FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: jakespop on February 14, 2009, 05:30:41 PM
-
I am looking at a property comprising a shop on Ground Floor with two storey premises above used as a shared let with 5 students. Separate access to living accommodation. No protected route in flat but interlinked smoke detectors. Nothing in shop. My idea would be to install fire alarm with auto detection in shop to alert residents above( possibly 5839 part 1) and leave interlinked detectors as they are. If applying LACORS guide I would think I could assess as two storey with no need for fire doors as long as adequate protection between Ground and First. Any views are welcome.
-
Hi Jakespop
Are you saying you will rely on window exits from the top floor? If persons try to lower themselves from the top floor windows they are going to get hurt. It must be more than 4.5m above ground level?
-
Thanks Kurnal. Although property is on a sloping site it would be the case that top floor is over 4.5 m. I was happy using the orange guide where this would have to be a protected route but I am currently trying to use the Lacors guide as it seems this will now be the accepted standard of local fire authority. In paragraph 9.7 on page 12, my property fits all of conditions, no mention there about height which is in next paragraph as alternative to consideration of internal escape route conditions. Am I missing something? I would also like opinion on fire alarm.
-
I assumed that you were looking at it as a prospect rather than as an existing building in use.
I find the lacors guide a bit of a nightmare, it seems to me that with the guidance, the examples and diagrams there are lots of contradictions which if used in isolation can justify almost anything anywhere anytime.
If the building is existing and is in current use then probably you are right- 9.7 stresses the need for a well enclosed staircase and fire detection- a standard that seems reasonable in the circumstances. If on the other hand you are acquiring and carrying out any building work then I would suggest the ADB is the correct solution.
As far as the shop is concerned, assuming the residential has a fully independent access and escape and there is a compartment floor to a one hour standard separating them then there is no need for any detection on the shop. If in doubt and you put it in just consider how it can be controlled- if it goes off at 3am on Christmas Eve can the occupants of the flat silence and reset it?
-
Thanks that is very useful. Yes I had considered the alarm situation, but at present it is not even to 30 minute FR separation in some places. I think, because of age of building, and question marks over voids etc that I will consider AFD in shop to 5839 part 1 with sounder in flat. The location etc of panel is an issue, but most important thing is that they are aware of anything in shop and evacuate. Any other observations would be welcome.
-
In the long run wouldn't it be better to upgrade the FR than have the ongoing management of alarms issue, the passive fire specialists can do a lot with the various materials available to them, it needn't entail ripping out an entire floor and rebuilding.
-
If you are so unsure about voids and compartmentation then you should definitely look at giving at least 30 minutes compartmentation with detection possibly compensating for the remaining 30 minutes that is missing. People are not going to move quick unless they know for sure that there is a fire threatening them, so if there is any weakness in compartmentation that could mean that the staircase lost quickly to smoke/fire before anyone makes a move to evacuate.
The sensible option is (As AnthonyB suggests) to give it 60 mins compartmentation as per ADB.
-
Thanks Civvy FSO. This is along the lines that I am thinking. Together with the Part 6 in the flat and protection to risk rooms, e.g kitchen, I believe this is a practical and sensible solution. Can you just confirm what ADB is, dont recognise abbreviation.
-
Approved Document B
-
On this vein can someone offer advice on the following. Victorian building of 4 floors (G123) converted in 1970s to 6 flats. Sterile single staircase. Single point SD in flats been adivised that afd required in common parts. I think there is enough compatmentation to allow for defend in place. Any thoughts?
-
What compartmentation is in place between the rooms and to the stair?
-
Buildings designed and contructed to CP3 part IV:1971 were allowed to adopt a 'stay put' policy. If the building was converted to this standard i doubt there would be a problem.
-
Hi wtfdik
Most buildings converted to flats did not meet the stringent requirements for compartmentation, protection to the staircase, layout of flats, ventilation and travel distances that CP3 would ask for. So a stay put policy may not be appropriate.
For example does your building have one hour fire resisting compartment floors, one hour walls, half hour fire resisting doors to flats, flats internal arrangement to provide a protected lobby, no fire risk in staircases? Or alternative routes of escape from the upper floor levels?
-
Just looking at the LACORS document in more detail. Where the examples are given it indicates that FSO does not apply to "Shared Houses" which fit the definition. Hence I would assume that no fire risk assessment required although it would still be covered by Housing Act. In my experience Fire Risk Assessments are still being carried out on this type of property. Am I reading this incorrectly or is it just another "grey" area of this guide?
