FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: idlefire on June 13, 2015, 06:08:31 PM
-
I recently undertook an FRA of a 3 storey sheltered housing complex of 30 rented flats for independant living, purpose built to Building Regs 2000 standards.
Given the level of compartmentation present I was quite satisfied that the Stay Put evacuation strategy in place there complied with current benchmark standards contained within the "Fire Safety in Purpose-Built Flats" guidance.
However, an inspection by the fire authority (Humberside) has resulted in a "minor deficiency" letter containing the following statement:
"Stay-put policies are not acceptable and have resulted in persons becoming trapped, injured or killed by smoke and fire. Suitable alternatives may include a Progressive Phased Evacuation or a Delayed Evacuation. It is not the responsibility of the Fire & Rescue Service to evacuate persons from the premises, in the event of an emergency."
My initial thoughts are that the inspecting officer concerned is not fully conversant with the concept of "independant living" and/or the purpose-built flats guidance, unless of course there have been changes to benchmark standards that I am unaware of.
Any thoughts anyone?
-
"Stay-put policies are not acceptable"
I think they're over-generalising there.
" and have resulted in persons becoming trapped, injured or killed by smoke and fire."
Well, this much is true. Maybe this statement points to what is motivating them. Maybe they're being overcautious in light of one recent case. A few phrases come to mind: Knee jerk, stable door, OTT, #!@$#~!, etc
-
However, an inspection by the fire authority (Humberside) has resulted in a "minor deficiency" letter containing the following statement:
"Stay-put policies are not acceptable and have resulted in persons becoming trapped, injured or killed by smoke and fire. Suitable alternatives may include a Progressive Phased Evacuation or a Delayed Evacuation. It is not the responsibility of the Fire & Rescue Service to evacuate persons from the premises, in the event of an emergency."
Do Humberside council have any high-rise buildings with a stay-put policy? You could point out the inconsistency to them.
Owain
-
I really don't see how they can issue or indeed enforce such a statement if an FRA can justify and support a stay put policy??? Most odd? Would they have the same view on a new build?
-
Civilianize fire safety enforcement. You know it makes sense. Anyone want to buy the tee shirts with the slogan.
-
Colin,
In recent years I have witnessed a decline in the standard of fire safety enforcement within a number of brigades.
However, in answer to the original post, can I take from your comment that the "Fire Safety in Purpose-Built Blocks of Flats" guide still provides current, nationally recognised, benchmark standards for such premises and that it's authors' continue to advocate a "Stay-Put" strategy where it is appropriate?
-
Colin,
In recent years I have witnessed a decline in the standard of fire safety enforcement within a number of brigades.
However, in answer to the original post, can I take from your comment that the "Fire Safety in Purpose-Built Blocks of Flats" guide still provides current, nationally recognised, benchmark standards for such premises and that it's authors' continue to advocate a "Stay-Put" strategy where it is appropriate?
Quote from page 3 of the flat's guide answers your question!
Enforcing authorities are often unfamiliar with the particular issues that can be found in existing blocks of flats. In addition many of those now giving advice to landlords and managing agents also have limited experience of these issues. Of particular concern is the resulting variation in the findings of fire risk assessments carried out by third parties on behalf of landlords and others responsible for fire safety in blocks of flats.
This guide is intended to meet the needs of housing providers and enforcing authorities for guidance tailored to purpose-built blocks of flats. These buildings are only a small part of the scope of other guidance documents. This document is intended to assist responsible persons to comply with the FSO and the Housing Act 2004. Accordingly, it is expected that enforcing authorities will have regard to this guide.
-
I am so out of touch with fellow enforcing officers when I accept stay put. Feel like a bit of a maverick.
-
William,
Thanks for that but, given that CS Todd & Associates drafted this guide, I was trying to establish (from Mr CS Todd himself) if there had been any changes to national recognised benchmark standards (specifically "stay-put") of which I am unaware.
-
Hi Dave. Perhaps your colleague are demonstrating their willingness to challenge ideas and apparently "proven" theories or results and their ability to stand against others?
