Progressive Horizontal Evacuation

[Northern Uproar]

The guidance in ADB for PHE states that each compartment should be provided with 2 exits, and diagram 19 has arrows to indicate 2 escape routes to "adjacent compartments, storey exit or final exit" and that the travel distances should be limited to what's in Table 2 but no more that 64m to a storey exit or final exit.

My understanding of PHE is that it used compartmentation to reduce the numbers of residents that require moving in a fire in the first phase of evacuation and move them to a place of relative safety where a place of ultimate safety cannot be reached quickly.

My problem: an extension to a care home has been rejected by BC. It is a single floor building where the maximum travel distance to a final exit is approx 7m along the protected corridor. The BCO says that the exits should be to a neighbouring compartment only, but from a logical POV, surely a 7m TD to a place of ultimate safety is 'no worse' than 35m to a place of relative safety, or am I missing something? They say that a 7974 approach should be used.

[Davo]

NU

Are you saying 7m from every bedroom, and it will be the same after the alterations?

If so where does PHE come in? Get rid of the term, get rid of the problem

davo

jobsworth central

[Northern Uproar]

NU

Are you saying 7m from every bedroom, and it will be the same after the alterations?

If so where does PHE come in? Get rid of the term, get rid of the problem

Quite agree - but the BCO is quoting ADB to the letter and using the "as such these buildings should be designed for progressive horizontal evacuation" (3.39) when dealing with the elderly. My point is that as the TD's are so limited, that going to a place of relative safety is not necessary.

The extension is it's own compartment, it doesn't affect the existing TD's, and yes, there is a 7m TD from all bedrooms, and there are less than 10 rooms.

[Davo]

As he can't apply DocB retrospectively he must mean the alternate route from the new bit into the old bit should there be a fire outside the new bits front door.......Phew

davo

[Northern Uproar]

As he can't apply DocB retrospectively he must mean the alternate route from the new bit into the old bit should there be a fire outside the new bits front door.......Phew

davo

Oh, we have that aswell - the arrangement is such that if there were a fire in the neighbouring compartment, it would not block the final exit from the new bit. That's two final exits and one into the existing building.

[kurnal]

....... move them to a place of relative safety where a place of ultimate safety cannot be reached quickly.

I disagree. I think the purpose of PHE is to avoid vulnerable people having to stand in the car park at 3am on a wet january morning. I think you should base your argument not only on travel distances but the availability of fire separation and the availability of safe refuges for people as part of the evacuation process. If we follow the BCOs advice all buildings would be circular or square. (Actually some of the best care homes and hospitals are! The very successful racecourse design and brilliant for people with dementia)

The diagrams in the ADB are there to illustrate a point. The diagrams are in themselves unworkable as they have rooms in the core of the building with no windows.

[wee brian]

Kurnal is spot on.

You need a sensible plan to deal with your residents when it's chilly. Perhaps an external shelter or even a route back into the building.

[Davo]

Agreed Wee B

However, thats not what BC are trying on......


davo

[Midland Retty]

A full evacuation should only ever be the very last resort in a care home.

I've not heard of a BC refusing an application on the grounds you describe before, and I can't help feel s/he maybe on a bit of a sticky wicket.

But as stated above it is better to have an evacuation strategy and a building that is designed to keep residents in the care home wherever possible.