FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: stevew on October 23, 2013, 09:45:55 PM
-
What has the world come to.
Why when providing a first floor bedroom no more than 4.5m from ground level in a single storey dwelling do I have to provide anything other than a BS detection system.
How when the document makes reference to its use as a guide and of the need to risk assess the situation do LA Inspectors fail to support any flexibility.
Am I missing something?
-
What have they asked for instead/in addition?
-
Betcha the BCO has applied the guidance for loft conversions without thinking it through with regard to the height of the building
-
They have asked for either an escape window or protected route.
I accept that this is referred to in ADB but in my opinion must be assessed rather than 'must have' in all cases.
Anyone any experience in a LA assessing each case on its own merits offering a more flexible approach.
Or are we forced to succumb in order to have the job signed off.
-
Steve. I have found that BC give no consideration to Risk Assessment. And even in their own guidance they have selective reading deficiency where they cannot see words like "where" & "necessary". I see Pt1 AFD installed everywhere in every non domestic type and size of premises. I'm convinced many BC officers have second jobs in the Fire Alarm industry.
I had a case of a new two storey dwelling with an open plan ground floor which the staircase discharged into near the front door. BC wanted the openable windows and an alternative protected route giving three means of escape from the first floor.
-
I have agreed to contact the LA on behalf of a friend with a common sense risk assessment approach.
You can see why I am frustrated even before any contact.
Without wanting to appeal a decision my friend appears to have two choices one of which is cost effective and safe but not signed off by the LA.
-
The BCO is right - whats the problem with providing an escape window?
-
Wee Brian
Because it is unreasonable!!
-
Really - a window just big enough to climb through. how is that unreasonable? (its been in the AD for 13 years!!!)
Is it that you dont want a window? or is it that opening windows is a bit hard?
-
Its worst than unreasonable Steve, it's just stupid, IMHO. Stupid when there is nothing wrong with upgrading AFD to ensure you don't have to jump out of a window and kill yourself on a fence post. And stupid when there is no knowing how granny is going to cope or how you get your babies and yourself out of a window safely. But the powers that be have decided this is the way it is and this is how it has to be throughout the land. You can kick and scream for ever and a day but all you are going top achieve is high blood pressure.
We all have to live with the fact that, with many BCOs, common sense is not very common.
-
You people are all nuts.
When replacement glazing became popular, lots of people fitted windows that had tiny fanlights in them. When their houses caught fire they died. So it was decided that windows on upper floors should be big enough to escape through.
I cant see what so hard about :
A) - providing a window (unless you are a mole)
B) - being able to open it (unless you dont need air to breath)
-
You people are all nuts.
When replacement glazing became popular, lots of people fitted windows that had tiny fanlights in them. When their houses caught fire they died. So it was decided that windows on upper floors should be big enough to escape through.
I cant see what so hard about :
A) - providing a window (unless you are a mole)
B) - being able to open it (unless you dont need air to breath)
Come on Wee Brian.
Would your granny be able to do it?
Would a disabled person be able to do it?
Would a woman and baby be able to do it?
Would wee Jimmy with his leg in plaster be able to do it?
Would a disabled person be able to do it?
And when enforcing these prescriptive recommendations there is no mention anywhere on the ability of the person in the room.
-
You people are all nuts.
When replacement glazing became popular, lots of people fitted windows that had tiny fanlights in them. When their houses caught fire they died. So it was decided that windows on upper floors should be big enough to escape through.
I cant see what so hard about :
A) - providing a window (unless you are a mole)
B) - being able to open it (unless you dont need air to breath)
And yes we are all Googa. Why don't you join us?
-
Should imagine the fire brigade would prefer an escape window to effect a rescue rather than a fanlight. So not just for persons to independently escape from perhaps. A granny would probably survive that method of rescue than being dragged down a smoke filled staircase
-
Should imagine the fire brigade would prefer an escape window to effect a rescue rather than a fanlight. So not just for persons to independently escape from perhaps. A granny would probably survive that method of rescue than being dragged down a smoke filled staircase
I'm sure the Fire Brigade would prefer a means where people are able to leave by the main stairway Paul on any occasion. I just wonder if this escape/rescue window is really there for the neighbours. Guidance now will stipulate that an evacuation procedure must not be reliant on the attendance of the fire service which seems to me that, in the future, the level of fire cover could be wound down a bit. If they can't be relied on to attend offices, shop et al in a reasonable time then surely likewise dwellings.
