Sorry - More questions on common parts of flats

[messy]

In my view, the LaCors guidance is aimed at HMO's only not at blocks of residential flats.

Section 2 of the Lacors Guide states:.........................



2. Scope of this guidance

2.1 This fire safety guide is intended for buildings which have been constructed or adapted for use as domestic dwellings, and covers a range of existing residential premises including:

single household properties;

• shared houses;

• bedsit HMOs;

• *********purpose-built flats and buildings converted into self-contained flats to a standard not in compliance with the Building Regulations 1991************

• sheltered accommodation in which personal care is not provided; and

• small hostels to which the HM Government Sleeping Accommodation Guide is inappropriate (application will be determined by the LHA and FRA jointly under the terms of the Fire Safety Protocol).

 

 So be warned the guide's scope does include certain flats

[colin todd]

Brian, Your problem is you are too practical. Modern fire safety has nothing to do with practicalities and understanding of fire. Its all about theroetical circumstances, and academic tests that people believe are real. A bit like someone suggesting that heat detectors operate in 6minutes. 3 seconds and 45 nanoseconds , while smoke detectors operate in 1 minute 2 milliseconds. Your NPP point is well made. its a bit like people sometimes putting detectors down low as they have worked out where the stratification level will be. The system will work at 3.05 pm GMT and 15 March each year proivded you burn a 100 kg wood crib.

[wee brian]

Practical is my middle name (my parents were a bit odd like that) . Best one I've seen is a smoke vent design that allowed smoke down to "just above nose height" - I kid you not.

Yes messy the LACORS guide can be applied to flats that don't have the necessary compartmentation (allegedly those built prior to 1991) to adopt the defend in place (as it's become known) approach.

People do get a bit hung up on the 1991 bit, it's just a shorthand way to describe flats without adequate compartmentation etc. You don't really need to go and find a historic completion cert.

[JC100]

Yes messy the LACORS guide can be applied to flats that don't have the necessary compartmentation (allegedly those built prior to 1991) to adopt the defend in place (as it's become known) approach.

People do get a bit hung up on the 1991 bit, it's just a shorthand way to describe flats without adequate compartmentation etc.

This is where i don't like the LACoRS guide and find that it is very misleading.

CP3 says on advise to occupiers, that if a fire breaks out elsewhere in the building 'you will normally be safe to stay in your flat' and should leave if if smoke or heat enters flat.

Stay put is valid for buildings prior to 1991 as these buildings were constructed to acheive this.

[Paul2886]

Yes messy the LACORS guide can be applied to flats that don't have the necessary compartmentation (allegedly those built prior to 1991) to adopt the defend in place (as it's become known) approach.

People do get a bit hung up on the 1991 bit, it's just a shorthand way to describe flats without adequate compartmentation etc.

This is where i don't like the LACoRS guide and find that it is very misleading.

CP3 says on advise to occupiers, that if a fire breaks out elsewhere in the building 'you will normally be safe to stay in your flat' and should leave if if smoke or heat enters flat.

Stay put is valid for buildings prior to 1991 as these buildings were constructed to acheive this.

What are the basic differences for flat construction prior to 1991 anf those after

[wee brian]

Its more about the way the regs changed. The first Approved Doc B arrived in 1985 but it was a bit limited in scope in so far as moe was concerened. Especially in relation to flats.

In 1991 things settled down into what you would recognise today.

Smokescreen is right. The codes of practice that were around before 1991 did cover the same ground (near enough) as we do today (other than smoke alarms in the flats). But there werent the regs to require compliance with the codes.

So, as I think I've said before. Have a look at the compartmentation. If it's OK the stick to defend in place and dont be messing about with fire alarms that just p... people off. If the building isnt up to the job then you iether need to upgrade it or (if it's small) adopt a simultaneous evac strategy and fit a house alarm.

[terry martin]

No one is the master of IO's, not CFOA not their bosses, just themselves.  No matter what training they have had, they will still do whatever they think is correct, rightly or wrongly and bury their heads in the sand.  Everything was rosy under FPA as they could dictate, quite wrongly inlost of cases what they wanted.  Nowadays they mostly have the same attitude, do not consider hazard and risk, passive fire safety and AFD is the answer to everything and FFE is really needed to protect the escape routes.

Its no matter that AFD is to protect escape routes as if you put in it office blocks with numerous of them, lone workers will be safe!!!  Put FFE in sheltered housing and the aged population will use them every day to put out the numerous fires that occur in such premises.  As for common parts of flats with 60 minute separation, most have never heard of defend in place as an evacuation strategy and believe that all should depart.

A rant I am afarid and I apologise to those good IO's out there wherever they are.

