FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: p.b.morgan on August 01, 2005, 06:17:11 PM
-
Dear all,
The consultation document on schools went on line earlier today. Go to
http://www.dfes.gov.uk/consultations/
It is much smaller than AD-B and has lots of pictures courtesy of many members of this forum.
This is an update of BB7 which was withdrawn eight years ago. Please have a look. (I'll be the one dealing with the comments after they have been sent in to the Dept of Education).
-
Penny,
Congrats on getting your guidance together. I saw an early draft some time ago.
How does this guide sit with the 'Education Guide' being drafted by BRE on behalf of the ODPM? I note that you refer to the RRO and accept that your guide deals more thoroughly with design than the ODPM Guide is likely to. However, there will still be huge overlap between the two guides.
-
Believe that the education guide you refer to is the management guide being produced as part of the RRO suite of guides. You will see that BB100 has very little on management; in early discussion with the first authors of the guides we agreed to leave 'hooks' as in the best soap operas for them to pick up. So I am hoping there will be very little overlap.
-
I am pleased to see the arrival of draft BB100 - having long lamented the departure of BB7 and worked with architects of a similar disposition. I've not had time to read the draft properly yet, but, whilst welcoming the pictures, notice the lack of line drawings that made BB7 so memorable. The reintroduction of the 12m direct distance in addition to the 18m travel distance should get things back to where they were (particularly in view of the tendency of schools to clutter rooms to an extent that makes any egress tortuous). The stated need for emergency lighting throughout is also particularly notable and will have implications for budgets.
Presumably School Facilities Guide 6 will be revised to accord with BB100 and the expected RRO-based guide?
-
Why would one want EL throughout a school?
-
Originally it was felt there was no need for emergency lighting at all as schools were only in use in day light hours. With community use and noting some darker corners of England and Wales it was felt that EL would be useful in the event of a power cut , fire etc. The throughout was put in to reflect these possible needs.
-
has anyone thought what this will cost and risk assessed it for cost/benefit. This remains, I assume, a fire standard not a H&S standard, so the EL must be intended to be there to deal with a situation when a fire has taken out the normal lighting cct. So first of all we need a fire. Then we need a situation that the fire has grown to such an extent that BEFORE EVACUATION (caps for emphasis-not shouting) the lighting cct has been taken out by the fire. But wait. This is not just any old fire. it is a fire that occurs in a darker corner of E&W presumably after 4pm in the Winter. Possibly in a school which is NOT used by the community in the evening-or certianly not the whole school. So just in case, we put EL throughout (!!!) at huge cost beccause it might be useful. And this is good engineering???????
-
Most schools are used by the community frequently. Most also lack comprehensive fire detection.
People can be working in remote parts, perhaps on upper floors, doing dance classes, yoga or whatever.
Time for a risk assessment!
-
We werent talking about AFD. Which would you rather they spent their money on. AFD or EL.
-
Sprinklers!
I mentioned AFD (automatic fire detection), becuase this is what would stop a fire growing before they knew.
I mostly manage property risks, so EL (emergency lighting) isn't really something that is relevant to this.
Most large school fires happen at night. Although, I accept that all fires start as small fires and grow into large ones when they are not noticed.
My personal opinion is that all new high schools should be fully sprinkler protected.
-
Chris, why just high schools? We stress the need for Risk Assessments of particular schools in particular areas and do not discriminate for any age group. Strictly the design guide applies to schools with pupils aged 3-16 years. This includes 'through' schools, infant, junior, middle and secondary.
I understand that work is about to start on the cost benefits of installing sprinkler systems in schools. No-one doubts the usefulness of sprinklers but the costs are in the order of 5% of new build, perhaps equivalent to around £170,000 for a typical school building. For local authority schools there may be several choices that need to be made based on available funds.
Where sprinklers are fitted we had fun pointing out that they shouldn't be so obvious that pupils are tempted to set them off! We have tried to think through the implications of what we are proposing so are very grateful for your comments and suggestions.
-
Sorry to use this thread - Penny - I am trying to contact you. I would be very grateful if you would e-mail me at your convenience at Fire4242@aol.com
Many thanks
Paul Grimwood
www.firetactics.com
-
About 20% of the schools in the UK are high schools, but about 50% of the major fires occur in them.
I am convinced the a cost benefit analysis would be of benefit to the decision makes and I would be very interested to provide any assistance especialy to ensure that all costs associated with a fire are covered and that all benefits from sprinkler systems are realised. Designers are given more freedom when sprinklers are installed too.
