71
General Interest / two staircases
« Last post by colin todd on July 25, 2023, 09:39:05 PM »Now announced that England is to have 2 stairways for new blocks of flats over 18m.
News:
Welcome to the newly upgraded FireNet Forum.
Our past moderator Kurnal who sadly passed away in 2017 was keen to get the updated version up and running but for one reason or another we never got around to it. So I would like to dedicate this major upgrade to Kurnal and hope that it assists you in some of the questions and answers that you may have or want to share
Recent Posts
72
General Interest / Peeps Judicial Review
« Last post by colin todd on July 21, 2023, 10:07:09 PM »The long-awaited decision by the High Court in the Judicial Review action by campaigners, Cladag, against the Home Office re Government decision on PEEPS has now been published.
The bottom line of the judgement is this:
"This was essentially a political decision for the defendant to take and was not in breach of the requirements of public law and procedural fairness. It must have been desperately disappointing for the claimants and many others that the carefully considered PEEPs recommendations contained in the Phase 1 Report have not been implemented, but it was not an unlawful decision.
The claim is dismissed."
The full judgement can be read here:
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2023/1794.html
The bottom line of the judgement is this:
"This was essentially a political decision for the defendant to take and was not in breach of the requirements of public law and procedural fairness. It must have been desperately disappointing for the claimants and many others that the carefully considered PEEPs recommendations contained in the Phase 1 Report have not been implemented, but it was not an unlawful decision.
The claim is dismissed."
The full judgement can be read here:
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2023/1794.html
73
Technical Advice / Re: fire service intervention in evacuation of a premises
« Last post by colin todd on July 01, 2023, 12:07:05 AM »Davey, I think you miss the point. I am sure that you and your only cronies you worked with after leaving the 3rd best FRS in the whole of London were all males of the species, because there were no female fire safety officers who had done their 30 years soft labour. So, as the correct terminology for an old fashioned lift designed for FRS use is a firemen's, lift, so you and your old cronies were firemen, having joined as such. Anyhow, it is a biological fact that most females could not reach the 130 dB(A) response to any challenge to their fire safety demands, as adopted by your generation of I/Os.
When you finish Mrs Messey's list of DIY, why dont you think about working for me part time.
When you finish Mrs Messey's list of DIY, why dont you think about working for me part time.
74
Technical Advice / Re: fire service intervention in evacuation of a premises
« Last post by Messy on June 28, 2023, 08:23:21 PM »COLIN you old dinosaur!!! 
. 'Firemen'
? I am disappointed in you with your gender specific language - but I am not surprised!
The LFB will employ anyone with a pulse now and not as fussy as they were in my day. They are just a bit fussy about which contractors they retain
I identify as largely retired - but keep my hand in from time to time as I am frightened about getting old, sitting around all day trying to keep my paranoia under control. However, I did smile when I saw your daft photo - but I am not going to admit that to you
Sadly Oddjob died in 1982, but if he had made it to my place he may have struggled with the stairs at 102 years old as I am decorating my downstairs loo
. 'Firemen'? I am disappointed in you with your gender specific language - but I am not surprised! The LFB will employ anyone with a pulse now and not as fussy as they were in my day. They are just a bit fussy about which contractors they retain
I identify as largely retired - but keep my hand in from time to time as I am frightened about getting old, sitting around all day trying to keep my paranoia under control. However, I did smile when I saw your daft photo - but I am not going to admit that to you
Sadly Oddjob died in 1982, but if he had made it to my place he may have struggled with the stairs at 102 years old as I am decorating my downstairs loo
75
Fire Alarm Systems / Re: Conventional system or mixed system?
« Last post by stewbow68 on June 27, 2023, 06:55:34 AM »Hi
Many thanks for your in depth reply, it is very useful.
once again
thanks
Many thanks for your in depth reply, it is very useful.
once again
thanks
76
Fire Alarm Systems / Re: Conventional system or mixed system?
« Last post by AnthonyB on June 25, 2023, 08:58:38 PM »Whilst I've normally seen it with addressable systems and suitable C&E or mix of addressable with conventional spurs (e.g. C-tec hush button and their current Hush-Pro) it's not unheard of to have a single system rather than two mixed.
The mixed system spec is only a suggested minimum for simultaneous evacuation and not a rigid specification. Depending on the risks covered there may be need for coverage of a common system beyond a flat hallway, such as external fire spread issues, heritage age buildings where there are voids and poor ceilings that could spread fire before a hallway heat would trigger, etc.
The mixed system concept is to provide early sitewide warning before compartment of origin breaches without undue false alarm risk leading to lack of confidence in the alarm and possible interference with it, the local system for occupier of origin flat life safety only disrupting the one flat if they burn the toast/leave the bathroom door open etc....
The set up you describe would satisfy communal early warning and local early warning in one as you have common detection before breakout from the flat AND local smoke detection and warning in internal escape routes (& more)for the early warning in the flat of origin so no real need to change it or add other bits from that point of view. It's only vulnerability is the false alarm risk and knock on effects from that which as it's not causing any issues isn't a major issue in the short term. Long term once the conventional kit was end of life I'd consider upgrading to addressable to be able to program out the worst of the false alarm risks but that's about it.
