FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Rocha on November 12, 2008, 06:59:06 PM
-
I am involved in 4 student halls of residence buildings at a University in the north of England. They are approx 7 years old and have L1 fire detctions systems installed. They consist of single stairwell, with two flats per storey which consist of 6 studios flats each. Smoke detection is fitted to stairwells, flat corrdiors etc and heat to the studio bedrooms themselves. The studios include cooking facilities, therefore smoke detection would result in high false alarm rates. This arrangement was agreed by all relevant parties during design stage.
The local fire authority have now decided to change their policy and not accept heat detectors to studio bedrooms. Saying that the student may die of smoke inhalation before the heat detector activates and that the death of the person in the room of origin is no longer acceptable.
The local fire officer has served a notice on the owners of these buildings to install mains wired self contained smoke detection to all bedrooms to accompany the already fitted heat detectors. Massive cost implications and massive disruption. I presume the idea being to provide earlier warning for the person in the room of origin only.
My questions are:
1. Do the studios fall under the scope of the RRO or are they classed as single private dwellings,
2. Can the smoke detectors be enforced retrospectively,
3. As heat detectors to studios is recomended in BS can it be argued that we are compliant,
4. If push came to shove wouldn't battery opertaed smoke detectors do the same job.
Any guidance very welcome.
-
What do you think is best for the students?
I'll let others answer 1-3 but I can happily answer question 4 for you: "Categorically not!". Battery operated may run out of batteries, students might nick the batteries or remove them to prevent activation when they light their happy cigarettes or joss sticks.
-
We would be happy to spec multi sensor detectors to all new builds from now on. However to retrospectively fit smoke detectors to all studio bedrooms would not be practical and would lead to even more ignorance to fire alarms, which is already a major issue with our students, although we have few due to current fire alarm arrangements.
Rocha
-
Our friend CT is currently involved with a determination for the same subject, perhpas he will give us an update on where it is. The FRS are not complying with 5839 but are looking at the term relevant person in regard to the RR(FS)O.
1. Single private dwelling is not a term used in the Order it is domestic premises and I do not believe that student accommodation would fall under the description.
2. An enforcers can enforce what they like but the onus of responsibilty rests with the RP and as such you can appeal any notice.
3. BS are recommendation only but yes as above you can argue at appeal that you are compliant as the BS recommends HD in most bedrooms.
4. Grade F smoke alarms to Part 6 will and do cover the same area, many people in their own homes have 10 year battery life smoke alarms, many fitted under CFS by FRS. I do not think they are a suitable alternative to HD but it could provide the compliance with the enforcement notice as all they are asking is that the individual in a room awakes when they set themselves alight and this would most definitely do so. The fact that they may fall back asleep is their problem not yours, the means of escape will still be clear when the HD goes off. We should remember that fire alarms are there to protect the means of escape not individuals.
-
I've a few retro cases on the go at the moment - sometimes the FRS have a point & the client is in the wrong, but on others the FRS are taking the mick.
They could cite as a reason for this as 'statutory bar' i.e. they certified a building first in 1978 & thus couldn't enforce adaptation to technical progress since as the place didn't change much but that their habds are now untied and they are making up for lost time!
-
They could cite as a reason for this as 'statutory bar' i.e. they certified a building first in 1978 & thus couldn't enforce adaptation to technical progress since as the place didn't change much but that their hands are now untied and they are making up for lost time!
I wouldn’t think so, are they not simply auditing the FRA in light of modern day standards. If the RP/competent person has a good case that the FRA is suitable and sufficient, they should take on the FRS and win; if not then the FRS should enforce the FSO.
-
1. Single private dwelling is not a term used in the Order it is domestic premises and I do not believe that student accommodation would fall under the description.
So on that principle if I let a flat to 2 students, it is no longer a residential apartment? Domestic premises are domestic premises, regardless of who is living in them.
-
Do the studios have shared toilet/washing facilities. Unles each studio has it's own facilities it will be part of an hmo. If they are genuinely self contained then the they will be a series of domestic premises with common landlord staircases etc the same as any other block of flats.
-
I am a bit puzzled - is the students studio a single room containing both cooking equipment and bed or is the bedroom a seperate room? Its pointless putting a smoke detector in a room where the cooking takes place but it could read as though the bedroom is an inner room?
-
The studios comprise of bedroom, kichen and toilet facilites in one room.
-
Insisting that smoke detection be installed within the studio i think is totally inappropriate. It is the means of escape we are trying to protect with AFD not the occupants of the room.
Back to the point of whether battery smoke detection could be used in conjunction with interlinked heat detection within the individual studios....it's not brilliant.... but I wouldnt say a categoric "no" as Chris Houston did.