Penny, given my employers insure the vast majority of schools and have done since local authorities n eeded to buy insurance, I would like to point out that the setting off of a school sprinkler system has never actually happened in the UK that we are ever aware of, they have however recently saved two schools one of which was full of pupils at the time.
Recessed heads are almost invisible and the plate won't drop off them until the temperature hits 58 degrees. No chance of vandalism there.
As for the implications of sprinkler discharge, none really. Any cost would most likely be covered by insurance.
I'll drop you a line, would be good to chat about this on the phone.
-
Obviously I would be happy to see AFD, sprinklers, EL, entry control, good security, CCTV, etc, etc - but with schools it all comes down to available funding and how best to spend it. Somehow early warning by AFD seems more immediately attractive in terms of getting them out before the smoke reaches them than EL in case the fire has cut-off the power or sprinklers once the requisite temperature has been reached.
To be fair to the drafters, I see that they do refer to AFD and suggest L2 as a minimum level for fire detection/warning - but perhaps something stronger than mere suggestion (eg strong recommendation) would be more effective?
I also find the phrase 'An alternative approach for schools is to treat all lifts as necessarily being evacuation lifts..' to be rather vague. In view of the issues, risks and difficulties in getting teachers and caretakers to carry disabled children and teachers down stairs, could we not, at least, be saying that all new passenger lifts in schools of two or more storeys should be constructed to this standard unless an equally safe and effective provision can be made and that serious consideration should be given to converting existing lifts to that standard?
-
Chris, cannot agree more with your point re sprinklers. The document basically shoots down the need for sprinklers. The statement 'were a threat of arson is likely'. show me a school not at threat. With more schools being built from PFI/PPP money with a 25 year life expctency surely sprinklers are essential. The issue of vandalism is old hat. the peron who strikes a head will be easily caught, as the soaking wet fool in the corner. its down to brokers and FRS to lobby education boards and enlighten them.
-
I think the level of emphasis is put into the incorporation of sprinkler systems is about right, however there could be more encouragement for inclusion in new builds.
As a relatively small LA with 52 schools, the cost to retrofit sprinklers even on a rolling programme would be unachieveably high.
-
Schools are, on average, set on fire every 7 years. They are all at risk by being a school.
Vandalism isn't a problem, like I've said, it's yet to happen in the UK every, it it were, it would be paid for by insurance and a recessed head would not be accessible to a pupil.
I've never spoken to a FRS who is not in favour of school sprinklers. School's generaly have their insurance bought for them via council's who tend not to use insurance brokers.
-
Just a point on the cost of sprinklers in school. I have just been involved in a project for a rebuild of a school (because of a fire). The cost of the sprinklers came in at £93k. Cost of rebuild £7.7m.
-
Just a point on the cost of sprinklers in school. I have just been involved in a project for a rebuild of a school (because of a fire). The cost of the sprinklers came in at £93k. Cost of rebuild £7.7m.
Add cost of hiring temporary accomodation for three years, bussing kids about, loss of community facilities, loss of uninsured personal (pupils and teachers contents.)
Ask the teaching staff what they lost, 20 years of home made teaching aids, 5 months of coursework per pupil.
Add cost of stress, staff moral, school reputation damage.
-
I can feel a tear forming................from the heart stuff......Brilliant!!
-
How many books/ decent school dinners can you buy for £93k ?
-
But the books are no good when burnt to ash and the dinner's unpalatable from a smoke stained kitchen.........
Property protection doesn't matter - until it happens to your property! by then it is too late.
-
Frankly I am still astounded that we are arguing over relatively small additional costs. I know everything, (even life) has a value these days and the logic is sometimes difficult to argue against when comparing different outcomes of spending cash on this or that. (Cost benefit analysis wouldn't support riding a pushbike, I'd hazard).
This relatively small additional cost would
1. Reduce insurance costs
2. Restrict environmental damage (440000 cubic metre warehouses in revised ADB)!!!
3. Restict the huge social costs of school (or commercial blg) burning down
4. Assist in the protection of life
5. Reduce fire service resource needs (Heresy, I know)
6. Reduce risk to those fewer firefighters
7. Probably protect old ladies in their Scottish Care Homes (bit of a misnomer that)
Bloody engineers...know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
The government should legislate (they do for everything else), to force buildings of a certain size/risk/heritage/social value (we can make the detail later) to fit sprinklers...then they wouldn't burn down.
-
They are all at risk by being a school.
not to mention also by the Art teacher having a fly puff in his store room.I have had a call out from this before.
