FireNet Community
THE REGULATORY REFORM (FIRE SAFETY) ORDER 2005 => Q & A => Topic started by: JPAH on January 07, 2009, 07:50:09 PM
-
I recently fire risk assessed some relatively new purpose built student accommodation in the form of a block of flats. As normal dwelling units the block would comply with the requirements of ADB or 5588-1 for a small 3-storey single stair building in terms of travel distances, lobby protection to the stairs etc etc. However each flat contained 5 ensuite bedrooms and a communal kitchen for students. The internal entrance hall to each flat was protected and had self-closing FD30 doors [without intumescent strips or smoke seals]. The flat entrance door was appropriately FD30S.
Each flat was fitted with a Grade D LD1 system - which was not linked beyond the flat. In the common areas [outside each flat] was an L3 system - with a detector just inside the entrance door to each flat.
The building was extremely well managed with regular fire drills, testing of alarms [internal and external to flats] and 24 hr presence onsite.
My view from being onsite is that this is ok. The students were essentially living as a unit and there was enhanced provision above that required for normal dwelling units with additional [domestic] detection and self-closing doors.
Am I being too lenient? Any comments would be appreciated.
-
I have seen many places similar to this. Usually there are 4-6 bedrooms, a communal area (or corridor) and a kitchen. This 'cell' has its own part 6 system and the communal area/corridor opens onto another corridor that serves many of these cells. The only alarm that will send a signal down to the concierge is a HD/SD (forming part of L3 coverage to the main corridor) that is fitted in the communal area/corridor. The local part 6 system only alerts the persons in the 'cell', and they can control this system themselves.
I don't see what else could be asked for. The flat occupants are protected, and the rest of the building is also protected should something break out of a bedroom/kitchen.
That being said, it is a regular problem that the students wedge the communal kitchen door open. This is usually controlled by reasonably strict management and good advice.
-
Do you think that fire and smoke seals to rooms within the flats would be of benefit bearing in mind that these study bedrooms are not typical sleeping bedrooms they tend to be office/bedrooms/dens of iniquity, the single direction travel distance within the flats often exceeds the 9m for flats as per ADB? Just an opinion, like Civvy I wouldn't be losing too much sleep over it either way.
I bet theres no ventilation in the stair??
-
Thanks Guys
Travel distances are fine and believe it or not there are vents to the stair. The building is only 3 years old. I've thought hard about strips and smoke seals to the internal doors [150 of them!] and I think I agree - better on than off. Obviously I'm aware that the building was recently inspected and approved by Building Control and a previous fire risk assessor with no request for these. My concern is exactly as you mention - when I was a student nothing would've got me out of bed!!
-
I have had a great deal of experience with student accomodation and halls of residence in particular
Students (god bless them) can be strange creatures who, as you say JPAH , would seem to be capable of sleeping through World War three. It is also common for students to ignore fire alarm activations. Also rooms can get extremely untidy, and they smuggle in their own electrical appliances which don't always get PAT tested
So I think it is desirable (but not essential) to fit strips and seals on bedroom fire doors and increase the time smoke / flame can be contained.
Plus fire doors do warp / get damaged over time and inevitably gaps will appear so strips and seals are probably going to required at some point anyway.
-
Dr Retty, All evidence is that the fire risk to these students is no different to that in Retty Towers. Are the internal doors of the said mansion fitted with intumescent strips and smoke seals, and do you have the LD1 system that they have???????? And do you really care whether, after a fully developed fire has been burning in a bedroom for a quarter of an hour with the alarm sounding all that time, a lick of flame is sustained on the hallway side of the door. Answers on the back of a fire risk assessment to the usual address.
