FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: colin todd on May 26, 2016, 01:50:55 AM
-
I am pleased to announce that CFOA have awarded CS Todd & Associates a contract to draft a new guide, which will be a sister publication to Fire safety in purpose-built blocks of flats, on the subject of fire safety in specialized housing (as defined in for example BS 9991). At various stages in the contract, we propose to place draft material out there for public consultation. However, we are open to suggestions, ideas, things that should be included, products to which reference should be made, etc.
Comments can be made to a special email that has been set up for the purpose, namely spechousing@cstodd.co.uk
-
This sounds just what the industry needs. I hope the detail and layout will mirror the flats guide where the historic information is particularly useful. Will the scope include core homes, shared houses for less than 6 persons and HTM88?
-
It will include supported living but not care homes.
-
Just to be clear by core homes I was referring to the small care schemes in which typically 4 persons with learning disabilities share a house, often as leaseholders and receive care from a service provider who organise and administer the whole set up. Sometimes care needs can be profound 24/7 1 to 1 support, in other cases minimal. Fire safety standards tend to mimic domestic, and in some cases where minimal care is offered it could be argued to be wholly domestic. But there needs to be some guidance in my opinion. I believe in NI they call thes fold schemes but happy to be corrected.
-
We have discussed the matter of 1-1 24 hour care and this is under consideration
-
Just to be clear by core homes I was referring to the small care schemes in which typically 4 persons with learning disabilities share a house, often as leaseholders and receive care from a service provider who organise and administer the whole set up. Sometimes care needs can be profound 24/7 1 to 1 support, in other cases minimal. Fire safety standards tend to mimic domestic, and in some cases where minimal care is offered it could be argued to be wholly domestic. But there needs to be some guidance in my opinion. I believe in NI they call thes fold schemes but happy to be corrected.
I am due to risk assess such a scheme in the very near future, is/are there any currently standards/guidance at all which is/are relevant to them or should I just go with what feels right in the circumstances?
I presume the FSO applies as they are not a single private dwelling by definition?
-
Ensuring that details on who is responsible for identifying those within dwellings at greater risk from fire is covered e.g. bed bound residents, heavy smokers, hoarders etc. Is this a landlord responsibility to investigate or is it down to the care/support provider to raise concerns? Some of the care/support is either commissioned by local authority or by the resident themselves with the landlord having no input.
Also details on warden call systems (link line etc) and their interaction with fire alarm systems if required would be helpful.
-
Also details on warden call systems (link line etc) and their interaction with fire alarm systems if required would be helpful.
I think that clarification on this is long overdue. With the removal of funding many providers are only installing systems on a needs based basis.
Their argument which is justified in my opinion is why provide and maintain a system for somebody who goes out to work 9-5 but chooses to live in a supported living scheme.
-
Suppers, you are right and you are wrong. The connection of a smoke alarm in a dwelling to a telecare provider, is not so much for the protection of the individual but for the protection of others. But this will be fully addressed in the guidance.
-
Suppers, you are right and you are wrong. The connection of a smoke alarm in a dwelling to a telecare provider, is not so much for the protection of the individual but for the protection of others. But this will be fully addressed in the guidance.
Whilst always happy to listen/read and learn, I would have thought that the smoke (or heat) detector in the hall linked to the main system is there for the protection of others. The Grade D Category LD3 system protects the individual. The linking of this system to a telecare provider is IMO due to vulnerability of the resident, if they aren't vulnerable then don't link it.
I would confirm here that my employer links all of its supported living schemes and pays the bill but others don't, some have passed the charge on, others have risk assessed it out. All will look closely at this area with the squeeze in funding for HA.
-
Suppers, you know I like and respect you (primarily because you always agree with me!), but you have this off kilter old fruit, along with many others. It may be your IMHO, as to why it ever became custom and practice, but trust me Suppers, this is not simply my opinion. Sadly enough I am old enough to have been around to actually know why the principle was adopted. Because you are on the side of the angels, Sup, you have special permission to give me a ring anytime and I will explain it all to you.
-
Is there no chance of your sharing this nugget with your friends on the forum Colin? I think Dave is right though there may be a number of reasons for using mixed systems, because once a solution is identified then it tends to find other relevant applications across different purpose groups.
Spent a lot of money (too much) on two books about fire alarm systems part 1 and part 6 but can't remember seeing any other explanation there.