-
Its disappointing in the least to see the stance taken by BB100. Nevertheless, many Local Authorities now see the benefits of fitting sprinklers into educational buildings. They themselves, increasingly, specify sprinklers despite the lack of any legislative requirement. The more this happens, the more sprinklers will be seen by neighboring Authorities as an essential part of the specification , particularly in new build, extensions and refubishments.
-
Whilst I fully support the provision of sprinklers in schools for property protection, I don't really understand on what basis the new CFOA publication "Sprinklers in Schools" makes this claim :-
"The provision of sprinkler installations within educational establishments offers the potential for
significant improvements in both life safety and property loss. "
Life Safety ?
Can anyone enlighten me ?
-
It surely means that the provision of a fire sprinkler system reduces the liklihood of someone dying in a fire in a school. Simple as that.
-
I would be interested to know how many students have lost their lives in day schools say over the past ten years.
-
Surely Fred you see that providing active fire supression actually can save lives and prevent the total loss of buildings, if not please present your rationale??
-
I would be interested to know how many students have lost their lives in day schools say over the past ten years.
There have been a few recent near misses, but in the past 10 years the figure is zero.
Now, given the current rate of arson attack (one every 8 years) in UK schools and given the increasing frequency of daytime arson attacks, would you propose we tackle the issue now, or wait for some deaths?
I hope no one suggests we can over look life safety in any type of building that no one has died in recently!
-
Of course we should not overlook life safety but there are other ways. I would fully recomend sprinklers for property protection but not for life safety on every occassion.
-
Lives won't be lost in a day risk school fitted with adequate AFD, adequate means of escape and adequate fire safety management. By the time the sprinkler system is activated everyone is out of the building - it will save the school - but that's not life safety.
-
I agree with Fred but you need to insert the odd Probably in there somewhere. Nothing is definate in this game.
-
I also agree with fred and think passive protection supplemented with active solutions based on the circumstances of the case is best for life safety. Security and sprinklers are the best solution to arson attacks using reduced insurance premiums and consequential loss (see PD,s posting) to convince education authorities for their need.
-
Lives won't be lost in a day risk school fitted with adequate AFD, adequate means of escape and adequate fire safety management. By the time the sprinkler system is activated everyone is out of the building - it will save the school - but that's not life safety.
Fred, the objective of the document is clearly to cover both sides. Sprinklers do this. Very few of the schools in the UK have comprehensive fire detection. Very many have terrible compartmentation. The majority can't manage to complete a fire safety risk assessment never mind boast about fire safety management.
I suspect that most people on this site work for organisations who don't have much interest in property protection, but it is an important issue.
-
I also agree with fred and think passive protection supplemented with active solutions based on the circumstances of the case is best for life safety. Security and sprinklers are the best solution to arson attacks using reduced insurance premiums and consequential loss (see PD,s posting) to convince education authorities for their need.
School insurance is not as simple as one might expect. The people who build schools are different people who insure them. Many are insured as part of a block policy. All stakeholders must accept that the efforts to curb the arson problem have not worked.
As there is a solution that solves both problems, I am surprised that so many people appear unconvinced.
-
An interesting point to note is that the latest fire stats show another fall in fire casualties. But this has been a terrible year for fire losses, it was a record breaker before buncefield.
The insurance industy are often quick to moan but they rarely put their money where their mouth is.
-
I can't help but feel that if we go down the route of recommending sprinklers for life safety - especially if designers press for extended travel distances, relaxed compartmentation, and reduced structural fire protection as trade offs (and you can be sure eggs is eggs that they will) we will eventually compromise life safety in day risk schools - all because of the drive to fit sprinklers in schools.
In the US (who have already gone down this path) it resulted in amendments in building codes to allow trade-offs for anything as long as sprinklers are fitted. There is now active campaign there to restore the balance between effective fire safety measures and effective property protection measures - and to understand the distinction. There is room for trade-offs I agree, but it is extremely important to be aware of the consequences of structural measures being given away.
-
I agree with your views Fred but an answer to arson attacks and increasing fire losses in schools is security, compartmentation and sprinklers. How do we convince the education authorities?
-
The insurance industy are often quick to moan but they rarely put their money where their mouth is.
What do you mean? Insurance commpanies exist to do just that! - to put they money where their mouth is by paying out for all of these losses!
-
It’s all about the stakeholders having a greater understanding of what fire safety provisions are required - and why, and the limitations of those requirements.
Each should understand the differences in the effectiveness of those measures - by both day and night, (or occupied / unoccupied) and the effect on the pupils / teachers / local authority and community in the event of losing the premises.
If the school is likely to be subject to security threats and arson – and the latest buzz word ‘resilience’ – then additional provisions have to be made – however the effectiveness and limitations of those additional measures must be made clear.