-
Escape from windows has been part of the UK fire safety strategy for domestic premises for donkeys years, it has appeared in numerous guises and the concept of rescue from windows - to my knowledge- first appeared in the 1936 Public Health Act in respect of flats (20 feet) and a further twist was added by guidance to the Nurseries and Childminder Act which spoke about childrens bedrooms on the first floor with escape windows through which rescues could be conducted.
Escape windows predate the installation of domestic smoke alarms and smoke detector technology, and it seems to me that NT is suggesting that a network of interlinked smoke alarms should have been treated as providing an equivalent level of safety to an escape window when the 1991 ADB was published.
Fact is it wasnt! So we have both mandatory escape windows and smoke alarms in domestic premises and that has been the benchmark ever since. In buildings with a floor above 4.5m then we have to do more.
NT suggests that escape windows are a bad thing (I agree they have their drawbacks). However taking the logic further if you were to rely on smoke detection to alert persons before the escape routes from the dwelling become untenable would you limit it by height or travel distance? The 4.5m is due to the risk of injury lowering yourself from an escape window. If you are not contemplating this then limits based on the height of the building become irrelevant. What controls would you apply? 9m as in flats?
I must admit I misread the OP and thought that the escape window was not an option accepted by the BCO.
-
You people are all nuts.
When replacement glazing became popular, lots of people fitted windows that had tiny fanlights in them. When their houses caught fire they died. So it was decided that windows on upper floors should be big enough to escape through.
I cant see what so hard about :
A) - providing a window (unless you are a mole)
B) - being able to open it (unless you dont need air to breath)
Come on Wee Brian.
Would your granny be able to do it?
Would a disabled person be able to do it?
Would a woman and baby be able to do it?
Would wee Jimmy with his leg in plaster be able to do it?
Would a disabled person be able to do it?
And when enforcing these prescriptive recommendations there is no mention anywhere on the ability of the person in the room.
What you all need to understand is that Building Regs isn't based on the specific person in the room. Otherwise you would have to have signs up saying - this bedrooom only suitable for young people etc. its about achieving a resonable standard of provision for all people across the stock. Clearly AFD and the front door are our prefered way out but things can, and do, go wrong. Asking for 1st floor windows to be big enough to escape from is hardly onerous - you already have windows so there's very little added cost. But for many people this will offer added safety.
Agreed, climbing out a window can be dangerous. But lots of people escape this way every year. The advice to householders is to - have a plan if you have a fine (hopefully they will spot that they have spiked railings etc) - and that they throw soft things out the window first (matresses etc).
In this case, the BCO is doing his job correctly - put the window in and stop moaning.
-
You have a first floor bedroom in a single storey dwelling. So what you mean is that you have a flat, with abedroom as an inner room. Have a look at the NHBC foundation publication on open plan flats. The research in that publication suggests that uprating the alarm system isn't enough.
When I was at fire service college the lecturers told us that the college were consulted on the size of window opening needed for access for a fire fighter with BA on . So it seems that fire service access was also in the minds of the regulaters, when drawing up the regs requiring escape windows.
-
I agree with Wee B
Don't forget the purpose of an escape window is to give occupants "another option" if their primary escape route of the building become impassable before they can make their escape - hence why we have to beef up the precautions for premises with floor heights exceeding 4.5 metres
I don't think any of us like the idea of escape windows for the reasons already discussed. But unless you are going to beef up your precautions with protected route and increased coverage of AFD then I would argue its better to risk a broken leg from dropping out of a window than being roasted in a fire.
-
wrong.
From 2000, ADB asked for escape windows from all first floor habitable rooms.
the only other option is a protected route, so it would need to go direct to a final exit and be fire resisting construction.