Homeless hostel and PEEP's

[mprewett]

This my first post to this forum, which I have only just discovered. I hope I'm posting in an appropriate area.

I work in direct access hostel of approximately 50 beds. Part of my role is to be fire co-ordinator, although exactly what this means is not clearly defined.

One of the issues I am currently working on is Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans.

The background: the hostel has never had a fire, but does have about 25 false alarms a year, almost all of which are a function of client behaviour. To cater for this, we have a robust procedure, endorsed by the local fire service, for checking the validity of an alarm before initiating a 999.

It is common for there to be one or more residents whose state of intoxication may be such that they could not respond to a fire alarm; the current policy is that all the residents of the hostel are adults who have made free choices about their lifestyle and, therefore, it is not required that staff search them out and assist with their evacuation. And the reality is that this would be an impossible task. I would imagine, but don’t know, that this is similar to the position of hotel staff, whom, I assume, would not be required to search out guests who were, for example, intoxicated and incapable subsequent to a wedding reception.

However, occasionally we have a resident whose health deteriorates to such an extent that their mobility is severely impaired. At any one time we might have a maximum of two such people. I have recently been told that it is the practice, in such cases, for them to be instructed to stay in their rooms until arrival of the fire service, although this is not actually incorporated into the fire evacuation procedure. My understanding is that this is not regarded as acceptable practice. It would, theoretically, be easy to change this practice to incorporate assisted evacuation for one person during the day, when there are a minimum of  three staff on shift, but less easy at night, when there are usually only two, one of whom, once the fire alarm sounds, co-ordinates the evacuation from the office, whilst the other confirms the validity of the alarm.

I’d be grateful for enlightenment on these issues, and some pointers as to how I should proceed.

Michael Prewett.

[AnthonyB]

More info about the building would be helpful to people-
- Age?
- Built for purpose (i.e. as a hostel) or converted?
- Number of stairs and do they have large landings or lobbies adjacent
- Nature of fire alarm and detection coverage
- Compartmentation, i.e. location of fire doors and walls, are room doors fire doors, etc

[kurnal]

Have you seen the latest guidance document for free download on the www.communities.gov website- follow the link to fire and resilience. The 12th guidance document to the Fire Safety Order gives guidance on how to make suitable arrangements for people with special needs.

In terms of intoxication my feeling would be that if we know this situation is likely to arise then it should be covered in the fire risk assessment.
I would expect there to be a three pronged  approach- the first being regular patrols and good management to minimise the risk of fire occurring. the second prong is that the emergency plan should include an attempt to rouse the person and if this fails to at least be able to show the fire service immediately on their arrival which rooms are still occupied by means of a plan drawing suitably marked up.
But the third  prong needs to ensure that the person is not placed at risk if they cannot be evacuated by a good standard of protection to the means of escape, with a high degree of compartmentation and fire separation, early detection and good standards of maintenance. I would probably look at subdividing the building, especially bedroom corridors,  more than usual to achieve this. The guidance documents would point towards a one hour standard of fire resistance to bedrooms. I dont know if this is practicable in your case.
As you say it is the duty of the responsible person to make arrangements for the safe evacuation of the building, the fire service are the safety net.

[mprewett]

The core of the building dates from the 1840's  but was extended and rehabbed about 15 years ago; to all intents and purposes it is a purpose built hostel. Most of the bedrooms are on two floors served by three stairwells at three corners of the building, and one central stairwell. A small number of bedrooms are in what can be described as a first floor annexe served by one stairwell.  Intoxicated residents could be anywhere in the building. Residents with mobility difficulties are always on the ground floor. The resident I am currently most concerned about has a room adjacent to a stairwell and a fire exit, but always takes the scenic route and struggles through the hostel to the main entrance.

All stairwells have self-closing fire doors at top and bottom, with fire exits at the bottom, and have landings capable of accommodating about five people at top and bottom. All bedrooms and communal areas have fire doors. Corridors have fire doors at approximately 10 - 15 yards. However, the experience of fire evacuation drills and false alarms indicates that 95% of those residents responding to a fire alarm ignore the nearest fire exit and make a bee-line for the main entrance, usually stopping en-route at the office to complain.

The fire detection system relies primarily on optical sensors, with heat sensors is some locations. Every room and corridor has at least one sensor, and there are approximately 20 manual call-points as well. The alarm sytem has two levels of alarm, a pre-alarm, which sounds a warning buzzer in the office, and a full alarm. In either case, the hostel's evacuation procedure requires staff to confirm whether or not there is a fire before cancelling the alarm, or going to the next stage of initiating a 999 and continuing with the evacuation procedure.

I hope this sort of detail is helpful.

Michael Prewett