If we can get that right then we're all singing from the same hymn sheet
“Education Education Education” seems quite appropriate !
The views expressed are my own, not necessarily those of my employer.
-
Chris- OK I was being abit flippant.
The insurance industry is forever going on about how we should put more effort into property protection - rightly so in some cases.
If they just stopped insuring these buildings then attitudes would change PDQ. They did this job with EPS insulation to great effect.
The insurance industry research buget for fire is about £500k a year compared with over £5m for motoring.
-
what about the life safety of firefighters who go into buildings to rescue occupants and fight fires? a fire doesnt have to kill you to take your life (oops thats an odpm line, forgive me!! LOL)
is life safety really limited to losing life? what about those potentially injured in/by or as a result of a fire?
dave bev
-
Chris- OK I was being abit flippant.
The insurance industry is forever going on about how we should put more effort into property protection - rightly so in some cases.
If they just stopped insuring these buildings then attitudes would change PDQ. They did this job with EPS insulation to great effect.
The insurance industry research buget for fire is about £500k a year compared with over £5m for motoring.
Where to begin, where to begin......:lol:
1 - Insurance companies are (mainly) profit making organisations, just like every other business, they make money. And (with rare exception) what ever happens, they will make money. If fires cost X, they will chage everyone X + 10%
2 - They regularly decline to offer or continue insurance. Indeed "one famous one that I have heard of" have about 100 people, who, every day visits people and tell them to do something or they will cease to be insured.
3 - I can't speak for the insurance industry, only my personal opinion, and I have no idea how much is put into the FPA, the ABI, the arson control forum, and all these other things. I think now that the LPCB is BRE certification it is no longer funded by insurance - are you sure about the £500k? How do you know this?
4 - Ultimatly it must be the job of our law makers and society to solve this problem, not individual profit making companies - that said, often they do seem to have the loudest voices.............
-
what about the life safety of firefighters who go into buildings to rescue occupants and fight fires? a fire doesnt have to kill you to take your life (oops thats an odpm line, forgive me!! LOL)
is life safety really limited to losing life? what about those potentially injured in/by or as a result of a fire?
dave bev
Totally accept your point DB - however my point relates to the provision of sprinklers in day risk schools. I believe the only purpose they serve is to protect the building. I don't think there is any justification for the provision of sprinklers to protect firefighters in the highly unlikely event of them having to enter a burning school for rescue purposes. Adequate AFD, adequate MOE and adequate management are the only fire safety measures required for life safety in day risk schools. Sprinklers to save the school building of course - but lets not try and convince ourselves that they are for life safety.
-
the highly unlikely event of them having to enter a burning school for rescue purposes.
Given the rising trend of daytime arson attacks, are you sure this is highly unlikely?
-
Chris I have been to many daytime fires in schools both accidental and deliberate and they have never caused any major problems. The ones at night,that was allowed to develope,are the ones that cause the problems.
-
Chris I have been to many daytime fires in schools both accidental and deliberate and they have never caused any major problems. The ones at night,that was allowed to develope,are the ones that cause the problems.
Many of the UK schools were built when schools were exempt from building regulations and therefore have no structural fire protection or ceiling void compartmentation. Schools, because of the richness brought to society from them and because they have our children in them are perhaps the most important buildings in the UK.
For both these reasons, I consider every school fire to be a major problem.
I cannot name names, but it was not very long ago where we had pupils crawling out under smoke and people in hospital with smoke inhallation in an English school.
-
This may seem like a stupid question however:
As I understand the current situation the proposed BB100 is intended to cover schools within the age range of 3 to 16 years.
The draft revisions to AD-B now define a school as serving an age range of 2 to 19 years and clearly then stop dealing with schools and refer the user to BB100.
Would it be correct to deduce that schools (colleges) serving the 16 to 19 year age range fall somewhat between stools in terms of fire guidance - or have I got the wrong end of the stick completely.
Owen
-
Chris I agree with some of the things you say but I feel you over state your case and we must agree to disagree.
-
Chris I agree with some of the things you say but I feel you over state your case and we must agree to disagree.
No problem, the great thing about FireNet is the range of opinions from the different people.
-
Owen its what they call a cock-up. Did you respond to the consultations and tell them?
-
2 -19, 3-16??
Only the truely great guidance documents, soon to be released on to the education world cover everyone from creche to post grads!
However, as they only provide guidance and not even the tiniest bit of 'standards' this is quite easy. Roll on prescription...I give it three years
-
Hi,
I had a look at this document a while back whilst investigating the need for sprinklers in schools when involved with a project in the Isle of Man.
