they put the fire out? How many deaths have you investigated where the fire was slow growing and smouldered, producing cool smoke and the person aware of the fire? Conversley, consider those where there was a rapid fire growth. Only sprinklers can stop the flashover which is why many countries now insist on this approach.
Finally: I'm amazed that some fire officers are so keen on water mist for such risks - despite the weight of testing evidence available for BS 9251 systems, compared to next to none for water mist!
-
If we need the advice of chief officers - we are all doomed
-
Much the same as Ministers!
-
Ian
You have misunderstood my comments and I resent your patronising reply. By all means debate your point, but please don't judge people, or their levels of competence.
Firstly would you like to tell me which authority I work for seeing as you seem to know so much about me?
To my knowledge no fire authority discourages the installation of sprinkler systems in new builds, also they try to push for sprinklers in existing buildings wherever possible too, sometimes they are unable to enforce it however.
Secondly yes I do know about sprinklers thank you, Im not sure why you feel I don't - strangely you actually confirm what I said originally about perceptions of cost that the layperson has about sprinkler systems - so not sure what you were trying to prove there.
I agree with you about people having choice of open plan living. Great!.
But alas you miss the point we are making relating to the real world where human behaviour issues mean that the sprinkler system won't be maintained properly by the residents for the reasons I and other people on this forum have eluded to.
Such precautions should be maintained. Fire alarms should be maintained, emergency lighting systems have to be maintained, my car's brakes have to be maintained... why? not simply because the law says so , but because regular maintenance ensure the device concerned will work when required. Unless you are suggesting we don't need to maintain sprinklers?
So some people remove doors? or dont reapir them as you mention. Yes correct. Some do, others dont - most people however do repair damaged doors for privacy or security reasons as I said. Doors are more obvious than the components of a sprinkler system, so when something is wrong with the door they are more likely to notice it.
The point I make is that without doors smoke would be allowed to perculate throughout the building in the event of fire
I think I''ll deal with the issue of smoke spread in the incipient stages of fire thank you Ian:-
If (to quote your scenario) we have smoke detection, and as you said the resident is awake why cant they put the fire out? Well there is no reason why they can't put the fire out. But they could do that regardless of whether sprinklers are fitted or not, so again not sure of your argument there.
But what about if those persons were asleep?
Furthermore not sure where you are coming from asking about "how many deaths I have investigated where the fire was slow growing and smouldered, producing cool smoke and the person aware of the fire"
The answer is none for obvious reasons. I have witnessed slow growing smouldering fires however where alot of smoke was generated in a short space of time and been able to permiate through the rest of the property.
Sprinklers do not initially stop smoke and thats exactly why I bring up this point.
Smoke is the killer not flame. You still need doors along with sprinkler systems (note i DID NOT say fire doors) Sprinklers do not negate the need for doors Ian.
YOu are quite right that people do prop open doors and that aids smoke travel, but I ask you again you try saying to a landlord of a HMO "fit a sprinkler system" and see what reply you get. Also tell me how sprinklers stop propped door situations!.
-
'Assume Nothing, Question Everything, and be paranoid like me' your words not mine. And you said you did inspections in the West Midlands.
-
Not sure I follow Ian...perhaps Im missing something...would welcome your answer / comment to my last post above.
I have done inspections in the West Midlands region, however the area is covered by several fire and rescue services, and furthermore I serve with two brigades.
-
So many targets - so little time; however:
1) We are talking about loft conversions and 3 storey domestic properties - a subject few fire & rescue service officers know much about because they get little or no training in these matters.
2) Your knowledge of domestic sprinkler maintenance appears, at best, limited.
3) Your knowledge of water mist in domestic situations - as above.
4) Your experience of fatal fire investigation - similar.
Finally, as you and others on this site clearly let all and sundry know that you are serving fire officers, I feel (despite Wee B's protests), that you appreciate that your views are purely personal and not that of the fire service in general - or your particular authority (especially: London, West Mids and Staffs!). Furthermore, other non-fire service readers should note that fact and maybe make their decisions accordingly.
-
So many targets - so little time; however:
1) We are talking about loft conversions and 3 storey domestic properties - a subject few fire & rescue service officers know much about because they get little or no training in these matters.