In answer to idlefire ADB guidance has not changed so buildings are still being constructed based upon a stay put strategy
-
Hi Dave. Perhaps your colleague are demonstrating their willingness to challenge ideas and apparently "proven" theories or results and their ability to stand against others?
I'm not the author, just the messenger pointing out interesting opportunities.
-
Sorry Dave never meant to suggest that you had anything to do with it and am grateful to you for posting details of the vacancy in what is all to often a diminishing role in the fire service.
Am I losing the plot? I have upset two regular contributors this week but Dotty hasn't been cross with me for a couple of months. That's a matter of concern.
-
Thanks for that Kernal.
A further twist to the story is that the housing association which runs this sheltered housing complex is in a primary authority parnership with LFB, who I understand do accept "stay-put".
Where a local fire authority and a primary authority funamentally disagree like this, which authority has primacy of enforcement?
-
Sorry Dave never meant to suggest that you had anything to do with it and am grateful to you for posting details of the vacancy in what is all to often a diminishing role in the fire service.
Am I losing the plot? I have upset two regular contributors this week but Dotty hasn't been cross with me for a couple of months. That's a matter of concern.
Didn't mean to suggest I was upset. I took it in good humour. I have thicker skin than that.
-
Thanks for that Kernal.
A further twist to the story is that the housing association which runs this sheltered housing complex is in a primary authority parnership with LFB, who I understand do accept "stay-put".
Where a local fire authority and a primary authority funamentally disagree like this, which authority has primacy of enforcement?
In that case they shouldn't be able to issue any enforcement action (other than prohibition) without consulting LFB first, so may be an interesting conversation between the 2 FA's?
-
If there is a disagreement then the two sides can go to determination. However, this is unusual with only one case in PA history. This was not in fire safety and went the way of agreeing with the PA advice.
-
Idol, there is no change to policy or the status of the guidance. Following one FRS claiming that the guidance had no status as it was not Article 50 guidance, DCLG, CFOA and the FSF all confirmed in writing that it takes precedence over the sleeping risks guide. It was also confirmed for them that the guide has ministerial support. However, in the people's republic of the FRS in question, where, in one case, they didnt even recognise a fire door as such, they think they are the law. For avoidance of doubt, following the Lakanal Inquest, LGA reviewed the guide and found no need for any change, and this was acknowledged by the Minister.
Civilianise fire safety enforcement , you know it makes sense.
Suppers, I am sure you look nothing like James Garner.
Wullie, does a conversation with LFB compute???? Conversations, by definition, normally involve a two way flow of discussion, in which BOTH parties listen????
Yes, Big Al you are losing the plot. I am cross with you for upsetting Gazza the Coal, who I always liked. I thought I made that clear.
-
Cheers Colin, most helpful.
-
I do FRA's in a clients flats each year. Mostly small 2 / 3 storey blocks, 1 staircase, all concrete and brick, no floor coverings. Old but substantial flat entrance doors. Originally they had battery smoke detectors in the common areas of which half didn't work anyway. We took them out. A while ago there was a fire in one flat. Occupants were out and had left the dishwasher on which caught alight. The fire was noticed by another resident who called FRS. The fire was contained in the flat of origin. The managing agent went down and discussed the issue with the officer. Another tenant commented about the smoke detectors being removed and the fire officer said "we want smoke detection everywhere in the common areas". So that called my decision into question and I had to show that it was acceptable etc etc. The argument between the agent and the tenant is still going on i believe. Thank you Colin for producing the flats guide!!
-
Can't believe people are still going on about stay put. If it was considered a problem then it wouldn't be allowed for brand new buildings - it is!!!
-
Totally agree!!
-
I agree the stay put evacuation concept is acceptable, if understood fully, it does not mean occupants should stay put at all costs it means they should stay put if they feel it is safe to do so. In most situations only a small number will need to evacuate and most can stay in their flats, unfortunately the terminology gives the impression that all must stay.
-
Yes, its not compulsory. The beauty of the approach is that you dont really need to educate people in it.