The issue arose because building control had written an addition to the UK Part B - B7 that states that schools should be sprinklered, but for life safety reasons.
When we investigated this in terms of the fire statistics, probabilities, number of injuries etc. we found schools to be some of the safest places to be in terms of 'life safety'. Obviously, the benefits in terms of property protection and continuity of service are clear for the mainland. However, on the Isle of Man arson is nowhere near the problem it is over here.
One aspect that concerned me a little was that the BB100 was advovating trade-offs if a sprinkler system was to be provided.
In ADB trade-offs, i.e. increased escape distances and compartments etc, can only be achieved if the sprinkler system satisfies the 'life safety' requirements of the LPC rules. In BB100, and all other guides on school sprinklers, there is no mention of this requirement.
Any comments would be appreciated.
Regards,
Jon Barrett MIFireE
-
Hi,
I had a look at this document a while back whilst investigating the need for sprinklers in schools when involved with a project in the Isle of Man.
The issue arose because building control had written an addition to the UK Part B - B7 that states that schools should be sprinklered, but for life safety reasons.
When we investigated this in terms of the fire statistics, probabilities, number of injuries etc. we found schools to be some of the safest places to be in terms of 'life safety'. Obviously, the benefits in terms of property protection and continuity of service are clear for the mainland. However, on the Isle of Man arson is nowhere near the problem it is over here.
One aspect that concerned me a little was that the BB100 was advovating trade-offs if a sprinkler system was to be provided.
In ADB trade-offs, i.e. increased escape distances and compartments etc, can only be achieved if the sprinkler system satisfies the 'life safety' requirements of the LPC rules. In BB100, and all other guides on school sprinklers, there is no mention of this requirement.
Any comments would be appreciated.
Regards,
Jon Barrett MIFireE
As far as I can tell, the UK is quite unique in terms of the arson problem, it is quite plausable that the Isle of Man does not have the same problems. Obvioulsy, it's difficult to comment on your analysis without knowing more, but it would only take one fire in a school with open ceiling voids etc for there to be a catastrophy in the true meaning of the word and it is then that people will be unhappy to hear that noone was worried because "no one had died recently".
-
Chris, thanks for your response.
Obviously in an ideal world all buildings would be sprinklered.
Interestingly it was reported recently in the IFE journal, when discussing the pros/cons on resi sprinklers, that the figure that is normally used for cost/benefit analysis, in terms of lives saved, is in the region of £1.25m per life saved! This would probably horrify the public that a cost is actually put on lives but that is the reality and it applies to all aspects of life. There is always a cut-off point. So for schools, even with the large arson problem, installing sprinklers purely for life safety reasons could not be justified.
What seemed ludicrous to me was that the Isle of Man should be looking to put sprinklers in schools (but not Hotels or Offices - where the probabilities of death are far higher from statistics) but they have areas of the island where people regularly die on the roads due to the derestricted speed limits!
Our investigations led us to conclude that the current requirements within ADB 'adequately' protect life in schools without the need to install sprinklers. We recommended to the owners that they consider protection for property/continuity protection reasons but interestingly the payback that can be made on the mainland due to reduced insurance premiums is not viable on the IOM due to them having no real arson problems.
-
I would rather see sprinklers as an enhancement to fire safety than a reason to reduce other more permanent measures such as travel or direct distances. With break-ins, vandalism and maintenance issues in some schools, will the system be operational when the fire occurs?
-
I would rather see sprinklers as an enhancement to fire safety than a reason to reduce other more permanent measures such as travel or direct distances. With break-ins, vandalism and maintenance issues in some schools, will the system be operational when the fire occurs?
About 400 schools in the UK have full spriknler system. Two of them would be gone without them, but there has yet to be any that have failed to operate.
Recessed sprinkler heads and strict controls from the local authority risk management department, backed up by the property insurers would avoid such circumstances.
I do agree that although it is possible to logicaly reduce other means of protection, it would be ideal not to. That said, I have seen more holes through fire break walls than I have impaired sprinkler systems.
-
Hi
I don't often comment on these pages but following a fire in my daughters school last evening I thought I'd let you all know the benefits of having emergency lighting through out any school.
The fire involved the main electrical intake, sub circuits and consumer units within the electrical intake cupboard.
All the power failed throughout the school and the emergency lighting did what they were installed for. After a few moments the urgency of evacuation increased when the fire alarm finally kicked in. The fire service performed there tasks and extinguished the fire, successfully preventing any further damage to the school.