2) Your knowledge of domestic sprinkler maintenance appears, at best, limited.
3) Your knowledge of water mist in domestic situations - as above.
4) Your experience of fatal fire investigation - similar.
Finally, as you and others on this site clearly let all and sundry know that you are serving fire officers, I feel (despite Wee B's protests), that you appreciate that your views are purely personal and not that of the fire service in general - or your particular authority (especially: London, West Mids and Staffs!). Furthermore, other non-fire service readers should note that fact and maybe make their decisions accordingly.
Flippin heck. What's got into him?
-
Ian I would be interested in your views in respect of one possible use of domestic sprinklers. The recent determination by the sec of state leads me to conclude that a strategy involving the provision of sprinklers in an access room, being the only possible exit route from an inner room,is not acceptable.
Such a strategy would rely on the sprinklers suppressing a fire sufficiently to render the route passable (even if not immediately) or buy time for a rescue by others and would usually be in conjunction with full detection throughout.
Similarly the use of sprinklers in any part of an exit route to control fire and render the route tenable for escape, such as open plan situations is also not an option.
Do you have a view on this?
-
So many targets - so little time; however:
1) We are talking about loft conversions and 3 storey domestic properties - a subject few fire & rescue service officers know much about because they get little or no training in these matters.
2) Your knowledge of domestic sprinkler maintenance appears, at best, limited.
3) Your knowledge of water mist in domestic situations - as above.
4) Your experience of fatal fire investigation - similar.
Finally, as you and others on this site clearly let all and sundry know that you are serving fire officers, I feel (despite Wee B's protests), that you appreciate that your views are purely personal and not that of the fire service in general - or your particular authority (especially: London, West Mids and Staffs!). Furthermore, other non-fire service readers should note that fact and maybe make their decisions accordingly.
Ian I'm going to make a few assumptions now. If you are the Ian Gough I think you are then I have attended seminars and lectures where you were guest speaker and found you to be both entertaining, knowledgeable and approachable on matters regarding fire safety.
When you fielded questions after your presentation (even if some did seem a little silly) you never responded in the tone you have to my thread. I find it a shame therefore that you replied to me in the way you did.
You still make assumptions about who I am, where I work (West Mids Staffs????) my level of competency and criticise me and others about constantly hammering the point that we are Inspecting officers which is completely un true - I will perhaps private message you and put you right on those issues rather than rabbit on here.
Back to thread, Ian please could you answer the replies Kurnal and I posted above,
If either myself or others are wrong in what we are saying then a few kind pointers in the right direction will surely help to educate us and improve our knowledge in specific areas.
I just tend to switch off from people who metorphorically sigh, tut, roll their eyes or make assumptions about people without knowing the facts or because they perceive the person making the argument is talking absolute tosh.
Would be nice to keep things light hearted and proffesional.
-
Re this debate on sprinklers fire warning and means of escapein flats.
I have a PDF copy (9pages) of the recent determination if any one wants a copy email me..
The Determination is in regard to
"The question arising in this case relates to the internal layout of a number of one and two bedroom flats which occur on Levels 3, 4 and 5. These flats are so arranged that one or more of the bedrooms are inner rooms, where the escape route passes through a combined living/dining kitchen room".
The Determination gives an interesting review on the factors considered and why the package of proposals (including sprinklers) was considerd not to comply with B1.
-
Re this debate on sprinklers fire warning and means of escapein flats.
I have a PDF copy (9pages) of the recent determination if any one wants a copy email me..
The Determination is in regard to
"The question arising in this case relates to the internal layout of a number of one and two bedroom flats which occur on Levels 3, 4 and 5. These flats are so arranged that one or more of the bedrooms are inner rooms, where the escape route passes through a combined living/dining kitchen room".
The Determination gives an interesting review on the factors considered and why the package of proposals (including sprinklers) was considerd not to comply with B1.
Heres the link to the determination originally posted by WeeBrian in another thread
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/determination451233
There is an interesting article on this very topic in this months IFE magazine ( Fire Risk Management) that appears to provide some of the solutions to the problems caused by this recent determination
-
Any further comment Ian based on the above posts?