Hostel Staff Training & false alarms

[tmprojects]

Terence,  should I offer the services of the 14 competent guys I employ to do the job for him?

Really Mr Todd... would it take 14 of your 'competent' guys to do his job. Blimey, I think you need to review what you deem to be competent.

 But if you want to send 14 guys down to do a one man job then sure, feel free. But only if i can audit the premises afterwards. Or should i be sending 14 inspectors

[colin todd]

Retty that was old fashioned an incorrect training given to fire officers. It has been corrected in the current CLG guides, and was never wrong in AD B becauce the people who write it and apply it know what they are doing. A protected stairway does not need corridor or lobby approach. It is a myth. Get up to date man. I can explain it all to you and re-programme you to the 21st century when I visit retty towers for dinner.

Thomas, I would because contrary to your apparent long held belief, mist fire safety does not arise from the activities of fire officers.

[colin todd]

Terence with a bit of luck and fair wind from the government you soon will not have 14 I/Os.

[Midland Retty]

Retty that was old fashioned an incorrect training given to fire officers. It has been corrected in the current CLG guides, and was never wrong in AD B becauce the people who write it and apply it know what they are doing. A protected stairway does not need corridor or lobby approach. It is a myth. Get up to date man. I can explain it all to you and re-programme you to the 21st century when I visit retty towers for dinner.

Yes, yes I know Lord Todd, I was only joking, re-programming is not required, what I don't know about fire safety you could write on the back of a cargo ship

[tmprojects]

Colin. No fear from the government. Brigades are doing an excellent job on this one on their own.

[Tom Sutton]

Colin in the early days (1971) most fire safety did arise from the activities of fire officers although this has changed over time, until today where the situation has reversed. But that was not the point I was making the guides in question was for the the issuing of fire certificates for existing premises, unless a fire consultant was submitting an appeal on behalf of an occupier or owner. However in my experience I cannot recall any examples.

[CivvyFSO]

On the subject of how many offices you can have opening into the stair on any floor, I would ask the question of how many actual floors you think you can have prior to the requirement of lobbies. Unless you have a single stair you don't need to lobby the stairs until you are over 18m. Is a protected corridor on the ground floor with 6 offices opening up onto it worse or better than 6 floors worth of offices opening onto a vertical stair? I would say it is better.

The old CP3 Ch4 pt 1 that so clearly made the point that there should be a direct access to a final exit from the base of a staircase- a point you will not find so explicitly made in the current ADB.

ADB 2006, Amended 2007:
Para 4.36: Every protected stairway should discharge:
a. directly to a final exit; or
b. by way of a protected exit passageway to a final exit

Exactly HOW explicit do you want it?   

[CivvyFSO]

And in the UK sheltered housing would generally be a place that is occupied as a domestic dwelling. It is a wholly self contained unit of accomodation, and (I believe) no judge could argue it is not occupied as a domestic dwelling. The common areas linking such flats up clearly come in to the RRFSO requirements, but the flat part is essentially the private dwelling of the person who lives there just as much as an apartment would be in a block of flats. The building regulations purpose group would usually be indicative of whether it is a residential dwelling, or whether it comes under "residential other", (Along with hotels, hostels, resi-care etc) and the standard of construction is quite different for each group.

The difference with hostels would be that they are usually not self-contained accomodation, the people inside them do not actually live there, the persons living there would not be paying council tax or having mail delivered there, and the fire alarm would usually be of a similar standard to a hotel. i.e. It would not be a stay put policy so there is no need for the sort of construction that is required to support a stay-put policy.

That being said, it is still a grey area, as Uratemp Ventures vs. Collins seemed to state that even a hotel room could be classed as a dwelling if someone was deemed to be living there. The matter that the person didn't cook their meals there was brushed aside, and the person in the room in question was essentially given the same rights as a tenant would have in a normal rental scenario. (This was not case law regarding fire safety, but just aimed at tenants rights)

We should also bear in mind that no matter how sure we are of whether the RRFSO applies or not, and building regulations purpose groups aside, it only takes some half-witted magistrate a mis-informed magistrate to throw a spanner in the works and 'declare' such premises as domestic without considering how the premise was built. (No reference to actual historical decisions by magistrates is intended here) Some times if there is any doubt, the only way forward for an FRS is to try and enforce their 'will', and leave it to the appeals process to decide.

[kurnal]

ADB 2006, Amended 2007:
Para 4.36: Every protected stairway should discharge:
a. directly to a final exit; or
b. by way of a protected exit passageway to a final exit

Exactly HOW explicit do you want it?  

Precisely Civvy. I have just been  overruled by a local authority building Inspector where I was holding out for my client in respect of a block of flats with  a single staircase and a top floor height of 31m in which there is no final exit from the base of the staircase.

The staircase discharges via a fire door only to the ground floor corridor where you then have  to walk 14m down a "protected route" passing flat entrance doors and a laundry to reach the final exit. So absolutely blatantly wrong. I was holding out for my client who has bought this almost new building with full completion certificate and was suggesting he makes a claim against the BCO and the developer to correct this shocking error. I pointed out what CP3 used to say to clarify my argument.

The BCO is adamant that the design is compliant with the clause  you have quoted from the ADB, he says it is a protected exit passageway.

Now the BCO has discredited me , my client thinks I talk out the back of my head and is not acting on this very significant finding of the risk assessment.  I keep rattling the cage but the fire service in this city (Not local to me BTW) aint interested either. Got one chap interested at one stage but then he was transferred to ops.

[nearlythere]

You are having a problem I have had on a few occasions. But just when at times I doubt myself, my competence and whether I am being reasonable or not, I think about a courtroom witness box and an arrogant barrister tearing me and my reputation to shreds.
Your reputation is safer by recommending it as it should be according to guidance and let the others fight it out amongst themselves.

[Tom Sutton]

Under definitions (p124) it says Exit passageway should meet the same standard as the staircase it serves. Clause 4.38 (p 52) Use of space within protected stairways, would not allow flat entrance doors and a laundry therefore IMO the BCO is wrong.