In nearly every building and on most of the floors adults and children were carrying out after school activities. My daughter and son were at judo in one of the many halls. The evacuation was 100% successful and many worried and distressed people went to their own homes safely.
The news reports indicate a great part of the school will need rewiring so the kids are off for a few days.
All I can say is thank god for the person who made the decision to ensure emergency lighting was installed through out the school. If your reading this message my heartfelt thanks.
davio1960
-
I would rather see sprinklers as an enhancement to fire safety than a reason to reduce other more permanent measures such as travel or direct distances. With break-ins, vandalism and maintenance issues in some schools, will the system be operational when the fire occurs?
I tend to agree.
Many of the new flagship PFI academies (or Trust Schools or whatever they're called this week) seem to compete with each other for the most contemporary design or architectural 'wow factor' to impress parents/stakeholders.
Many now have huge atria and other features rarely seen in Schools in the past. Some appear to rely heavily on engineered solutions, many of which may be vulnerable to vandalism. Architects see educational buildings as a key asset in their portfolio.
So will sprinklers be used to protect life and/or provide increased protection for the building? Perhaps.
But my guess is that sprinklers will mainly be used to allow huge trade offs to permit buildings which will bump up the profile of failing Schools/Ed Authorities by young up-and-coming architects, keen on achieving awards (and maybe a peerage).
And with regards to whther EL is required in Schools?: I vote yes. Virtually all secondary Schools have after School activities - Some regular -such as clubs which Davio mentions, or occasional uses, such as plays + award evenings with huge audiences.
The idea that they are occupied only between 9 and 3 is a little outdated
-
If the exemplar designs published by DfES are representative of the current thinking on school design are we perhaps becoming overly reliant on a fire engineered solution for life safety and conveniently ignoring the statistics with regard to property protection.
Whilst there is little doubt that design teams want to be associated with flagship buildings are they, in part at least, just reacting to the Governments edict to create "innovative, stimulating, inclusive and sustainable schools". Boring, boxy compartmented buildings may well be safer than something representing a beehive or space station pod but the effect is less dramatic.
Perhaps it will be the acoustic criteria that eventually puts a limit on the excesses of the architectural vision.
Just a thought.
Owen
-
Just a thought.
I could not agree more. Architects used to building offices are now doing schools. You can tell this when you see plasterboard walls that last about a week in a school, office type bathroom fittings that last about a day, a total lack of apreciation that in a school, 1000 rowdy pupils move about 10 times a day all at the same time.
So much time seems to have been put into unique design features and so little into durability, sustainability, safety or property protection. Designing schools should not be about having a building that enables prompt avacuation only, the pupils need to have a school to go back to after the fire and one that can survive 1000 happy pupils.
-
Iremember one design and build project for a comprehensive school funded by selling off an old site for housing. This was about 5 years ago and the contractor had never built a school before. The approved Inspector hadn't either.
Neither were aware of the additional requirements that were current at the time, supplementing the approved documents, now incorporated into ADB. Or the building bulletin.
We ended up with a building full of problems and whilst the means of escape was resolved after fire service intervention by bridging across to a bank behind the school (sloping site) , due to the narrow corridors and staircases the thing logjammed totally every lesson change. The result is a one way system in place where at lesson change if you need to just move one classroom along on the same floor it may entail a long walk to the end of the corridor, up the up staircase, along the corridor above, down the down staircase and back along the corridor.
Still it looks super.
-
Mmm - Form before function as it were !
Regards
Owen
-
Sorry to raise this thread to life again!
But, the issue relating to whether sprinklers in schools can provide for design flexibility goes against the current ADB guidance i.e. you can only have more design flexibility (increased compartment size, escape distances etc.) if the sprinkler system fully complies with the 'life safety' requirements of the LPC sprinkler rules.
However, to my knowledge sprinklers in schools do not need to meet this requirement (from the documents that I have seen) yet people are advocating that the cost of the sprinklers can be offset by providing flexibility in the design.
This to me sounds like the sprinkler industry compromising the normal stance on life safety requirements so that the system does not become too expensive to lose its appeal to designers.
I wholeheartedly support the installation of sprinklers in UK mainland schools on the basis of property protection. But the reduction of other measures because sprinklers (non-life safety) are installed seems to be a dangerous practice to me.
Any further insight into this issue would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Jon
-
Does anyone have any information as to when the final printed version of BB100 will be available from the DfES - and what the final text will be?
-
Have incorporated the comments received from the consultation and this redraft is with DfES; it will then go to BRAC and we hope to see it published in the autumn.
-
Thanks, Penny.