If you want to leave the building you can. If you don't then dont and the compartmentation will keep you safe. Most people will not even now there is a fire.
Every now and then something goes wrong and you get the folk with 20 seconds of experience in this field telling us that we should change it.
-
If the inspecting officer thinks that people are being put at risk of injury or death then this should warrant more than a minor deficiency letter.
The Lakanal inquest didnt find that the stay put policy was at fault , it highlighted an over-reliance on the policy- as Tom already said the terminology doesnt help. Also the residents were told to stay put and await rescue by the fire service
-
Can't believe people are still going on about stay put. If it was considered a problem then it wouldn't be allowed for brand new buildings - it is!!!
Now I'm not suggesting that stay put isn't acceptable, but we have seen a number of fires in timber framed blocks of flats, the evidence is mounting up. Another one here -
http://www.itv.com/news/meridian/story/2015-07-05/crews-tackle-large-fire-at-block-of-flats/ (http://www.itv.com/news/meridian/story/2015-07-05/crews-tackle-large-fire-at-block-of-flats/)
Built correctly they should be fine - so why aren't they?
-
"Crews have worked very hard to get this fire under control in very challenging conditions - dealing with a four storey building that was well alight. The building is a timber framed construction and so the fire was able to spread very quickly among the frame voids. This meant it was a difficult fire to fight in the early stages. At its height we had ten engines in attendance. The fire broke through the roof and we used two height vehicles to get water directly at fourth floor level. We also put some new equipment to very good use which stopped the fire spreading through roof voids and between floors. Firefighters used Fog Spikes to punch holes into the roof and through walls in order to insert a fine water spray that created a fire break and stop further spread."
This was a quote from the Fire Service officer in charge on the ITN website. Why do Fire Officers at the scene of such fires keep giving such bland statements? They are taking the lack of fire stopping and cavity barriers for granted. There should be NO unstopped voids even in timber framed construction that would allow the spread of fire in this way. Why dont the Fire Officers say words to the effect that "Residents of the flats were placed at serious risk from the rapid fire spread that occurred in this case and we will be carrying out a criminal investigation to get to the bottom of this. If the reason for the rapid fire spread is found to be poor standards of construction then we shall seek to prosecute those responsible to the full extent of the Law"
-
"If the reason for the rapid fire spread is found to be poor standards of construction then we shall seek to prosecute those responsible to the full extent of the Law"
That might be a bit embarrassing to local council building control if it was they who signed off the design and construction.
-
Who says it was LABC?
-
Owain I disagree. Those who are responsible should be held to account. Embarrassment doesn't come into it. They chuck the book at AIs (to the extent of their control - remember the recent case against JHAi in Malton?). The bottom line is that its poor construction that causes most problems in these cases. In most such cases that I have seen the "as built" plans show fire stopping etc but the building contractors cant be arsed to install it (sometimes the project plan means the plasterers are in before the fire stopping contractors) and in most cases the BCO never visits site to check.
Anyway local authority building control departments are not a shadow of once they once were. They don't have sufficient funds to carry out their core duties due to cuts and restructures etc and yet a group of them manage to find time and resources to trade as LABC selling fire risk assessments. The worlds gone mad I tell ee.
-
Kurnal I remember a speaker at FIREX a few years ago from Building Control informing the audience that there was no longer any money in building control and that they would concentrate on FRAs as it was seen to be more lucrative!!
As for timber framed - its almost impossible once built to detect any issues - I wonder if the insurers have any input or if they will adjust their premiums on this type of construction?
-
This might be a little off topic but here's an interesting article from Australia where the writing seems is on the wall for their equivalent of the Approved Inspector
https://sourceable.net/is-the-era-of-private-certification-nearly-over/#
-
Who says it was LABC?
No-one did -- that's why I said "might" and as a general observation about building inspection in general.
Owain I disagree. Those who are responsible should be held to account. Embarrassment doesn't come into it.
We are in agreement, but sometimes parts of the public sector doesn't like accusing other parts of the public sector.