FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: SidM on September 04, 2008, 10:22:13 AM
-
I have been out to one of the subject establishments run by a housing group. The residents of both the flats and bedsits have minor learning difficulties but the aim of the accommodation is that after 18 months they should be able to return to live in the community. The housing association has day time staff but if an evacuation is required at night, the residents are meant to evacuate themselves. In fact, this is part of their tenancy agreement. Is this the norm for such places?
To further complicate the matter, I was advised by the responsible person that that the change of use went through Building Control, yet both buildings containing the bedsits and the self contained flats have double door protection protection on ground, first and second floor AND AFD in the common areas and the flats/bedists.
What I'm confused about is the AFD in the common areas. If the conversion has gone through Building Regs, why is there AFD in the single staircase of both buildings. Surely, the compartmentation is guarantedd and there should be a stay put policy.
-
Depends upon the structural separation. If it is to 6o minutes then I would agree but it may meet only a 30 mins separation standard and therefore you can not use a defend in place strategy.
-
Depends upon the structural separation. If it is to 6o minutes then I would agree but it may meet only a 30 mins separation standard and therefore you can not use a defend in place strategy.
And if it is only 30min with AFD, is it acceptable to have self-evacuation in the night?
-
Surely a Stay Put Policy requires someone to investigate, initiate phased evacuation etc etc. If no staff are available at night then isn't the only option to self-evacuate?
-
Are you sure it is not a detector that is there to operate a vent?
-
Surely a Stay Put Policy requires someone to investigate, initiate phased evacuation etc etc. If no staff are available at night then isn't the only option to self-evacuate?
In a block of flats there are no staff - people stay put. They only evacuate if
a) they decide to themselves because they can see/hear/smell the fire and they think evacuation is their best bet.
b) a man (sorry - person) in a fire service uniform, nocks on the door and suggests they leave PDQ.
c) it's their own flat that's on fire and its getting a bit warm in there!
-
I have been out to one of the subject establishments run by a housing group. The residents of both the flats and bedsits have minor learning difficulties but the aim of the accommodation is that after 18 months they should be able to return to live in the community. The housing association has day time staff but if an evacuation is required at night, the residents are meant to evacuate themselves. In fact, this is part of their tenancy agreement. Is this the norm for such places?
To further complicate the matter, I was advised by the responsible person that that the change of use went through Building Control, yet both buildings containing the bedsits and the self contained flats have double door protection protection on ground, first and second floor AND AFD in the common areas and the flats/bedists.
What I'm confused about is the AFD in the common areas. If the conversion has gone through Building Regs, why is there AFD in the single staircase of both buildings. Surely, the compartmentation is guarantedd and there should be a stay put policy.
You can find Sid that some architects haven't a clue about fire safety measures. This extends to what to include and what not to include on a plan drawing. If you show, for example, detectors, safety lights and fire doors everywhere, and as long as BC and FS inspectors see at least the standard of cover they want, then it would be passed. Not many enforcement authorities have an over provision policy.
I was in a small newly built single storey establishment recently which had a very basic layout with detection and self closing fire doors installed absolutely everywhere. In my view neither was needed at all. I asked the proprietor why so much and she said that that was what was on the plan. A copy of the approved plan was given to the builder and he did exactly what it said on the tin.
She told me that if she had only known what was not needed she could have saved thousands.
A Stay Put strategy is not compulsory.
-
Have you considered HTM 88 http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Lettersandcirculars/Firecode/DH_4119167 it deals with houses that are similar to your flats and bedsits, may be worth a look.
-
twsutton
HTM 88 is for people with mental health problems that could life within the community practically unaided, however unfortunately it is for premises with only two floors, it seems to me the fire precautions are OK for the type of occupancy that SidM refers to -including smoke detection in the communal areas, HTM 88 also refers to self-evacuation and not a stay-put policy. However, you could not apply the same standards of HMT88 to Sidm's flats & bedsits as the building is three storey.
-
twsutton
HTM 88 is for people with mental health problems that could life within the community practically unaided, however unfortunately it is for premises with only two floors, it seems to me the fire precautions are OK for the type of occupancy that SidM refers to -including smoke detection in the communal areas, HTM 88 also refers to self-evacuation and not a stay-put policy. However, you could not apply the same standards of HMT88 to Sidm's flats & bedsits as the building is three storey.
Rex shouldn't that read not more than two floors above the ground or access level (see page 4)
-
back when I was a FF I used to do charity work in this exact scenario.all of the flats /houses had protected stairways and full afd/EL and extinguishers.It was left to the tennants to evacuate themselves,as there was not 24 hr staffing.Most would if the alarm went off,occasionally there might be a tennant that ignored the alarm(but doesn't that happen in hotels too?!)
-
Rex
Not applying to three floors has been challenge by Kurnal the occupants Sid refers to, could be better described to a metal disability as opposed to physical disability. Finally its Sid who is suggesting a stay put policy not what exists at the moment therefore I still maintain it’s worth a look.
-
Kurnel & twsutton- fire precautions in housing providing NHS supported living in the community HTM 2001.
Kurnel is correct udated version of HTM88- The guidance contained in HTM88 should not be used in premises where residents or staff will be accommodated on a floor more than two floors above ground or access level. [3 floors allowed] I have only used the updated version once since first published in 2001, I have used the previous version first published in 1986 many times that only allowed not more than two storeys in height [excluding the basement] thats were I made my mistake- wnen I looked up old reports- I should have referred to the 2001 HTM88 report I made. [look before you leap] aplogies to all concerned.