Is it providing a lesser level of protection than that in the 'usual' set up, is it not in line with the appropriate evac strategy and is that difference in protection putting relevant persons in danger of serious injury or death? If you are saying no to these questions then it's not 'wrong' just a different way of achieving the right precautions. I'd still advise that this rationale for accepting it is robustly explained in documentation relating to the fire safety arrangements though due to the various changes in legislation putting you very much on the back foot if you deviate from guidance.
The mixed system spec is only a suggested minimum for simultaneous evacuation and not a rigid specification. Depending on the risks covered there may be need for coverage of a common system beyond a flat hallway, such as external fire spread issues, heritage age buildings where there are voids and poor ceilings that could spread fire before a hallway heat would trigger, etc.
The mixed system concept is to provide early sitewide warning before compartment of origin breaches without undue false alarm risk leading to lack of confidence in the alarm and possible interference with it, the local system for occupier of origin flat life safety only disrupting the one flat if they burn the toast/leave the bathroom door open etc....
The set up you describe would satisfy communal early warning and local early warning in one as you have common detection before breakout from the flat AND local smoke detection and warning in internal escape routes (& more)for the early warning in the flat of origin so no real need to change it or add other bits from that point of view. It's only vulnerability is the false alarm risk and knock on effects from that which as it's not causing any issues isn't a major issue in the short term. Long term once the conventional kit was end of life I'd consider upgrading to addressable to be able to program out the worst of the false alarm risks but that's about it.
Is it providing a lesser level of protection than that in the 'usual' set up, is it not in line with the appropriate evac strategy and is that difference in protection putting relevant persons in danger of serious injury or death? If you are saying no to these questions then it's not 'wrong' just a different way of achieving the right precautions. I'd still advise that this rationale for accepting it is robustly explained in documentation relating to the fire safety arrangements though due to the various changes in legislation putting you very much on the back foot if you deviate from guidance.
77
Fire Alarm Systems / Conventional system or mixed system?
« Last post by stewbow68 on June 25, 2023, 07:55:00 AM »Hi Everybody
In a HMO Building with a communal area and flats there is a conventional 4 zone panel with detection throughout the communal area and in the hallways, kitchen and bedrooms of each of the apartments.
A fire risk assessment has concluded that this is the wrong system and that it should have a mixed system.
My way of thinking is that the existing system has more coverage and as there are no false alarm problems, it trumps the mixed system.
Also the minimum requirements in a rented flat asks for A Smoke Alarm in the Circulation Areas, ie the hallway. If there is an existing Part 1 System in place with a Smoke Detector already in the hallway linked to the main system, then am I right in thinking that there is no need for an additional Part 6 LD3 Smoke Alarm in the same hallway?
many thanks
stew
In a HMO Building with a communal area and flats there is a conventional 4 zone panel with detection throughout the communal area and in the hallways, kitchen and bedrooms of each of the apartments.
A fire risk assessment has concluded that this is the wrong system and that it should have a mixed system.
My way of thinking is that the existing system has more coverage and as there are no false alarm problems, it trumps the mixed system.
Also the minimum requirements in a rented flat asks for A Smoke Alarm in the Circulation Areas, ie the hallway. If there is an existing Part 1 System in place with a Smoke Detector already in the hallway linked to the main system, then am I right in thinking that there is no need for an additional Part 6 LD3 Smoke Alarm in the same hallway?
many thanks
stew
78
Technical Advice / Guidance on safe investigation of fire alarm signals
« Last post by colin todd on June 25, 2023, 12:36:15 AM »New guidance we (FIA) have produced for Scotland to support their new UFAS policy from 1 July 2023
https://bit.ly/3Nv5Nvs
https://bit.ly/3Nv5Nvs
79
Technical Advice / Re: fire service intervention in evacuation of a premises
« Last post by colin todd on June 25, 2023, 12:31:40 AM »Davey, I thought you were retiring, or that my instructions to Oddjob had been fulfilled?
80
Technical Advice / Re: emergency lighting
« Last post by AnthonyB on June 23, 2023, 07:34:04 PM »No, as that's not the definition of changing room nor the one for the recommendation (multiple not one) and in any case they would have borrowed light as bedrooms (usually) have windows.
You could argue the case for the en-suite toilet being covered as these are for disabled use.
ADB is still quite relaxed on EL provision (especially compared to BS5266) and doesn't indicate it here either.
Just because you don't have to have it doesn't mean you can't of course, particularly if you can demonstrate a distinct positive advantage from it.
You could argue the case for the en-suite toilet being covered as these are for disabled use.
ADB is still quite relaxed on EL provision (especially compared to BS5266) and doesn't indicate it here either.
Just because you don't have to have it doesn't mean you can't of course, particularly if you can demonstrate a distinct positive advantage from it.