-
Jon, I agree in principle with what you are saying regarding the proposed sprinkler systems, however is it not better to have some level of sprinkler system than non at all? In an ideal world the education authorities would be awash with cash and therefore all fire protection measures would be strictly to the codes and there would be no need for compromise on designs, etc. The problem I see is this, if we (consultants) insist on sprinkler system designs being to full standards this will cost more to implement. The education authorities will then not put anything in at all. At least they are now doing something positive, lets work on that and perhaps build on things for the future.
-
Can anyone tell me the latest position regarding this document, please?
-
I have been asking the same question due to the current increase in new school building due to the various financing schemes. I came across the following which I copied from Hansard which seems to clarify the current poisition.
Unless some one out there can say otherwise,
Quote =
23 Oct 2006 : Column WA220
the Risk of Fire in Schools. This sets out how to achieve a satisfactory standard of life safety, and therefore how to meet the requirements of the Building Regulations, and suggests ways of improving property protection. BB 100 is still in draft form and is being revised following public consultation.
One of the messages that came back from that exercise was the need for the Department to issue more detailed guidance on the use of sprinklers in schools, over and above what was already in BB 100. Consequently we commissioned further studies to be carried out. Work on these is nearing completion and additional guidance on sprinklers will be incorporated in the final version of BB 100. We expect to publish this early in 2007.
End Quote.
-
Makes the FSO guidance docs seem speedy by comparison. lol
-
And we were asked to comment on the draft revised Approved Document B - which referred to the application of BB100 in schools (which was expected to have been published by that time) - and how long ago was the closing date?
-
One problem I have regulary at the sharp end is PFI.They and the Approved BCO stated directly "The school are not the customer" the builder xxx builds it for company yyyy who rent it to the education.They state they will consult with me on B1 when they are happy compliance has been achieved (quite right) Then when items are suggested to help on arson ,building safetyetc.I find total disregard, (profit first) they point out that they dont actually have to take any notice of the fire officer and as the education are not the client "i-we" cannot even talk to them.
It is treated basically as an office (as Kurnal mentioned)with no danger of arson or any meaning ful project assessment on the fire side
,Sprinklers are an additional expense out of the PFI profit .
Insurance discount,,no no no the Education Auth, tend to have block insurance bookings and no reductions apply for a small amount of buildings having sprinklers.As "messy" said earlier,there sems to be a competition on the most unusual design. The building regs are used to satisfy the absolute" minimum" requirements for saftey without any risk assessment of the use and risks , oh sorry things in B1 that dont fit with the unusual design are "risk assessed "out purely a mental function not by any recognised assessment method.
Will BB100 be a design code or will it have the same standing as the RRO education guide or Build regs or will I still be told "they are only guides" to be read and ignored and we will be having fires exactly as we have now only with possibly less safe structures.
Has anyone had the oppurtunity to RRO assess a brand new scool with unusual design and found the need to recommend any upgrading of standards. Lifts were mentioned earlier --normally out of bounds for the kids due to vandalism any way.
I would be interested if other FRS services are finding this as well as myself.
-
I know that this is not directly about BB100 or schools but one large met FRS I am familiar with is starting to say, in certain cases, that, even if the premises are "compliant" with ADB, (or any other guide/code) they believe they may not be able to fulfil the requirements of the Fire Safety Order. Just to concentrate the minds of the developer! Making one or two cages rattle.
They will, if they serve a notice on occupation, end up in Court of course but that may be no bad thing.
-
I take it that BB100 'compliance' will be viewed as one way of meeting the applicable parts of the Building Regs - as are the Approved Documents.
It will be interesting if a fire authority decides to take action under the RR(FS)O on aspects of construction or design that have achieved approval through Building Control/Approved Inspector with fire authority consultation.
-
The essence will be that the design has failed to take account of the way the building is used once it becomes occupied.
Important because some PFI design and build projects involve minimal consultation with the final end user. They can also involve trade offs being agreed between the Approved Building Inspector ( employed by the builder so under severe pressure) the Architect ( Also employed by the builder) and the Builder (No vested interests there then!) without the final client being made aware until occupation.
-
Ken,
The FRS may have 'been consulted' but fundamentally disagreed with the proposal. As the developer can lawfully ignore the views of the the FRS and get/provide a completion certificate, the FRS then puts them on warning that, on occupation, and following careful consideration of their FRA, (when they get to see it), they feel there may be some areas that the occupier will struggle to demonstrate compliance with the FSO.
If that seems mealy mouthed it is the only path open to FRS to avoid the future defence that the developer/occupier wasn't aware of any concerns. I believe the developer, (building control inspector/AI) is duty bound to pass on these concerns to the occupier.
