Church Hall FRA

[Chris Houston]

As we know its getting like America

If you are talking about people sueing for damages, then we are quite different from the USA and our judges are consistently taking quite a different approach to their American counterparts.

[Midland Retty]

As we know its getting like America

If you are talking about people sueing for damages, then we are quite different from the USA and our judges are consistently taking quite a different approach to their American counterparts.

Im very pleased to hear that! There has to be a balance between genuine claims and common sense

[nearlythere]

I have been asked to carry out upgrade works to a church hall which at present has an old manual sytem but no control panel, just sounders and manual call points. The FRA has recommended the addition of one smoke detector within the lobby area which has the mains room, boiler room and kitchen opening onto it. The FRA requests that this is connected to the existing system. Given that a panel would be required for the said detector I have advised that the existing system needs replacing to add it to the new panel and this makes the cost of one detector very high and I have suggested fitting a system to L2 as we would be cabling the whole building anyhow. I can think of ways of connecting the existing as is to the new panel and making it work but do not see that it would comply. Would appreciate any advice before I rule out all the other options.

When people don't know what to do they ask for some form of detection probably hoping that it will be sufficient to cover their butts.
I would suggest your clients try to get their money back and get a proper RA carried out.

[kurnal]

Hopefully the risk assessment will be specific and justify why the additional smoke detector is required. The Guidance document is no too helpful to inexperienced responsible persons in this respect because it simply recommends that any areas such as storerooms where fire may start and develop unseen should be covered. Obviously this could be the case in any unoccupied room with a potential ignition source and combustible materials.

The guide does not specifically make the point that if people may be put at risk as a result of this potential fire then it will be necessary to provide detection but if there is adequate means of escape for relevant persons without using the lobby involved then there should not be a problem and a manual alarm may suffice.

[Dinnertime Dave]

If the hall is used regularly by a playgroup, OFSTED require a part 1 FA system to be present. In my own church hall the local F&RS who inspected the premises for OFSTED first asked for an upgrade of the installed system to L1, but I was able to argue that an L5, with detection in storage areas and the kitchen to protect escape routes, was more sensible.

Please don’t tell me this is true, how can anyone justify an L1 system in a church hall. If you can turn your back on the fire, there isn’t a sleeping risk then the most that is wanted is a manual system.

On a number of occasions ofsted have stated after their inspection that smoke detection is needed. When I as an FSO have challenged them they have admitted that it is a recommendation only, not a requirement.

[kurnal]

If the hall is used regularly by a playgroup, OFSTED require a part 1 FA system to be present. In my own church hall the local F&RS who inspected the premises for OFSTED first asked for an upgrade of the installed system to L1, but I was able to argue that an L5, with detection in storage areas and the kitchen to protect escape routes, was more sensible.

Wouln't it be nice if there could be a much simpler approach to fire safety legislation, that someone could use a regulatory reform order and bring all elements of fire safety enfocements under a single umbrella and the responsibility of a single enforcement agency?  just another pipe dream I suppose.

[wee brian]

I'd be interested to know how much bigger the AFD market has become in the last couple of years. Sales must have gone through the roof!

[John Webb]

For those of you who have few (or no) dealings with church halls and churches, it is perhaps worth pointing out that until the RR(FS)O, most churches and halls did not fall under any fire safety legislation unless they were licenced for public entertainments. So the arrival of the FSO has meant that a large number of these premises are having to 'wake up' to modern requirements. I've been busier the last two years giving out advice than I was the previous seven since taking my (voluntary) post up!

[PhilB]

In my opinion all that AFD would do is protect the building, it certainly wouldn't be of much benefit for life safety.

The inner room condition which John S Webb points out may only holds true if the lobby is of a certain size and you class it as being an access room, and even then there are more cost effective ways of dealing with inner room conditions.

Absolutely agree Retty, no problem with spending money on property protection but the assessor hopefully is competent enough to point out that detection is not required for life safety purposes....if it isn't of course.

[Tom Sutton]

The only guidance I am aware of for this situation is the CACFOA guides 1 & 2. They are in need of updating in light of the RR(FS)O but the principles are reasonable evident.

www.firesafe.org.uk/assets/docs/childminder3.pdf

[Mushy]

In my opinion (and without seeing the FRA) a Part 1, L5 system should be adequate. I assume the object of the exercise is to protect the lobby (an escape route) from an incident in one of the three rooms.

isnt protection of escape routes an L4 system?...not being pedantic or questioning the experts...just checking

I've just read this article

http://www.wyfp-panel.org.uk/groups/Bradford/bs5839-02.htm

[jokar]

Mushy,
you are correct but an L5 system is a bespoke one which is suitable to any situation.

[Mushy]

Thanks Jokar

[devon4ever]

Ok heres my go,

AFD not required, it isnt a sleeping risk. The best form of fire detection is the people within the premises, assuming travel distance is ok and sufficient exits are available, (post discounting the largest exit), then why consider AFD it in the first place, it may be a property protection / insurance requirement/ issue, so I would add, (if this is the case), is the alarm system remotely monitored, odds on it isnt, save the local taxpayers money, keep the MCP system, ensure the wiring and panel are in correct working order and tested, (and recorded), and "Jobs a Goodun"!