-
Kurnal, I know it is lazy, but the history got so confused and distorted that it would take ages to type and it is much easier to explain to my good friend Sup by telephone, cos he is on the side of the angels. I will write it up in the new guide, so that people understand.
-
It's a pity you don't feel you can share the background to this with us Colin but not unexpected. However does it really matter- whether it was flats, HMO or sheltered housing, whether the reason was for the life safety of the individual flat resident, safety of persons using the communal areas or the control and management of unwanted fire signals. It's an arrangement that works in a number of scenarios including that described by Dave.
-
Kurnal I think it is the concept that suppers stated that Colin does not accept "heat detector in hall linked to main system" see http://www.crisis-response.com/forum/index.php?topic=6999.0 check out reply 3. What I find difficult to understand what happens if a fire starts in the common areas?
-
Sorry Tom I don't understand your point.
Going back to topic 6999.0
"Addressable fire detection and fire alarm systems are recommended for sheltered housing in which detectors within dwellings are connected to the fire alarm system in the common parts."
I think this means that IF detectors in dwellings are connected to the fire alarm system in the common parts, then that system to which they are connected should be addressable.
Generally in sheltered housing the domestic accommodation should be in a seperate compartment from any ancillary accommodation such as communal kitchens and lounges. Whilst the ancillary accommodation may need its own fire alarm system, if the compartmentation is as it should be then there should be no need to alert residents in the event of its operation, a stay put policy will be in place. Corridors and staircases will be maintained sterile to support the stay put. But if there are weaknesses in design, layout or compartmentation then a stay put may not be ideal in all circumstances. If for example the fire separation between dwellings is a cavity barrier rather than a compartment wall then for a confirmed fire an evacuation may be considered ( as a poor alternative) with an addressable fire alarm covering the communal areas and escape routes. To avoid unwanted alarms from burnt toast, and to cover periods when dwellings are unoccupied, the communal fire alarm system covering the escape system may incorporate a heat detector in the lobby of each dwelling. This does not replace the part 6 system covering the dwelling, which in many cases will also be connected via a tunstall or similar intercom to a call centre.
-
Kurnal I think it is the concept that suppers stated that Colin does not accept "heat detector in hall linked to main system" see http://www.crisis-response.com/forum/index.php?topic=6999.0 check out reply 3. What I find difficult to understand what happens if a fire starts in the common areas?
Tom, I did say smoke (or heat) but I have just spent an hour reading various documents and acknowledge that none of them use my solution. Strangely I was taught the right way years ago and have changed direction presumably through custom & practice.
The fire in the common area is dealt with by the communal system linked to the ARC. No sounders needed in the flats as there is a stay put.
Colin, whilst I am happy to take up your very kind offer, I can also wait for the guide to be published if it will be explained in words an ex IO can understand. When does it get published?
-
Yes I think you are right over the stay put for sheltered housing Dave in hindsight, even in the event of the scenario I described in my earlier post. But there does need to be an ARC and there does need to be a response. As a fire brigade officer I recollect many times turning up to fires and alarms in sheltered housing in which communal alarms were sounding and all occupiers standing in their doorways but not moving in, out or shaking it all about.
We must recognise that there are some very substandard premises though, no fire doors, extended travel distances, non sterile staircases with bin stores leading off, multi storey buildings with dwellings on the upper levels and communal accommodation on the lower level with little or no separation.
I will leave my previous post in place though to give Colin something to carp about ;)
-
Yes I think you are right over the stay put for sheltered housing Dave in hindsight, even in the event of the scenario I described in my earlier post. But there does need to be an ARC and there does need to be a response. As a fire brigade officer I recollect many times turning up to fires and alarms in sheltered housing in which communal alarms were sounding and all occupiers standing in their doorways but not moving in, out or shaking it all about.
We must recognise that there are some very substandard premises though, no fire doors, extended travel distances, non sterile staircases with bin stores leading off, multi storey buildings with dwellings on the upper levels and communal accommodation on the lower level with little or no separation.
I will leave my previous post in place though to give Colin something to carp about ;)
I have also been to a number of fires in schemes, unfortunately some fatal, others on post fire inspections where a number of residents have suffered smoke inhalation for not staying put and coming out for a look.
Standards vary, but to find the real problems you have to dig beneath the surface or above the ceiling.
The case studies in the flats guide are excellent and hopefully the new guide will contain a few case studies around alarms and lack of compartmentation in loft spaces. It needs to be easy read, like the flats guide. Not for me obviously ;D because before this post I thought I understood.