-
The fire safety order does not apply to domestic premises ( but see article 31).
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20051541.htm
However even if the upper floors are classed as a shared house then the fire safety order would still apply to the shop on the ground floor, in the event of a fire in the shop the persons in the domestic premises above could be placed at risk. They are covered by the description "relevant persons" who may be at risk in case of a fire in the shop.
-
Difficult to find out if converted to CP3 standard but each flat has 30 min FR doors ( some have closures removed). Minimal fire risk in staircase, 60 min between each flat vertical and horizontal. No lobbies in flat or staircase.
-
Do flat entrance doors open directly into rooms of the flats or into a hallway?
-
LACORS guide. General questions I have which others probably have as well.
E.g Shared student houses of 2 and 3 storey. Does RRO apply or not? Is a Fire Risk Assessment required?
-
LACORS guide. General questions I have which others probably have as well.
E.g Shared student houses of 2 and 3 storey. Does RRO apply or not? Is a Fire Risk Assessment required?
Yes and yes. Not family dwelling.
-
I think we are talking about 2 different premises now.
wtfdik, it sounds like compartmentation is reasonable (might be worth checking it all thoroughly before making a final decision though), but you are missing either a protected entrance hall, or a lobby between the flats and the stair. You are also likely to be missing ventilation to the stair. This scenario is not to current building regs guidance. Some people may (& some will) argue that since the compartmentation is good, people are safer in their flat so no alarm should be given, but if you want to work to current guidance then you are left with the need for a fire alarm system in the common areas.
Jakespop, the "shared house" tag used to be directed at 2 storey houses, as it was decided by the powers that be to 'go easier' on these (despite them still technically being a HMO) due to statistics showing that these are safer than a similar setup in 3 storey houses and above. I haven't bothered with lacors much, so they might be saying something different, but if they are saying a 3 storey house can be a shared house then they are missing the point, but never mind. :)
-
This scenario is not to current building regs guidance. Some people may (& some will) argue that since the compartmentation is good, people are safer in their flat so no alarm should be given, but if you want to work to current guidance then you are left with the need for a fire alarm system in the common areas.
Like you said, some may disagree, so i dont want to disappoint!
The idea of the RR(FS)O isn't to bring every building up to current standards. If the building was converted with enough separation to satisfy the building regs at the time and it was deemed safe to stay in a flat, why isn't it now if the flats still meet those conditions? If there is any doubt, then of course, an alarm should be fitted.
Technology and experience in fire safety have improved considerably over the years but where do we draw the line?
-
This scenario is not to current building regs guidance. Some people may (& some will) argue that since the compartmentation is good, people are safer in their flat so no alarm should be given, but if you want to work to current guidance then you are left with the need for a fire alarm system in the common areas.
Like you said, some may disagree, so i dont want to disappoint!
The idea of the RR(FS)O isn't to bring every building up to current standards. If the building was converted with enough separation to satisfy the building regs at the time and it was deemed safe to stay in a flat, why isn't it now if the flats still meet those conditions? If there is any doubt, then of course, an alarm should be fitted.
Technology and experience in fire safety have improved considerably over the years but where do we draw the line?
This is where risk assessment comes into play Smokescreen.
It isn't about debating if something was designed to a certain standard years ago and whether it should or shouldnt be uprgaded to current standards. Your fire risk assessment should tell you what is required, and as we are aware the assessment looks at reducing risk to ALARP (resonably practicable being the operative words).
Also I want to clarify some points made about a shared house not being subject to the Reg Ref (Fire Safety) Order.
As LACORS states there is no legal definition of a shared house (see page 39 - Point 35.1) It also acknowledges that it is a grey area whether or not the FSO applies. Some officers and consultants have argued that any parts ALL residents can access or use in the house such as lounges, kitchen , common hallway are actually common areas and therefore the order applies.
Whether you agree or not I would still urge landlords to complete a fire risk assessment for two reasons, the first is to establish what precautions are required for protection of tennants / residents and secondly what precautions precautions / measures required to protect their businesses / property.
Last point about escape windows - see paragraph 9.8 & 14 of Lacors which has a drill down of where they can / can not be used.
-
With regards the shared house argument, it could easily be considered that the main part of the house, even though it is a shared area, is indeed still 'domestic'.