-
Sorry that is a silly argument. Do you have an LD1 system fitted in your own home Colin? How can fire officers "practice what they preach" when often they live in single domestic dwellings which aren't subject to fire safety legislation and aren't anywhere near as big as or are totally different from HMO's or student accomodation we are talking about and thus have different levels of risk because the ammount of people staying there. I'd love to know if any risk assessor, consultant or inspector had LD1 in their home.I was an inspector for many years and had adequate detection in my house which was just battery powered. Why would I want to install mains powered detection for extra protection.I dont have anyone staying at home who i dont have control over, or where I dont know what they might be up to behind closed doors. The guidance published by HMG is there for good reason based upon previous experiences at fire incidents, and tests carried out using benchmark standards, but you yourself Colin already said recently it's hard to go againt tried and tested standards.
-
These units are not Retty Towers, they are HMOs and measured against the HMO benchmarks they have strengths and weaknesses- major strengths in this case appear to be LD1, management and on site security, weaknesses include the occupants and the way the flats themselves are used.
Common sense would say that at the very least the kitchen door should be provided with fire and smoke seals. Students will always put something on the cooker then go back to their games of electronic ping pong or whatever inferior games they play these days whilst it cooks. Guaranteed.
As for the other doors - well in any other bedroom corridor in any other situation - and especially in a dead end condition we would expect to see FD30S. Hotel, hostel, (and indeed I am told much sleeping goes on in Toddys offices). By treating this as a flat we may apply the domestic benchmark applied to flats internal design - except that really its a HMO. If it were a domestic flat we would look to the history of the guidance- eg CP3 et al which set out travel distances and layouts - and made sensible suggestions that bedrooms should be closer to the flat entrance doors than risk rooms- such as kitchens and lounges.
Here lies another significant difference. Historically the lounge in a flat was considered higher risk than the bedrooms because thats where most fires were shown to start. I guarantee that in the student housing described the fire loading and activites in bedrooms are more akin to 6 lounges than 6 bedrooms.
And if I stay at Retty Towers I am staying in a single household lovingly cared for and supervised by Mr and Mrs Retty (INNL). These student flats cannot be described as a single household. They are usually a clumsy attempt at social engineering by the establishment for first year students in which a group of students are carefully selected at random (yes I do mean that) which at best brings together a diverse mix of friends and at worst creates world war three. In many cases the occupants sharing a flat cannot give a damn about where their peers are or what they are doing.
In summary if I were carrying out this risk assessment I would recommend that the lack of fire seals to the kitchen door is a substantial risk needing action and the lack of seals to bedrooms is proably borderline tolerable/moderate risk for which an action plan should be implemented to ensure they are fitted on refurbishment.
-
Ah the tramlines of labels never die do they. The old ones are the best. Happily fire does not know or care what we call premises. What really matters therefore is the level of risk. Sorry to bore people with hard facts and proper research, which I know is less dramatic than emotional claptrap and totally ignoring what the poor chap said in the first instance that this is simply a block of flats. In some areas of the country, including that in which Retty Towers is located, there are serious social problems associated with flat dwellers but we dont ask for all the over the top measures discussed above. The LD1 system and good solid self closing doors is absolutely fine, and the risk assesor would be squandering money for which one day liability will arise when people go way over the top, by asking for excessive measures. It has been shown statistically that the risk to occupants of a shared student house (or in this case a flat) is no different to the risk in a single family dwelling-FACT!!! regardless of what subjective junk one might sling at students. As for going against guidance, BS 5839-6 says all of this, and would only ask for the detection specified for a single family flat, but these people have the benefit of the addtional AFD and the self closers that would not now be needed in a single family flat. (The doors though are not as suggested in the first question FD 30 if they have no strips. But who cares?)
-
. Do you have an LD1 system fitted in your own home Colin?
I do..perks of the job..
-
This is fantastic - like watching a very slow game of tennis. I am tending towards my initial instinct that the building is fairly safe. I think [as per Kurnal] I will recommend seals and strips to the kitchen only [it is at the end of the corridor next to the flat entrance door] and that only in replacement or general maintenance work seals and strips would be recommended to bedroom doors.