-
I know exactly what you mean, Kurnal - having been involved with such parties with regard to new-build in the Education Sector. Approved Inspectors can also be very distant (geographically) and certificates have been known to be issued before completion or with omissions on site. Both yours and Val's points highlight a need for the occupiers to be made aware of fire service concerns regarding building design at the earliest opportunity. Direct information would seem more useful rather than relying upon Inspectors, Architects, Principal Contractors, etc, conveying a FS view that will appear contrary to, or even critical of, their own - but is this achievable?
-
Val
You are exactly right that the important information must be passed on to the end user and the vehicle is the H&S manual produced under the CDM Regs and which should be formally handed over by the Planning Supervisor.
Trouble is it doesnt seem to work very well in practical terms. These "manuals" tend to comprise many lever arch files full of photocopies of manufacturers information on everything from the toilet door knobs to the HAV plant and if the fire strategy is in there at all its overwhelmed by the weight of other information.
I was present at one so called handover recently - a very harrassed facilities manager just in the middle of moving into the new building and overwhelmed by operational problems was presented with and asked to sign for 8 boxes of files. They are still in the boxes.
-
Key proposal in the review of Part B was to require desing info on fire safety to be handed on to the new occupier.
The CDM regs are not really the right vehicle for this as they are aimed at the protection of people working on the building not in it.
Saying that the CDM regs are being amended next year.
-
Only 8 boxes, Kurnal! I've seen over 20 (in fact 2 sets of over 20) in the Health and Safety 'File' - and then with some essential papers missing when checked (by me!).
There is an element of safety provision for the end user in the CDM Regs, Wee B in as much as there is a duty to design for the safe future cleaning and maintenance of the building and to provide this information in the H&S File - but despite this, you still find architects and others giving less than enthusiastic attention to this aspect of design by, say, giving more importance to appearance and style than to ease of access for cleaning windows and gutters, or servicing roof plant.
-
The CDM regs and the H&S file are about the safety of builders, maintenance staff, window cleaners etc. Not the users of the building.
Check out Reg 14
....information relating to the project which it is reasonably foreseeable will be necessary to ensure the health and safety of any person at work who is carrying out or will carry out construction work or cleaning work in or on the structure or of any person who may be affected by the work of such a person at work;
Take a look at HSE's note on the subject http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/cis44.pdf
And also consider that they made a big thing about proposing to extend the scope of the regs to cover the users of the building in the new CDM regs due out next year. I dont think they would do that if it already was covered.
Ok so the regs do try and stop window cleaners falling on the users from a great height but, in essence,(until they are changed) The H&S file isn't there for passing on information on general fire precautions.
Hopefully this will be put right in iether the new Part B, the revised CDM regs or Both.
-
I think, though I don't have a copy of the procedural guidance at home (shame on me!), that comments from FRS at the consultation process at Building Regs stage HAVE to be passed onto the end user. This is where FRS are coming from. If the FRS formally put the AI (or whatever) on notice, they are duty bound to pass these concerns on. Failure to do so would potentially leave them liable if the FRS then demand retro fitting of life safety sprinklers, external escapes or prohibit the top three floors, etc to make the premises usable.
-
The guide is non stat so its just good practice.
Of course If I were a client and my AI didnt warn me of impending grief from the fire service I dont think I would employ him again.
-
By provision for the end user, Wee B, you will see that I am referring to cleaning and maintenance - in as much as the end user will be responsible for ordering cleaning and maintenance or using his/her own employees for that purpose. In schools this will usually involve caretakers, engineers and the like.
The fire safety provision requirement is for those constructing the building - although there may be a connection with the end user during the construction phase where the CDM work is within an occupied building or will otherwise affect the end user's fire safety arrangements (eg with an extension to an occupied building).
Beyond the CDM Regs (but in construction work to which those Regs apply), the contractual duties of designers, architects, principal contractors, etc remain to provide a finished product that meets the client's requirements whilst satisfying Building Regs, etc and once occupied by an employer, the RRO and various Regs under the HASAW Act come into play - so it is particularly important for a client who is not the end user to order a building that will be adequate for the end user in those respects. This can be where many problems arise where the end user is not involved in the preparation of the specifications or is left out of consultations between the client and others. Design and Build can be a real problem in this respect. It will be interesting to see how the new Co-ordinator's role will work out in practice - as compared with that of the existing Planning Supervisor.
-
Hi!!!!!
The fire guide offers helpful advice that can save lives! Thank you for this!!!!
Fit 4 Europe! (http://www.fitforeurope.com/italy/italy-weather/)