Therefore by virtue of:
6. —(1) This Order does not apply in relation to —
(a) domestic premises, except to the extent mentioned in article 31(10);
It should be argued that the RRO does not apply. Even though there are a few people in it, surely it is still a private dwelling. There is a tendency to link up with the housing act and look at the definition of single household etc, but even if it is defined as a HMO, it is still capable of being domestic and private?
Now take a block of converted flats, the 'domestic' part finishes at the flat door, and by virtue of 'any place' the remaining part comes under the RRO. There are some situations that muddy the waters a bit, but take a pinch of common sense and think if the RRO was ever intended to apply to someone's living room and bathroom regardless of whether people are related to each other.
From DCLG: Shared houses: The risk of death from fire is no higher in a shared house than in a
comparable non-HMO dwelling.
(http://i40.tinypic.com/2chp18x.jpg)
-
Well put Civvy - I quite agree. (I threw in that bit about lounges / kitchens just as a point of discussion).
Common sense must play a part when dealing with Sheltered Housing / HMOs, and to my mind undertaking a fire risk assessment is common sense regardless of whether legislation requires us to do so or not.
-
LACORS guide. General questions I have which others probably have as well.
E.g Shared student houses of 2 and 3 storey. Does RRO apply or not? Is a Fire Risk Assessment required?
Yes and yes. Not family dwelling.
This might clear some things up...
From the National Fire Safety Protocol, from Lacors, signed by the Secretary of State for housing, and Secretary of State of fire safety:
Which authority should take the lead
enforcing role for fire safety?
The table below lists the authority that will
normally take the lead in inspection and
enforcement action in different types of
property.
1 Single dwellings, including shared
housing, (Fire risk assessment
not required) LHA
No RA therefore no RRO.
(Even though LACORS mention there is no legal definition of a shared house, they do go on to define what is a shared house for the purposes of the guidance document. If I were an owner then I would look closely at that to ensure that whatever we are talking about is or isn't a shared house to ensure I was not caught out.)
-
Yes Civvy I agree as far as the domestic premises are concerned, but my understanding is that these domestic premises sit on top of shop premises on the ground floor without a good standard of compartmentation in between?.
-
LACORS guide. General questions I have which others probably have as well.
E.g Shared student houses of 2 and 3 storey. Does RRO apply or not? Is a Fire Risk Assessment required?
Yes and yes. Not family dwelling.
This might clear some things up...
From the National Fire Safety Protocol, from Lacors, signed by the Secretary of State for housing, and Secretary of State of fire safety:
Which authority should take the lead
enforcing role for fire safety?
The table below lists the authority that will
normally take the lead in inspection and
enforcement action in different types of
property.
1 Single dwellings, including shared
housing, (Fire risk assessment
not required) LHA
No RA therefore no RRO.
(Even though LACORS mention there is no legal definition of a shared house, they do go on to define what is a shared house for the purposes of the guidance document. If I were an owner then I would look closely at that to ensure that whatever we are talking about is or isn't a shared house to ensure I was not caught out.)
Do you class it as "shared housing" or "HMO"? I understand student accommodation of this type to be HMO.
-
This might clear some things up...
From the National Fire Safety Protocol, from Lacors, signed by the Secretary of State for housing, and Secretary of State of fire safety:
Which authority should take the lead
enforcing role for fire safety?
The table below lists the authority that will
normally take the lead in inspection and
enforcement action in different types of
property.
1 Single dwellings, including shared
housing, (Fire risk assessment
not required) LHA
No RA therefore no RRO.
Not quite as simple as that Civvy.
Unshared private dwellings fall outside Article 2 of the Order. Where there is a shared house and the tenancy agreement demonstrates that residents have joint occupation, and the premises are their dwelling, the house will fall outside Article 2. For it will be a single shared house, rather than a building containing parts used in common by the occupants of more than one private dwelling.
The position is more complicated in respect of premises where the tenancy agreements disclose exclusive occupation of bedrooms, but common use of other parts of the premises, such as kitchens, bathrooms and sitting rooms, along with facilities in the premises.
Where a tenant has significant and substantial use of shared parts, this will result in the bedroom being just part of the tenant’s dwelling, rather than his dwelling.
There are no conclusive tests to determine what will be sufficiently significant to identify whether premises are a part, or the whole, of the tenant’s dwelling, the existence of a shared sitting room will be an indicator that the exclusively occupied bedroom is only part of the tenant’s dwelling. In such circumstances, should this indicator, and the range of other circumstances in the premises, evidence that the sharing of areas is significant and substantial, the tenant will not have a separate dwelling. The Order will, therefore, not apply.
and finally just to be picky.....we shouldnt really use the term RRO, there are many RROs but only one fire safety order.