-
You do realize of course that, by fitting the strip, at a cost of possibly over £100 per kitchen door, you are implicitly saying you can envisage people being around for over a quarter of an hour POST FLASHOVER of a fire in the kitchen, having been given warning by the heat detector more than 20 minutes before any fire spread beyond the kitchen is likely to occur. And there is presumably some reason that this post flashover fire is more of a risk to the young students than to an aged old lady in a flat in a sheltered housing block. Reasonably practicable is different from practicable and "lets chuck in a bit more" just to be sure since its not our bill anyway.
-
The kitchen will have a heat detector rather than a smoke detector, in my experience a fire could develop to flashover whilst persons are still present- there are so many variables.
The aged old lady most likely lives alone and does not share her flat with five other people none of whom have any relationship with her and all of whom cook independently of the others.
Qualitative risk assessments will always be subjective. Our opinion expressed on a forum will always be founded on our perception of the scenario and our past experiences. Its good and helpful to have an exchange of opinions and I am happy offer mine and take on others views.
My view is that the risk profile of the scenario is very different to a flat occupied by a single family unit. Others will always see it differently. C'est la vie.
-
You do realize of course that, by fitting the strip, at a cost of possibly over £100 per kitchen door, you are implicitly saying you can envisage people being around for over a quarter of an hour POST FLASHOVER of a fire in the kitchen, having been given warning by the heat detector more than 20 minutes before any fire spread beyond the kitchen is likely to occur. And there is presumably some reason that this post flashover fire is more of a risk to the young students than to an aged old lady in a flat in a sheltered housing block. Reasonably practicable is different from practicable and "lets chuck in a bit more" just to be sure since its not our bill anyway.
£100 per door? can you qualify that Colin because I've never heard of such excessive costs. Also you seem to forget about the issue of business continuity and building protection, not mention the fact that we aren't talking about shared accomodation on this thread.
-
This will always be the subject of a prolonged discussion and the matter is not helped when we read prosecutions including the absence of intumescent strips on fire doors.
I tend to recommend that doors to the types of rooms considered to be fire hazardous, and all the codes describe them, be fitted with strips and smoke seals. This cuts down on the costs and shows a common sense approach, I think.
-
Surely seals have been recommended by BS and FRS for some years, therefore should the doors have had seals anyways?
davo
ps Stick it to 'em Prof! ;D
-
Surely seals have been recommended by BS and FRS for some years, therefore should the doors have had seals anyways?
davo
ps Stick it to 'em Prof! ;D
Not if they were installed before the BS & FRS came out. Not all FRSs pushed intumescent strips.
-
1. Kurnal, whether you regard this as equivalent to the risk of a single family dwelling is your prerogative, but people here love to quote from standards, and BS 5839-6 is quite specific that the risk in a shared student house is equivalent to that of a single family dwelling. This assertion was based on extensive Government funded research, rather than someone's gut feel. Other guidance documents take the same view.
2. Celeveland, happy to qualify. You need a wee man tot ake the door off, rout it and refit, with some repainting if necessary. Aside from material cost, the labour cost is extensive. Cognisant as I am that many people simply make demands for fire precautions with no understanding of the cost involved, I actually reduced my cost estimate to way below actual market costs so that it would not be a point of contention, but since you wish to raise it recent costs to one housing association were £180 per door, while a hotel chain ahs been quoted over £200 per door. (Perhaps though we could get moonlighting fire-fighters to undercut tradesmen. )
3. Kurnal, I am sure that you are aware that a heat detector will operate well before the temperatures required for flashover.
4. Cleveland, the gentleman was not asking about property protection, but if you want that why not sprinkler the place as well. Money is clearly no object to the Firenetters.
5. Celeveland, au contraire, the flats are no different from a shared student house. The fire in the flat does not know that there are lots of similar flats.
5. Davo, one does not fit smoke seals on internal flat doors, nor usually intumescent strips. Building control have presumably treated this as a block of flats, but then what would they know, as all they do is stay in building control for their whole career, rather than doing fire safety for a few years as a career move. Just as well they would have had a statutory obligation to consult the experts though before passing the plans isnt it..........................
