Author Topic: Residential Care Home  (Read 19403 times)

Offline grueber

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: Residential Care Home
« Reply #15 on: October 01, 2010, 11:19:38 AM »
Thanks

Offline grueber

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: Residential Care Home
« Reply #16 on: October 01, 2010, 11:46:33 AM »
Still dont like the idea of no double door protection though to stairwell, even though meets the criteria in ADB. Havent seen many resi care homes with bedrooms opening directly onto a stairwell which is the only one serving a premises. Thanks for your advice Kurnal, great forum website for advice.   ;)

Offline kurnal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6489
    • http://www.peakland-fire-safety.co.uk
Re: Residential Care Home
« Reply #17 on: October 01, 2010, 02:56:23 PM »
 I couldn't agree more. I think this design may be seriously flawed and if I had any influence on the architect or through building control I would do what I could to get it changed. I only made the point over the clauses in approved document B to ensure you are arguing from a firm foundation.

The two bedrooms may not be a major problem in themselves, but they clearly may have an adverse effect on the means of escape from the existing rooms- ie the potential loss of their protected route. The building control Officer should not only consider the new extension but also the consequence of the extension and its effects on the means of escape from the existing  parts of the building.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2010, 02:59:22 PM by kurnal »

Offline Phoenix

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Get a bicycle. You will not live to regret it
    • MetaSolutions (Fire Safety Engineering) Ltd.
Re: Residential Care Home
« Reply #18 on: October 01, 2010, 06:41:46 PM »
Another thing that strikes me as deficient in the design of this building is the fact that the occupants have to travel backwards and forwards through the staircase enclosure when moving about the first floor, for example to get to the dining room.  ADB directly addresses this issue by stating:

"Separation of circulation routes from stairways

3.14 Unless the doors to a protected stairway and any associated exit passageway are fitted with an automatic release mechanism ... the stairway and any associated exit passageway should not form part of the primary circulation route between different parts of the building at the same level. This is because the self-closing fire doors are more likely to be rendered ineffective as a result of their constant use, or because some occupants may regard them as an impediment. For example, the doors are likely to be wedged open or have their closers removed."


It's a small point and I guess they could get around it by putting hold open devices on the doors but it's worth a mention.

Stu