-
Yes Civvy I agree as far as the domestic premises are concerned, but my understanding is that these domestic premises sit on top of shop premises on the ground floor without a good standard of compartmentation in between?.
It is clearly a flat above a shop. Not a house. ;) Still potentially domestic though.
-
Do you class it as "shared housing" or "HMO"? I understand student accommodation of this type to be HMO.
If it is actually a house, and it is shared (taking into account PhilB's comments where he kindly pointed out some examples that muddy the waters) to the extent mentioned in the lacors document (listed below to save time looking it up) then it still falls under the Housing Acts definition of HMO, but it is recognised by the protocol mentioned above as a shared house and a single private dwelling.
Switching logic on for a second, the whole phrase "house in multiple occupation" seems to logically indicate a shared house, while all the other buildings that tend to fall into the HMO group should be known as BMF's. (Badly Made Flats) It would clear things up a bit.
Lacors:
35.2 For the purposes of this guidance, shared houses
are described as HMOs where the whole property
has been rented out by an identifiable group of
sharers such as students, work colleagues or friends
as joint tenants. Each occupant normally has their
own bedroom but they share the kitchen, dining
facilities, bathroom, WC, living room and all other
parts of the house. All the tenants will have exclusive
legal possession and control of all parts of the house,
including all the bedrooms. There is normally a
significant degree of social interaction between the
occupants and they will, in the main, have rented out
the house as one group. There is a single joint tenancy
agreement. In summary, the group will possess many
of the characteristics of a single family household,
although the property is still technically an HMO as
the occupants are not all related.
-
Not quite as simple as that Civvy.
I agree, and I refer you to an earlier comment:
There are some situations that muddy the waters a bit
Thank you for pointing some of them out. :-*
-
This scenario is not to current building regs guidance. Some people may (& some will) argue that since the compartmentation is good, people are safer in their flat so no alarm should be given, but if you want to work to current guidance then you are left with the need for a fire alarm system in the common areas.
Like you said, some may disagree, so i dont want to disappoint!
The idea of the RR(FS)O isn't to bring every building up to current standards. If the building was converted with enough separation to satisfy the building regs at the time and it was deemed safe to stay in a flat, why isn't it now if the flats still meet those conditions? If there is any doubt, then of course, an alarm should be fitted.
Technology and experience in fire safety have improved considerably over the years but where do we draw the line?
This is where risk assessment comes into play Smokescreen.
It isn't about debating if something was designed to a certain standard years ago and whether it should or shouldnt be uprgaded to current standards. Your fire risk assessment should tell you what is required, and as we are aware the assessment looks at reducing risk to ALARP (resonably practicable being the operative words).
And i agree with you that risk assessment is what comes into play. The point i was trying to make though (although not very well i admit) was that the requirements to have a stay put policy haven't changed over the years, we still need each flat (compartment) to be within fire resisting construction there by leaving the communal areas safe for that period so that upon arrival from the FRS they evacute as necessary.
Changes in guidance that have occured in the last 15-20 years for example , front entrance doors now need to be 30 minutes fire rated and have intumescent strips and smoke seals to qualify as a suitable door for a stay put. If the door in place satisfies the previous requirements in being 30 minute door but is without intu strips and smoke seals, has larger door stops to compensate etc and is not damaged and still a good fit then why would you change it?
The example we were previously given were for a house converted flats in the 1970's. IF it was converted to CP3 part IV and met those guidelines in compartmentation. Provided there are no new issues that would jeopordise a stay put policy then surely the reasonable approach would be just to note on the FRA that the flat entrance doors are not up to current specs and should be replaced in the course of building maintenance or upon damage beyond repair.
Of course, in the conversions i have seen, this is unlikely to be the case and they a communal fire alarm fitted to cover this.
-
If there is 30 minute horizontal separation between shop and upper accommodation a consideration is to extend Part 6 syatem downstairs rather than install Part 1 with with all associated testing and maintenance issues. Thoughts??
-
No problem in principle. The only problem I can see is if a fire occurs in the shop the students are likely to only think about searching their own areas when the alarm sounds and not think that there could be a fire in the shop. Perhaps a flashing beacon or at least a notice showing where all the detectors are?