6. JPAH. it is not so much a game of tennis as tooth extraction with no anaesthetic.
-
Dear Colin
My gut is not infallible but I am rather fond of it and take note of what it tells me. On the other hand I note that you have recently discarded yours and now seek solace in quoting guidance - but it does strike me as odd that you only usually quote from that which you have written yourself. ;D
Heres someone else's research "The chances of you being injured or dying as a result of a fire are ten times higher in a house occupied on a shared basis (e.g. by students or young single adults) than in a traditional family home" Central College Glasgow Accommodation Guide.
http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/news/student-halls/article-602810-detail/article.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2136156/Oxford-University-fire-could-have-been-started-by-a-student-making-breakfast.html
http://www.lep.co.uk/news/Party-candles-spark-university-fire.4787644.jp
http://www.avonfire.gov.uk/Avon/News/Cooking+sparks+fire+in+student+halls.htm
-
Davo
Current building Regs specify FD20 doors for the protected lobbies in flats and FD30S for the main entrance door. FD20 doors aren't always easy to find and may or may not have fire seals depending on what was submitted for test by the manufacturer. Often FD30 doorsets are fitted by default because its easier and no more expensive.
But theres flats and flats. And some wishy washy guidance. The Approved Document B is clear and specific but does not clearly address the flats in multiple occupation. It does set a travel distance of 9m max which rather limits the size of the flat usually to about 3 bedrooms. My sons halls of residence flat last year had a travel distance of 12m in the lobby as it had 5 bedrooms. I guess with six bedrooms in this case it may push it even further.
Theres the lacors guidance that effectively leaves it open to risk assessment, this starts from the premise that only the flat entrance door needs to be fire resisting and other rooms within the flat may be ok if they are in good nick and fit well. It then goes on to waffle about higher risk and fire doors. As always it comes down to horses for courses.
-
Ah Kurnal, Kurnal, what am I to do with you? Now I know when you were in what my old mother called fire brigades and King George ruled the nation, the definition of fire risk was the chance of fire occurring. But see the MODERN definition of risk is liklihood of a hazardous event (in this case a fire in a student residence) occurring multiplied by the consequences if it does occur. Now I know you hate facts, but can I correct one or two of your mis-facts.
1. I did not write the Entec report that showed that the RISK to students in share houses was no different to that in a single family dwelling, and in any case it wasnt just written in the sense of plucked out of thin air, it was DISCOVERED from research.
2. While I DRAFTED BS 5839-6, I cannot claim authorship, which belongs to a committee of national experts including all your fire brigade chums from CFOA etc.
3. I did NOT write the LACORS guide, about which you are so disparaging but that appears to support my views, presumably because the authors were devoid of the services of your gut.
4. The figure of 10 does NOT apply to shared houses-it is a figure that applies generically to ALL HMOs. You need to do your "research" more carefully. Must try harder I see written on your thesis.
5. I have been telling fire officers for 30 years that when they reduce the arguement to "... there was once a fire somewhere or other...", it is a feeble attempt at scraping the barrel, because there is no rational basis for their case and its time to end the discussion. There was once a plane crash on the M1, but I still fly BMI to Belfast regularly, in what I hope is the certain knowledge that the anomalous circumstances are unlikely to happen again.
4. And now we come to liklihood and consequences, where you first went off the rails as it were. But always eager to learn from an expert, I researched as you instructed all the incidents in question and here are my findings.
Kurnal exhibit 1, and I quote from the said exhibit: "Students were allowed back inside a short time later. No one was injured"
Kurnal exhibit 2, and I quote from the said exhibit: "All students were accounted for and no one was injured in the fire, which was quickly brought under control."
Kurnal exhibit 3, and I quote from the said exhibit: "The blaze destroyed part of a kitchen and left the rest of the flat badly smoke-damaged."
Kurnal exhibit 4, and I quote from the said exhibit: "As the fire alarm was sounding when crews arrived, the occupants of the building were all outside. No one was hurt."