Firstly, apology accepted. however, i think i should be defending the corner for us I.O's.
 Yes we are human and sometimes we get things wrong, but we don't 'bury our heads'

maybe everything was more clear cut and rosy under the FPA. and yes i'm sure some I.O's got it wrong, but not in lots of cases. that, to me, implys we're constantly getting it wrong. and we're not.

we do not 'mostly' still have the same attitude, there are, and will be for some time, some dinosaurs that will not change, but they are very few and far between and and are getting fewer as time goes on.

but for the majority of us we do consider hazards and risks and are very good at our jobs. we look at every premise in it's own context. if that means it needs passive measures or AFD then so be it, we do not use it as an easy get out or a easy solution. and we have all heard of defend in place strategy an recommend it on a regular basis.

i am guessing from your rant that you have encountered bad I.O's in your time. but to post comments like yours in a public arena is not on really and to be honest i'm a bit offended. it implys that most of us work to a poor standard.

for the purposes of a balanced view

We are proffessional, we do work to a risk based approach and are not prescriptive. Nearly all I.O's i know are good at their jobs and do the best they can.

i'm sure many risk assessor's out there would feel equally annoyed if these comments where aimed at you.

[Big A]

No one is the master of IO's, not CFOA not their bosses, just themselves.  No matter what training they have had, they will still do whatever they think is correct, rightly or wrongly and bury their heads in the sand.  Everything was rosy under FPA as they could dictate, quite wrongly inlost of cases what they wanted.  Nowadays they mostly have the same attitude, do not consider hazard and risk, passive fire safety and AFD is the answer to everything and FFE is really needed to protect the escape routes.

Its no matter that AFD is to protect escape routes as if you put in it office blocks with numerous of them, lone workers will be safe!!!  Put FFE in sheltered housing and the aged population will use them every day to put out the numerous fires that occur in such premises.  As for common parts of flats with 60 minute separation, most have never heard of defend in place as an evacuation strategy and believe that all should depart.

A rant I am afarid and I apologise to those good IO's out there wherever they are.

Firstly, apology accepted. however, i think i should be defending the corner for us I.O's.
 Yes we are human and sometimes we get things wrong, but we don't 'bury our heads'

maybe everything was more clear cut and rosy under the FPA. and yes i'm sure some I.O's got it wrong, but not in lots of cases. that, to me, implys we're constantly getting it wrong. and we're not.

we do not 'mostly' still have the same attitude, there are, and will be for some time, some dinosaurs that will not change, but they are very few and far between and and are getting fewer as time goes on.

but for the majority of us we do consider hazards and risks and are very good at our jobs. we look at every premise in it's own context. if that means it needs passive measures or AFD then so be it, we do not use it as an easy get out or a easy solution. and we have all heard of defend in place strategy an recommend it on a regular basis.

i am guessing from your rant that you have encountered bad I.O's in your time. but to post comments like yours in a public arena is not on really and to be honest i'm a bit offended. it implys that most of us work to a poor standard.

for the purposes of a balanced view

We are proffessional, we do work to a risk based approach and are not prescriptive. Nearly all I.O's i know are good at their jobs and do the best they can.

i'm sure many risk assessor's out there would feel equally annoyed if these comments where aimed at you.

Well said, Terry. I'm not sure that's true in all parts of the country, though.

[Big A]

No one is the master of IO's, not CFOA not their bosses, just themselves.  No matter what training they have had, they will still do whatever they think is correct, rightly or wrongly and bury their heads in the sand.  Everything was rosy under FPA as they could dictate, quite wrongly inlost of cases what they wanted.  Nowadays they mostly have the same attitude, do not consider hazard and risk, passive fire safety and AFD is the answer to everything and FFE is really needed to protect the escape routes.

Its no matter that AFD is to protect escape routes as if you put in it office blocks with numerous of them, lone workers will be safe!!!  Put FFE in sheltered housing and the aged population will use them every day to put out the numerous fires that occur in such premises.  As for common parts of flats with 60 minute separation, most have never heard of defend in place as an evacuation strategy and believe that all should depart.

A rant I am afarid and I apologise to those good IO's out there wherever they are.

Firstly, apology accepted. however, i think i should be defending the corner for us I.O's.
 Yes we are human and sometimes we get things wrong, but we don't 'bury our heads'

maybe everything was more clear cut and rosy under the FPA. and yes i'm sure some I.O's got it wrong, but not in lots of cases. that, to me, implys we're constantly getting it wrong. and we're not.

we do not 'mostly' still have the same attitude, there are, and will be for some time, some dinosaurs that will not change, but they are very few and far between and and are getting fewer as time goes on.

but for the majority of us we do consider hazards and risks and are very good at our jobs. we look at every premise in it's own context. if that means it needs passive measures or AFD then so be it, we do not use it as an easy get out or a easy solution. and we have all heard of defend in place strategy an recommend it on a regular basis.

i am guessing from your rant that you have encountered bad I.O's in your time. but to post comments like yours in a public arena is not on really and to be honest i'm a bit offended. it implys that most of us work to a poor standard.

for the purposes of a balanced view

We are proffessional, we do work to a risk based approach and are not prescriptive. Nearly all I.O's i know are good at their jobs and do the best they can.

i'm sure many risk assessor's out there would feel equally annoyed if these comments where aimed at you.

Well said, Terry. I'm not sure that's quite so true in all parts of the country, though.