FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: GB on July 03, 2014, 11:57:23 AM
-
ADB states that 2 storey flats used for sheltered housing can be treated the same as domestic dwelling houses or flats.
Within an extra care development we are looking at, the local Fire Officer is insisting on using BS 9991 therefore sprinklers throughout and no open plan apartments.
I am looking for a definitive answer as to the differences between the classes of accommodation and if there is anything that states that I must use BS 9991 even if I had sheltered housing.
There seems to be a lot of vagueness with definitions and none that I can pin my argument upon.
Any assistance or reference would be greatly appreciated.
-
Firstly the fire officer can't insist on which guide you use.
On definitions - I was reliably informed that a list of definitions is to be published, when - I don't know.
-
Check out may be of use http://www.extracarehousing.org.uk/models-of-extra-care-housing.aspx
-
Unfortunately Tom, sheltered housing isn't defined on the list. It is in ADB, but then developers argue about the definition of support.
-
It will happen, Suppers, when the Fire Sector Federation pulls its finger out with the guidance that it is tasked with drafting. it might even happen in Scotland first, but then that would not be a first if you see what I mean.
-
Sorry to open up this thread again - so if the BCO states that ADB does not cover Extracare therefore I must use BS9991 - is there any other solution rather than grabbing my ankles and bracing myself?? :o
The scheme is a 2 storey block with 4 flats on each level - incorporating sprinklers within each apartment and a community alarm linked to AFD - however wanting to retain open plan internally with the apartments - and a compliant common corridor to ADB.
-
Its not a great idea to trap old people in their bedroom with a telecare operator to chat to, hoping that the sprinklers outside the door of the room in which they might be trapped are doing their job. Equally, it is only a two storey block and presumably escape windows though there must be some doubt as to whether they could be used by the residents in question. Nothing is simple. It needs tailor made consideration beyond what can be given in a bulletin board.
-
I am surprised you dare to suggest such things Colin clearly you must be mistaken and in need of further education from the sprinklers are the answer to everything lobby till you agree with them. (Aas has already been prescribed for myself)
-
Its not a great idea to trap old people in their bedroom with a telecare operator to chat to, hoping that the sprinklers outside the door of the room in which they might be trapped are doing their job.
Especially if the phone wiring runs through the corridor
-
It is not a good idea to trap anyone inside their own bedroom with a fire outside - I think the use of the word 'trap' is a provocative term which induces an emotional response rather than an objective view of the issue.
I agree that Bulletin Boards are not a replacement for a well thought out solution however if they can't be used as a sounding board and synergy and exchange for thoughts and processes does it not simply become a place where people can publish their own thoughts and opinions as being the only correct ones available for use?
I also agree that sprinklers are not the solution for all things - and that is not the question posed - however I would argue that the prescriptive use of an inner hall within an extra care or similar type environment does not take fully into account the way that people live in such accommodation and the doors may in some instances be detrimental to the health and well being of the occupants.
Escape windows are present and I would agree that they may not be useable by residents throughout the period in which they live in the property however I would argue that escape windows are not a viable option for many occupants living within a 'standard' domestic arrangement however it is an option available for some of the time.
Could it not be argued that the escape window 'reliability factor' could be construed as being similar to the reliability of the fire door? We have no stats on how often occupants are sufficiently able bodied to use the window however as the floor level may be above 4.5m and no windows provided - could this not be 'traded off' for an open plan arrangement on a floor level below 4.5m which has the windows?
The question in my last post asks is ADB fit for purpose for Extra Care / Sheltered accommodation or must we use BS9991 if we don't want to go down a fully engineered solution.
The impact of such a decision would have a significant impact on these type of developments if it was determined that ADB is no longer fit for purpose for Sheltered Housing / Extra Care developments and BS9991 needs to be used - I need to buy shares in a sprinkler company if that's the case!!
-
Hi GB
The point is that no enforcing agency should be insisting on which guidance document you should use - that is not their role. Personally there is much in BS9991 that concerns me and I would be very reluctant to use it. I feel there is a big problem with the formation of BSI working groups and the authorship of standards at the moment but that's for another day.
You could consider BS 7974. an engineered solution does not have to include CFD modelling.
BS 7974-0 - Guide to Design Framework and Fire Safety Engineering Procedures states that three basic types of engineered approaches can be developed to satisfy the objectives of legislation, ie a comparative, deterministic or probabilistic approach. Regarding a comparative fire engineered approach it states the following:-
5.5.2 Comparative criteria
"It can often be difficult to establish the level of safety achieved in absolute terms. However it might be relatively straightforward to demonstrate that the design provides a level of safety equivalent to that in a building that complies with recognised prescriptive codes. A comparison may be made on the basis of deterministic or probabilistic approaches or a combination of both".
-
I agree with kurnal, it is an issue that keeps on cropping up with enforcing officers using the guidance documents as law, which they are not. All the guides are there as a measure of best practice and in 99.9% of the time cover everything but the guides openly admit that they are not there to stop other solutions, it is just that it will be up to the project to prove that the measures taken will fulfill the obligations of the law which is to provide general fire precautions.
It is a battle that has been going on for a long time between people just push the codes and people looking at real risk assessment. A typical problem comes with travel distance where (for example) 18 m is the limit but the actual distance is 18.5m and someone starts insisting on measures to reduce the overall distance.
-
Mike, as you point out 18m is the direct distance - actual travel distance seems to be forgotten these days. Stretching is common and I currently have a refurbishment project where a direct distance in excess of 30m is being quoted as acceptable due to improvements in other areas of the project such as AFD/compartmentation.
I agree with both you and Kurnal in that the standards are there for guidance - your issue is with the inner hall in such a building being detrimental to the quality of life of the residents and I would support that stance as a good fire safety strategy should work for both the occupier and the regulatory authority. Although a bit different to your scheme there was some work carried out by the NHBC on flat design that you may find useful although there are some flaws in the work it could back up some of your arguments. http://www.nhbcfoundation.org/Publications/Primary-Research/Open-plan-flat-layouts-NF19