I was hoping to put all this "research" in my CPD diary, but then I realized that the finding were diddly squat, namely that sometimes there are fires in dwellings but that in the case of student residences, Ker Chink (to quote one of Galleons phrases, which always make me smile) the fire alarm goes off, out the kddies go (eventually) no one is hurt, and it simply proves the point eloquently (for which i thank you) that the risk from fire in a student residence, particularly with comprehensive AFD and half decent self closing doors is about the size of a knats poo. Returning home station. Night night.
-
Sir Colin, fancy posting over the weekend when I'm not around to reply or chastise you!
Whilst you are correct in stating that fire doesn't discriminate between say a Halls of residence or single domestic dwelling (SDD) you have to acknowledge that the two properties are very different animals for very different reasons.
And aside from the usual differences of size and occupany levels one main issue is the old chesnut about the level of "control" excercised in such premises.
In my opinion it is due to the fact that standards are enforced in HMOs, halls of residence, bedsits etc etc that we don't normally get many deaths in those premises. But that said we still get a lot of near misses.
As far as I'm aware this topic relates to student halls of residence, not shared houses. I appreciate why LACORS allows for lesser standards in shared houses but those standards can't be applied to student halls of residence or HMOs for good reason.
In halls of residence students are lumped together with other sudents they dont necessarily know or get along with. There is little inclination for them to "look out" for one another.
Couple that with the fact it is often the first time students are living away from home. The temptation to do things with their new found freedom leads to late night parties, alcohol / drugs / general silly shannigans, etc etc.
Also you find study bedrooms can be quite stuffy, so doors get propped open to aid ventilation, and there is often insufficient storeage space for students to put all their gear - thus you find all their possesions strewn around the room adding to the general fire loading.
Before you know it all these factors add up resulting in a higher risk.
Now you are quite right Doctor Col all these problems and shannigans could equally crop up in a Single Domestic Dwelling,and a SDD is where we will most likely get fire deaths.
But firstly we cant enforce standards in SDDs and most importantly if I was stupid enough to do something in my own home that put my family's lives in danger then I'd do that well and truly at my own risk.... BUT my action would not generally affect any "innocent" third parties (i.e people who werent stopping in my house at the time).
If i do something stupid in a halls of residence however "innocent" third parties could be put at risk UNLESS adequate precautions are in place to prevent that from happening.
Remember people are more inclined to look after family and friends than they would strangers.
As a fire officer I do practice what I preach. I do for instance have smoke detection installed at Retty Towers. It is not however to the same level or standard as that required in Hall of residence , HMO or shared house exactly for the reasons I give above.
Now lastly let's look at financial reward. If I invite you and your good lady to Retty Towers and you stay overnight as my prisoners, sorry guests, you accept that you are living under my roof, but because we are best chums now Col Im not going to do anything to put you or the good lady Todd at risk. There is you would agree a moral obligation there.
If you paid to stay at the "Retty Towers" Hotel however not only would you expect to see me dressed up as Basil Retty, doing silly walks and shouting at foreign waiters, you would also expect good service and to stay in a safe place where your loved ones aren't put at risk. Part of the money you give to me goes toward keeping you safe.
And if your kids were to go off to uni you would want to know that they were stopping in a safe place too?
The government recognises this as something called "a duty of care".
-
Thanks Colin. All good stuff. ;D
I dont disparage any guidance. Its a good benchmark and a tool to inform ones judgement on what is ALARP. It actually helps when they contradict each other as they do because then it gives me good justification for consulting my not insubstantial gut.
And my gut tends to be a little more consistent than some of the guidance. Eg., cf. 5839 part 6 / FSO Sleeping guide / ADB. All as previously discussed on this forum. The links were not to suggest that people are losing their lives- thats something to be celebrated- its all about potential and consequences as you say. Human factors will ensure that fires do and always will occur, all of the instances quoted illustrated the fact that students in these places often do not behave as occupiers of a conventional domestic situation. Like cooking in the middle of the night when others will be in bed.
