Res, care and when sprinklers are required

[Ken Taylor]

This may sound silly but, if the beds are for couples and have wheels, could they be temporarily secured together (to form a double bed) and simply separated and wheeled apart by staff for bed-making and personal care matters when required?

[kurnal]

All these ingenious ideas for getting round the Building Control Officer are fine but is the ADB right to make the requirement for sprinklers in a twin bedded room or not? What is the right standard of fire safety for the occupants of the room and the rest of the care home? That is the standard I want to see.

I have no doubt that the provision of sprinklers CAN save lives. But I think if it is to be a requirement of the Building Regulations for a particular scenario then it should be as a response to a higher than acceptable fire risk, implemented  to bring  the residual risk back down to the accepted norm.

There is a chance that any of us may die in our beds as a result of a fire. There is an acceptable level of risk that we are happy to accept and this is represented by the benchmark standards in the ADB and the guides. Similarly there is therefore an acceptable residual level of risk for a care home bedroom.

What the Building Regs advisory  committee have not done as far as I am aware is to show any  evidence that  someone sharing a twin bedded room in a care home would face a higher level of risk of dying in a fire than someone in a single bedroom or sharing a room with a double bed.

If there is no evidence that the occupants of a twin bedded room face a higher risk than anyone else then there is no reason to require additional risk control measures.

It is not relevant to say that in the event of a fire sprinklers may increase chances of survival so are a requirement in all twin rooms.  Because there may be more risk from a fire in a linen store or boiler room or lounge or kitchen so why are we not asking for them in all care homes- like the Scots?

Similarly there is no structured argument to show that the sprinkler system must be extended throughout the home. If the argument is that the increased risk is only in the twin bedroom then that’s where the risk control measures should be focussed. And the most practical way of doing this would be a small domestic BS9251 system based on storage cylinders or a self contained water mist system in the room affected.

[slubberdegullion]

I'm inclined to agree with the thrust of your argument kurnal.  

It is nonsense that ADB would accept that, if double beds were put in, both occupants would die and that's that; but, if single beds are put in, it recommends that the occupants have sprinklers to help protect them.  It's double standards.

Here a thing.  We've probed this conundrum a reasonable amount but I know what those responsible for ADB would say if we asked for their opinion - "It's only guidance."  

They would expect logical and reasonable application of the guidance, and of the associated guidance of BS9251, so far as is required to address all relevant fire safety issues.  No more, no less.  That may or may not be what's happening here, we don't have the facts.

Ignorance of the building for this discussion is good because the imagination is not stifled by facts.  But, at the end of the day, those who know the building and how it is run will be the ones who have to address the fire safety issues.

Anyway, the length of time we've been arguing about it, it's probably had the sprinklers installed by now.
.
.
.
.
.
I'm just wondering whether to start probing the suggestion of water mist......no, it's a bit late.

Stu

[Ken Taylor]

As usual, I agree with you, Kurnal, but the problem is that we have to deal with the situation as at present in addition to asking for better - and that often means getting things accepted by BCOs, FOs, HSE, etc who may not be too keen in operating outside the 'standard text'.

[Ashley Wood]

Thanks guys for your valuable input on this. I did get one concession from the BCO and that was that he would consider a water mist system! I have a lot of experience with water mist systems and having seen the tests that were carried out under the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) A800 for cabins on cruse ships, I have no problem with the effectiveness.

[Clive]

Can anyone give me the names of  large residential care providers who have gone down the sprinkler route ?

[val]

Clive,
I cannot say for certain what the outcome was but I discussed this at length with a representative of BUPA and we jointly came to the conclusion that sprinklers were probably the only way to comply with the requirements of the fire safety order. Or rather it was the only way that would avoid endless arguments with enforcing authorities.
This is a slightly different argument than the old 'bluff and persuasion' approach because there is an arguable case, though not necessarily an economic one, that risk reduction is best served by fitting of sprinklers.

[Clive]

Thanks, for that Val.
I was just interested if any large groups have taken the plunge ( wrong pun they don't all go off, I know  ), and any unforseen problems or benefits they may have come across.  I know one or two local authorities are fitting them and some smaller groups, its just more feed back I'd like .

[saddlers]

A bit late but.....

A second Building Control Surveyors perspective (Please bear in mind without the full details of the scheme this is only an interpretation on the :

In the seminars held by DCLG on the 2006 version of the ADB, there were comments to the effect that additional measures had been placed on resi care due to a high amount of mismanagement and unrealistic escape strategies due to low carer/patient ratios. The BRE research was mentioned in the seminar discussing the two bed scenario and the fact that potentially where two single beds were in a room sprinklers would do very little to save the person in a bed if it was the source of the fire, but potentially a person in a second bed in the same room could be protected. I believe dead pigs in pyjamas were used for the research!!

This was there approach to the situation and many BCO's/AI's attended the seminars so I assume this may be the reasoning for the response you have received.

I think following the guidance in the ADB the BCO is justified in the approach he has put forward, but I would add that in my opinion sprinklers would only be required to the new areas (obviously this would be dependant on suitable compartmentation arrangements/building layouts). There is no increased risk to the existing areas of the building, because the sprinklers are being installed to enhance the life safety of the new areas.

Secondly I would also add that the ADB is only guidance as others have mentioned, if an alternative strategy can be provided that addresses the risks, then why should it not be potentially be accepted.

Thirdly a note to Kurnal to say that whilst there are obvious delicate issues involved in dealing with an application that has already been submitted elsewhere, if an alternative Building Control Body accepts a solution, they would hopefully be doing so because they are satisfied with the proposals and could justify their approach. Just because one inspector does not accept a proposal, it does not mean it is an unsatisfcatory solution, or that it is wrong for others to accept it if they have a different opinion. Legally as long as the works have not commenced a client is free to choose alternative providers.

Finally changing the double bed post completion for two single beds would definitely not be a material change of use (these involve chnages in the buildings use or an increase in the number of bedrooms, but it could be perceived as a "material alteration" in that the means of escape will have a lesser level of compliance following the alteration, but as Kurnal says, it is rocky ground on whether Building Regulations can be applied to furnishings, and I would be interested to see the outcome in court!!

[kurnal]

The BRE research was mentioned in the seminar discussing the two bed scenario and the fact that potentially where two single beds were in a room sprinklers would do very little to save the person in a bed if it was the source of the fire, but potentially a person in a second bed in the same room could be protected. I believe dead pigs in pyjamas were used for the research!!

Does anybody know if this experiment is recorded anywhere?  It would have been very surprising if the dead pigs had survived. I am interested in which tenabilaty factors were measured and how- the dead pigs would appear to be a very limited measure but one must assume there was a good reason for it. I thought  most fire deaths are caused by inhalation of toxic fumes and smoke?

I dont doubt that someone sharing a twin bedded room may be saved in a sprinklered bedroom if the other bed catches fire.

But I stand by my point that the only justification for sprinklers as set out in the AD in a  twin bedded room can be if it is proved that otherwise the occupants face a higher risk than those in single bedded or double bedded rooms.