If well managed, if a rigid maintenance plan is in place why cant domestic single point smoke detectors be considered. As far as Im concerned the Uni has already proven compliance by having an L1 system (incorporating heat detetcion in individual studio apartments) to protect the MOE , Rocha has gone one further and suggested additional protection through single point battery powered detectors in each room.
If the Uni are of the mind to go beyond what the regulations call for and want to protect the occupant in the room I'd suggest battery smoke detectors are an option.
-
Its a nonsense to even think about putting a smoke detector in a room where cooking takes place.
The thing will be ripped down and disembowelled.
I do recognise that BS5839 part 1 is focussed on protection of escape routes and that the Fire Safety Order came much later and introduced a new focus- the concept of the relevant person- but BS5839 part 1 2002 is still best practice guidance which we should aspire.
I personally have a lot of sympathy with the view that smoke detectors may be of benefit in bedrooms and have the potential to protect the sleeper far more effectively than a heat detector. But theres sense and reason. And smoke detection in rooms where cooking takes place is neither.
Now in a hotel bedroom where we were seeking to protect an ambulant person I would have no difficulty with a stand alone battery powered smoke alarm in addition to the heat detector. Does the job its intended to do and persons staying in a hotel room will complain if it starts chirping so weekly checks and battery supervision isnt a problem.
I think an appeal is essential in this case..
-
Thanks everyone for your valuable input.
Could anyone expand further on whether the studio would be classed as a domestic premises or not?? and therefore exempt from the RRO.
Rocha
-
I believe that the fire mag had an article that had case law form a judge on what a single private dwelling is which may give you somwe clue. As stated earlier that is not the term used in the Order and to my knowldege there is no case law definition of domestic premises only the definition in the Order.
-
Back to the point of whether battery smoke detection could be used in conjunction with interlinked heat detection within the individual studios....it's not brilliant.... but I wouldnt say a categoric "no" as Chris Houston did.
if you are worried about your students taking the batteries and installing a mains operated detector in each room is cost prohibitive why not go for somthing like this http://www.housesafe.com/ as an alternative and keep the HD
-
I
Now in a hotel bedroom where we were seeking to protect an ambulant person I would have no difficulty with a stand alone battery powered smoke alarm in addition to the heat detector. Does the job its intended to do and persons staying in a hotel room will complain if it starts chirping so weekly checks and battery supervision isnt a problem.
I think an appeal is essential in this case..
I agree a determination re HD in Hotel bedrooms is urgently required and I hope Sir Colin of Toddshire will be able to provide feedback in due course.
However, a grade F smoke detector in a commercial bedroom is contrary to BS5839 - part 6, which states part 6 systems are for dwellings.
Despite what the BS states, I reckon that if a building wide solution such as HD in bedrooms is introduced, backing that up by a local smoke detector must be the way forward.
A part 1 system would be best, but if that's not achievable, a part 6 hardwired system must be the minimum requirement. (and definiately not a battery only unit!!). After all, how hard would installing a Grade D system be in a hotel bedroom?
-
Yes but the BS5839 part 1 is satisfied with the heat detector in the room. I agree that part 6 systems are for domestic situations but if it helps make sopmeone a little safer in a commercial premises over and above the benchmark standards then why not? I stick with my view over grade F systems if necessary.
We are looking at a single detector protecting the occupants of a single room, who on reaching the door are in a protected route (unlike in the home), where others are not depending on the alarm from that detector because there is a fully compliant Part 1 system looking after the escape routes, where they are paying money and will call staff if the battery does start to run down, where staff enter the room every day to clean and service the room and who can be instructed to report any low battery alerts. If it does fail it will be just one room for a siingle night rather than an entire house for ever and a day.
PS the new draft guidance for small B&Bs recognises that grade F systems may be appropriate in some specific circumstances- going away from the blanket grade D recommendation.
-
What I find a little strannge is that FRS wnat to alleviate UwFS but ar insistent on SD in hotel or in this case student bedrooms which will give more UwFS and then to deal with that managers will have greater seek and search times. HD was put into bedrooms as a response to the high degree of UwFS in the past. Major point here, forget the term relevant persons but can you tell me where the dead bodies are from HD?
-
http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/Fire-death-was-39avoidable39.3663851.jp
A grade D part 6 won't give any UWFS as it won't be connected to a monitoring station.
Regardless, as much as we would like SD in bedrooms, our very own guidance states that BS5839 is a suitable standard, and anyone should be able to stand up in court and say "This is what FRS' own guidance says I should do, this is what I have done."
We have a duty to take heed of any guidance the secretary of state sees fit to give, and I believe our CLG guides are just that.
-
The studios comprise of bedroom, kichen and toilet facilites in one room.
Ahhh didnt see you pst that before I made a reply
My comment about domestic smoke detectors would therefore be unsuitable in the scenario you describe.