-
Earl Retty. The issue is not whether one should enforce but the standards that should be adopted. People run on the tramlines of names, such as HMO, flats, shared houses, etc, rather than thinking about risk. Knee jerk reactions to names are not what fire risk assessment is about. And its odd isnt it, that building control were happy, presumably after consultation with the F&R Authority, the previous fire risk assessor was happy, poor old J whatever was happy, all of whom know the site intimately. But as soon as poor old J whatisname asks people down the pub, on scant information, they all want him to tell the client to spend loads of dosh based on generic prejudices based on a few lines of information, the fact that there was once a fire somewhere and some rumbling in a gut probably caused by eating irregular meals while waiting for the bells to go down. You may also want to see what Lord Denning said about fire precautions in student houses.
As for the former Lady Todd (as was), she would probably not wish to share Retty Towers with me. I, myself, sometimes share accommodation with a beautiful Princess, but you will have to wait in the queue to accommodate us, as the wee man in D&G with the B&B was first in the queue. And all those who want excessive fire precautions simply play into the hands of his B&B chums, who then understandably mistrust fire specialists who tell them to put in reasonable fire precautions.
-
Kurnal. Always pleased to be of service to an old hero of the F&RS. With regard to cooking in the middle of the night, alas you are, once again, off beam. I, myself, cooked two rashers of bacon in the microwave at 4am the other day, just before retiring to bed, while Lady Todd (Junior) lay sleeping in her bed. For avoidance of doubt, while I was a student for six happy years of my life, I am now only a student of life and the mire created by the reform of fire safety legislation.
-
We will have to agree to disagree on this one Marquis Todd.
I agree that you need to take individual premises on their own merits and not just simply apply generic labels, but our comments, I feel, aren't knee jerks they are just simply pointers and things to think about when dealing with those types of premises and completing the fire risk assessment.
-
Whilst you learned Gentlemen are handing around titles I should tell you that someone once called me a bit of a Count.
-
Like cooking in the middle of the night when others will be in bed.
And most likely when in various states of inebriation.
Ahhh, those were the days my friend, we thought they'd never end. We'd sing and dance for ever and a day.
Everybody now.
-
For avoidance of doubt, while I was a student for six happy years of my life, I am now only a student of life and the mire created by the reform of fire safety legislation.
Well Colin you must have been a really slow learner to need all those extra years. When they chucked me out of school at 15 they said there was no point in trying to teach me any more. ;D
-
Guys thanks for messing with my head.
I suppose the main reason I see this type of residence being more at risk than typical dwellings is the fact that if a fire starts the person who sees it [or starts it] will sod off without warning others. This is unlikely to happen in a dwelling with a family unit. Therefore, to mitigate for this an enhanced detection system is installed [and self-closing devices to boot!!]. If false alarms are minimal - which they appeared to be from my inspection - and house-keeping is generally good, then the sod who sods off isn't as critical.
Therefore, I reckon [yet another change of mind!!] I will go with my initial instinct and not ask for anything to be done to the doors. If I wait any longer to get this thing finished it will be time for the annual review.
I am extremely conscious of not imposing 'unnecessary' costs onto any client and am aware of the ALARP principle, but I do genuinely feel there is not too much wrong here. There is also 24 hour management presence onsite which makes me feel slightly better.
thanks again.
-
Thanks for your patience JPAH, we do often go round in circles in these chat rooms and only the person who has seen the place can really decide what is the right standard. Everywhere is different - if it wasn't there would be no need for Responsible Persons and risk assessments. You can be satisfied that the premises appear to exceed benchmark levels of fire safety provision for the reasons given in your summary.
Colin- what did the Late Lord Denning say about standards in student housing - I have googled but cant find anything? I suppose it was in connection with a particular specific case? Or was it one that created a precedent in Case Law
-
Goodness me, Kurnal, didnt they teach you ANYTHING at Moreton. What am I talking about, of course they didnt, other than how to appear macho in front of your friends and recite codes backwards. While you were drinking cheap wine down the graveyard as a youth, I, myself, was enjoying the benefits of the Scottish education system. My dearly departed dad, who I wish i had listened to a lot more as a youngster used to tell me knowledge is a lot more enjoyable when you find out yourself. He also used to say that you are never too old to learn (though he had probably never had a discussion with you on fire safety). So I am going to give you a clue, so you can find out what Lord Denning said, thus enabling you to find out for yourself and rejoice in the research. Here is your starter. It was in Hull. Come back if you are still stuck. No answering for him now, chaps.