-
So here's a question - bearing in mind the known response of occupiers, how sub standard does a sheltered housing scheme have to be before the stay put strategy is abandoned in favour of an evacuation strategy? Or is this never a solution?
What advice should the new guidance give to fire risk assessors on encountering the many thousands of schemes out there with full communal alarms and instructions to evacuate?
If the premises are satisfactory in other respects should sounders on an existing alarm be removed?
If premises are substandard is an audible alarm a suitable additional risk control measure?
-
for any more than one or two residents, its never a solution
-
That may be so wee b but in these days of housing shortages and financial constraint we fire risk assessors would be castigated if we started recommending that premises were no longer fit for purpose
-
Sorry Tom I don't understand your point.
Kurnal I will try to explain it better. Colin reply 3 in topic 6999.0 says " Most modern sheltered housing does not have detectors in dwellings connected to the communal system, they have smoke alarms connected to the social alarm system" this contradicts what Dave was saying and would apply to most situations (Colin's words). If I read it correctly this means social alarm system forms part of the fire alarm system?
-
Sorry Tom I don't understand your point.
Kurnal I will try to explain it better. Colin reply 3 in topic 6999.0 says " Most modern sheltered housing does not have detectors in dwellings connected to the communal system, they have smoke alarms connected to the social alarm system" this contradicts what Dave was saying and would apply to most situations (Colin's words). If I read it correctly this means social alarm system forms part of the fire alarm system?
I agree Tom, having read it a number of times and in different guides.
-
Sorry to respond with a series of additional observations Tom but here goes:
The dwelling comprises domestic premises and therefore outside the scope of the Order?
The dwelling incorporates a part 6 alarm for the benefit of the resident only?
Connection of the part 6 alarm to the ARC is only via a social intercom that gives no priority for fire alarms over social interactions and this has been a significant factor in at least one fatality?
The standard referred to in our earlier posting gives some cognisance to the fact that sometimes detectors in flats are connected to a communal alarm without seeking to offer guidance on the circumstances when this might be appropriate- this of course would be as a result of a risk assessment. Current guidance is similarly lacking but custom and practice has led to this being more common than we might desire.
Hopefully this issue will be covered in the new guidance.
-
Kurnal all I was doing was trying to understand why Colin disagreed with Dave to his posting. I do not necessarily agree fully with Colin views, because there must be situations where AFD is required in the common areas and hopefully this will be covered in the new guidance.
-
Thanks Tom.
Sorry for being tedious, I am just trying to prompt discussion all round the subject to give Colin a bit of a shopping list of concerns and issues that should be covered in the new guidance
(whether he needs it or not) ;)
Tom raises a very valid point in respect of fires in communal areas and in response to Dave
Colin Todd said he did not have time to set out the background to the current position on sheltered housing, whereas I am currently stuck in hospital on chemo and so have all the time in the world to try and bring this together. Please therefore indulge me in this long posting which I hope is reasonably accurate.
Probably the best guidance currently available is contained in Colin Todds book "The design, installation, commissioning and maintenance of fire alarm and detection systems in domestic premises" And in particular chapter 10 - Sheltered Housing which has been widely referenced in structuring this posting. I have added many observations of my own and hope done the subject justice this time.
The nature of sheltered housing has changed radically during the life of current housing stock, the working time directive having put paid to live in wardens and these have been replaced by scheme managers who give at best limited cover.
Much sheltered housing incorporates communal lounges, kitchens, laundry facilities and it is appropriate that such areas are provided with a fire alarm (and detection) system. Many of these facilities are available for wider community use by persons outside the scheme and for rental by the public.
The nature of service users has become much more varied, schemes originally intended for elderly people have become used for general needs, whereas the increasing role for care in the community had led to persons with significant care needs being housed and "cared for" by health professionals on an occasional basis within their own dwelling. Some of these service users can have significant well being, mobility and mental health issues. Many would be unable to look after themselves effectively in an emergency and their actions may put others at risk. Some health professionals have little regard for fire safety, on one scheme I became involved with the mental health professional had required that the landlord approve that the dwelling entrance door to be fastened back in the open position as their client would otherwise feel trapped and closed in.