-
Ciovvy, I was mentioning the retrospective fitting of SD to replace HD in a part 1 system. And I still would like to ask where the dead bodies are from the fitting of HD instead of SD in hotel bedrooms.
And just a quick point the CLG guidance is aimed at the RP not enforcers and it is through the FRA that a decision is made about the hazrad and risk scenario. Enforcers have no fire safety duty in the RR(FS)O at all.
-
Midland Retty, why would tamper proof 10 year life battery powered smoke detectors be unsuitable in this scenario, where studios comprise of bed, cooking and toilet facilities in one room.
-
My concern is if their stand alone smoke detectors are sounding every time they cook students will become blasé to fire alarms sounding regularly and when the main system sounds during a real fire event will probably not react as required and evacuate the building immediately.
The installation of smoke detectors would incur significant disruption to staff, students not to mention the financial element and it is possible that the fitting of the smoke detectors could prejudice and reduce the standard of cooperation from students during fire activations.
-
My concern is if their stand alone smoke detectors are sounding every time they cook students will become blasé to fire alarms sounding regularly and when the main system sounds during a real fire event will probably not react as required and evacuate the building immediately.
The installation of smoke detectors would incur significant disruption to staff, students not to mention the financial element and it is possible that the fitting of the smoke detectors could prejudice and reduce the standard of cooperation from students during fire activations.
I totally agree Rocha.
-
Midland Retty, why would tamper proof 10 year life battery powered smoke detectors be unsuitable in this scenario, where studios comprise of bed, cooking and toilet facilities in one room.
-
And just a quick point the CLG guidance is aimed at the RP not enforcers
If not using the legislation, guidance, standards and maybe fire calcs how does an enforcer ensure the FRA is suitable and sufficient?
-
RAers can use any guidance so posters on this forum have stated before and therefore the enforcers shpuld take cognisance of the methodology that is used in the assessmnet not just the CLG guides. As an example, if a RAer wished to utilise BS 9999 as a methodology you could not compare it to the CLG guide as the differences are vast. But and it is a big but, you still get a safe premises.
-
Midland Retty, why would tamper proof 10 year life battery powered smoke detectors be unsuitable in this scenario, where studios comprise of bed, cooking and toilet facilities in one room.
Depends on size of room really but as you point out you dont want cooking fumes to setting off the single point detector repeatedly
In rooms without cooking facilities I wouldnt see nay problem with that
-
Ciovvy, I was mentioning the retrospective fitting of SD to replace HD in a part 1 system. And I still would like to ask where the dead bodies are from the fitting of HD instead of SD in hotel bedrooms.
And just a quick point the CLG guidance is aimed at the RP not enforcers and it is through the FRA that a decision is made about the hazrad and risk scenario. Enforcers have no fire safety duty in the RR(FS)O at all.
There may not be any dead bodies yet, but shall we wait until there are before we change anything? Good old stable door legislation, our history is full of it.
Considering that many Inspectors have been told from higher up that we are to enforce the standards in the guides, then in many respects our hands are tied and we will do as we are told.
Please bear in mind that I am not talking about somewhere with a risk assessment and slightly different solution to the guides, I am talking about enforcing in somewhere that is found to be way below standard and dangerous. In that circumstance we will enforce the standards in the guide and no more, quite simply because if it goes to court the CLG guidance would be harder to challenge than someones opinion. (even though the guide advocates risk assessment)
We are still tied by the legislation to ensure that there is adequate means of escape etc, and I am quite happy to disagree with someones risk assessment and enforce what I see as a reasonable solution, but I won't do this just because it doesn't fit with the guides, it will be because in my opinion it is potentially dangerous in its present state.
-
Midland Retty, why would tamper proof 10 year life battery powered smoke detectors be unsuitable in this scenario, where studios comprise of bed, cooking and toilet facilities in one room.
Regardless of the standards of BS5839, signs and signals regs says that as it is a signal it has to have a backup power source.
-
RAers can use any guidance so posters on this forum have stated before and therefore the enforcers shpuld take cognisance of the methodology that is used in the assessmnet not just the CLG guides. As an example, if a RAer wished to utilise BS 9999 as a methodology you could not compare it to the CLG guide as the differences are vast. But and it is a big but, you still get a safe premises.
But as I have said before, a premises that fits in with BS9999 should not be the subject of enforcement. People seem to be of the opinion that if their premises doesn't fit in with CLG guidance that we will come and enforce it to fit. It is the premises that fit no guidance and are unsafe that will be subject to enforcement, and we won't enforce the standards in BS9999 to bring it up to a standard.
But, if they bring in a consultant at that stage and bring the premises up to the standard of BS9999 then since we are enforcing Articles, the premises should then comply with the necessary Articles, and the Enforcement Notice is satisfied.