-
Burned the midnight oil with google. Have learned a lot about Emus and found some new friends amongst the Lesbian fellowship of East Yorkshire. Never did make much progress hunting down Lord Denning quotations after that. Clue No 2 please.
-
Kurnal. Our time has not been wasted. Now that you are a member of the lesbian fellowship, I am sure we can expect to see the UK's first lesbian chief officer within a matter of months. Just give them the basics of your fascinating recollections of how there was once a fire you attended in 1908 and the people were hanging from the windows waiting for your heroic actions - you know, all the usual tosh that officers spout after a few jars at Moreton. No need for them to know much about fire-fighting and such irrelevancies, but please do make sure their equality and diversity CPD is up to date.
In between their tuition sessions, seek out information about a case involving University of Hull.
-
Now now Colin. We'll have less of that talk here.
You're a grouchy lad in the afternoon aren't you?, and a right old cynic I might add. Mind you, you do fit the profile of a typical BMW driver. I think you must be missing Princess
Now enough of these cryptic clues and smoke sceens you rascal.
Could you please please pretty please point in the direction of Lord Dennings comments, as I'm dying to read them... and just like that kind fellow Prof Kurnal (who is always very quick to help others when they're hunting for guidance and links on firenet) I can't find it on the t'internet despite several google and ask.com searches.
Afterall we are best chums Col... go on just jot it down here - no one else will see...promise!
-
What is the latest with the University of Hull competition? It has gone very quiet. Has it been resolved yet or is Miss Marple needed?
-
Colin may recommend the services of Miss Marple- Im more of a Cagney and Lacey man myself.
The trail has run cold, I've drawn a blank, it was a good game while it lasted but I think Colin has got fed up of banging his head against the wall and has gone for a lie down. We've still got the ball though.
Can anyone else help?
-
I have tried very hard to find it, I feel I would need the resources of some legal library as all web searches draw a bit of a blank. I can find various references to Lord Denning and the University of Hull, but none that seem relevant.
-
Ditto!
Come on Lord Todd throw us a bone...!!!!!
-
Holy Ghost and All Omnipotent Retty, The case occurred as I recall in the 1970s. It ended as Kingston upon Hull DC v University of Hull around 1979. Recollection is hazy because it is so long ago Kurnal was about to retire at the time, but I think the University had bought a row of 2 storey houses and the DC wanted a load of fire precautions, some of which were deemed by the court to be unnecessary. One reason was as I recall said to be that the Court would not accept that in the event of a fire in a shared student house the kiddies would not look after each other, so the risk was more akin to a single family dwelling. This was THEIR gut feel, but was substantiated by masses of statistical research subsequently, rather than wild assertions based on indigestion , prejudice, and lots of "I once saw a fire" or " I once knew someone whose cousin was a student". Cant remember whether Lord D was directly involved or whether he made reference to the case in a subsequent decision. The case led to a LGA bulletin saying.... GUESS WHAT...... that enforcing authorities need to consider the personal circumstances of the occupants when determining requirements in respect of means of escape. DUH there's a novel concept. All this must make Kurnal want to get his winklepickers and flared trousers out of the attic, while we all rediscover time and time again things that those of us who pursued a career in fire safety on a continuous basis, rather than an idle diversion on the way to becoming a Chief Fire Officer, learned as kids.
-
Colin you are way off beam there.
Winklepickers were never ever ever worn with flares. The thought of such a combination is alien to any concept of taste. They were worn with drainpipes.
You flappers of the 20s never came to terms with the fashions of the sixties and seventies. Only my grandmothers generation would make such a funamental mistake.
-
AH Kurnal, not for the first time you miss the subtleties of my epistles. Implicit in my suggestion was the fact that you span may eras of fashion. I was not aware the extent of the span incorporated the 20s, about which I know nothing, particularly the term flappers.