BS5588 part 1 referred to sheltered housing and is still listed as current guidance in ADB. This guidance referred to the need for fire alarms in the communal areas of sheltered housing but the purpose was not to raise a general evacuation alarm in the dwellings but rather to ensure the fire service was called quickly. The fire service would consider the need for an evacuation if necessary. To ensure this early response BS 5588-1 recommended detection in the communal areas and escape routes and a smoke detector in the lobby of each dwelling. Dwellings should have smoke detection to alert the occupant to a fire in their own dwelling but not to alarms in other dwellings or the communal areas.
The response of many fire brigades to calls from ARCs has changed radically and many brigades will not attend unless a responsible person on site confirms the need. This undermines the original objective of an early attendance.
BS5588-1 does not offer guidance on the action that should be taken in respect of a fire in the communal areas or escape routes and the extent of any audible alarm. Custom and practice is very varied, in many schemes the audible alarms are audible throughout communal areas and escape routes and persons instructed to evacuate the communal areas on hearing the alarms, but if in their dwelling to stay put. This has led to some persons leaving the communal areas and going to their flats whereas others go to an external assembly point. In many cases hirers of the rooms are not effectively briefed on their role in the event of fire. Whereas first aid fire fighting equipment is generally provided there are no trained persons to use it.
BS5588-1 was superseded BT BS9991 but this document contained much less practical guidance in respect of sheltered housing and is of little value.
The other main guidance document for new buildings and alterations is ADB in England and Wales. This document recommends that the provision of any fire alarm and detection system be determined by a risk assessment/ fire strategy but that where there is a managed scheme there should be a connection between any fire alarm system and an ARC to enable the early investigation of any alarms.
For existing buildings in England and Wales the DCLG guidance for sleeping accommodation is intended to apply to the communal areas of sheltered housing but not to the individual dwellings which fall outside the scope of the Fire Safety Order as they are domestic premises. However the DCLG guidance recommends that Grade C LD2 or LD3 (BS 5839-6 designations) be installed in the flats, the reference to Grade C is assumed to refer to the need for connection to a monitoring centre. The guidance is ambiguous in respect of both the level of detection and the provision of any facility for monitoring the alarm within the dwelling, though states that it need not be connected to any alarm covering the communal areas.
The DCLG guidance recommends an L2 system without defining the specific areas to be covered as specified in BS5839-1.
Custom and practice over the years has led to the installation, in very many sheltered housing schemes, of fire alarm systems that give rise to a general alarm throughout the building including within the dwellings even when a stay put policy is in place. The absence of on site wardens and the verification and attendance policy of many fire brigades means that despite the stay put policy occupiers of dwellings have to put up with the alarm sounding for a considerable time and therefore naturally leads to confusion and distress.
On the other hand many sheltered housing schemes have structural weaknesses that undermine the stay put strategy. Common examples include borrowed lighting with poor standards of glazing between dwelling kitchens and communal corridors (very common in the early 1970s), no compartmentation between communal areas and dwelling corridors, a lack of fire separation between dwellings within the ceiling voids, poor fire doors, extended travel distances in dwelling corridors.
In a number of more recent designs, architects have incorporated social areas into corridors serving dwellings - these often comprise alcoves containing a range of upholstered furniture. Depending on the individual circumstances these facilities are either loved or loathed in equal proportions. In designated schemes for the over 50s they tend to be welcomed, but where a scheme is in mixed use they can become a major liability.
In response to the lack of consistent guidance BS5839-6 2013 sought to rationalise recommendations for sheltered housing. Whilst it recommended that the design and specification of the alarm system should be based on a risk assessment / design strategy, it also based its advice on the original BS5588-1 objectives of an early call to the fire service to enable them to intervene and extinguish the fire and assess any need for further evacuation of the occupiers. Individual occupiers of dwellings are still deemed responsible for their own evacuation.
Even with the benefit of BS5839-6 2013, current guidance falls short in a number of respects. It does not give guidance on the action to be taken in the event of a fire alarm in the communal areas, and does not take account of the absence or slow response of an investigation team in the event of an alarm. It assumes the fire service will attend on the request of the ARC. It does not take account of the special needs of occupiers, some of whom, through their own special needs, may put others at risk. There is no guidance on suitable risk control measures for sub standard premises, and whether full evacuation ever becomes a realistic alternative. There should be a range of clear guidance and instruction for users of communal facilities. Where social alarms are used for the transmission of fire alarm signals then provision should be made to ensure that such signals are recognised as such at the ARC and that are responded to with the appropriate level of urgency.
-
Please everybody feel free to add any thoughts or opinions, the more we contribute the more chance Colin will have to make this guide work for us all. It's also really important that we have input from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
-
I think Colin needs to clarify, fire safety in specialized housing, does it encompass sheltered, extra care and special housing or is it confined to special housing, it is difficult to make comments without knowing the types of premises involved?
-
I think Colin needs to clarify, fire safety in specialized housing, does it encompass sheltered, extra care and special housing or is it confined to special housing, it is difficult to make comments without knowing the types of premises involved?
The OP says as defined in BS9991 - Housing specifically for people with a level of need who require support and care services
Sheltered retirement
Very sheltered/assisted living
Extra care
Close care housing
Retirement villages
-
This topic on lifts in old residential blocks may be relevant to the new guidance covering sheltered housing et al. Included here for sake of completion. I will later summarise the content of this whole thread if it becomes a mishmash, and summarise it as a shopping list for Colin.
In the meantime if you wish to add a comment on the topic of old lifts in residential buildings please do so in the original thread. Thanks.
https://www.crisis-response.com/forum/index.php?topic=7058.msg75368#msg75368
-
The increased use of mobility scooters and their storage considerations should be included in the new guidance and a posting by Dinnertime Dave is included in order to catch relevant topics as a temporary measure so I can later give Colin a summary of potential issues raised. Any replies to the thread On mobility scooters should be within the original thread please.
https://www.crisis-response.com/forum/index.php?topic=7071.msg75509#msg75509
-
Suppers. You asked the publication date. For the English version the anticipated date is April 2017.
-
Are we talking guidance on supported/assisted living "domestic type" preemies? i.e. single occupancy domestic with support either add hoc or 24/7 and 2-6 unrelated persons sharing a "domestic house" with 24/7 staff on site. We have done 100's of FRAs in such premises.
Also, extra care or supported where a "care package" is provided to a resident(s) and if the RRFSO could be applied to the whole premises and not just the common parts (due to care being provided). My current view is that the RRFSO only applies to the common areas of such premises and not the flats themselves even though resident(s) may not be able to self evac their own flats.
-
Wullie, the scope is roughly specialised housing as defined in BS 9991.
-
Those of you who are registered on linked in might be interested to view a thread on the fire risk management group entitled "Opinions please" . The query concerns standards in a very small 2 storey small care establishment catering for up to 5 service users with mental health issues. The responses cover a vastly diverse range from doing nothing to installing an additional staircase and installing sprinklers. Such diversity of opinion from fire safety professionals, all members of professional bodies, makes me wonder what is going on, how this must look to the client RP and above all illustrates the need for the new guidance document.
-
Sorry to go back a few weeks
Connection of the part 6 alarm to the ARC is only via a social intercom that gives no priority for fire alarms over social interactions and this has been a significant factor in at least one fatality?
Don't know why it didn't work, hopefully find out.
http://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/News/Demand-for-fire-alaram-failure-death-inquiry-29112013.htm (http://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/News/Demand-for-fire-alaram-failure-death-inquiry-29112013.htm)
With regards to kurnal's point, this may be true of the older systems but talking to our M&E guys today the new system we are putting in differentiate between fire alarms and other general traffic.
-
Suppers, it is not the differentiation that is the problem, it is the prioritization and the queing arrangement.
-
Suppers, it is not the differentiation that is the problem, it is the prioritization and the queing arrangement.
Sorry Colin, these new system prioritize them also, or so l am told. I am looking into it
-
Hello,
Very glad to hear of this development as this could impact on how my company deals with fire management and safety in several different buildings and new developments - Colin can you offer any timescale of when this document will become available?
Thank you,
-
Target is April 2017.
-
There used to be a time when small 'group' homes aka Supported housing ,i.e. up to 6 beds in converted houses etc,were not registered with CQC (although the care provider will have been). I have recently been inspecting quite a few of these homes (residents with learning difficulties,severe autism etc) and found that these homes are now being registered with CQC as 'Residential Homes'- which, on the face of it, takes them out of the scope of the Specialized Housing Guide-not very helpful or what was intended. I have already had a dodgy builder decide to get the provider to register a Home as he did not want to comply with guidance within the new guide.It did not matter because a helpful BCO stopped him in his tracks (he built before consultation). So we are now in the apparent position where we would like to point providers in the direction of the new guide with all its good guidance,but it clearly states that it is not in the scope of Residential homes,which they are now registered as.
Perhaps some clarification/alteration of the guide might be helpful!I note paras 3.16, and the final para of the foreword on page 6,but in these circumstances,they are not helpful.