I may be stating the obvious but......

[Allen Higginson]

I maintain a local housing association property, two blocks of accommodation (9 floors and 5 floors)  linked together up to 5th floor with 6 flats,sorry,apartments on each fllor.Presently the fire alarm comprises of smoke detection on escape routes and laundry rooms with heat detection in the kitchens. Bells are only preent in the corridors outside the flats.
To state the obvious this is woefully inadequate but it was installed some 20 years ago so my question is this - what part of 5839 Part 6 does this come under and what (if any) pressure can be put on the association to upgrade to what should clearly be an L1 system?

[wee brian]

If its a block of self contained flats it doesnt need a common alarm at all

[Allen Higginson]

Really??I thought as it was a rented private housing association property it had to - what's the difference in a house of more than 4 stories and a block of flats then? I'm not treying to be funny - HMO's and tennanted accommodation regulations are not my strong point but I have read through Part 6.

[Chris Houston]

If its a block of self contained flats it doesnt need a common alarm at all

Surely that decision cannot be made without having undertaken a fire safety risk assessment? And do you not mean "there is a not a specific legal requirement" for one as opposed to saying it does not need one?

[Big A]

Wee B's quite right. There must be thousands blocks of flats in this country each containing dozens of self-contained, compartmentalised units of accomodation. As FRSs are very keen to reduce false alarm calls I doubt they'd be very keen to see common alarm systems being advocated.

[Allen Higginson]

Ok - so no common alarm system, but what should be installed in each flat then?

[Chris Houston]

As FRSs are very keen to reduce false alarm calls I doubt they'd be very keen to see common alarm systems being advocated.

So we don't install a system to improve life safety on the assumption that it will be installed or used incorrectly?  How about focusing on ensuring the system is well designed, installed, used and maintained to prevent false alarms rather than not installing them in case they don't work!

[fred]

Here's a little pearl of wisdom from BS CP3 1971 Part 1 Flats and Maisonettes > two storeys - possibly the standard to which this premises was built.

"Also the assumption should no longer be made that entire buildings, whole floors, or even adjoining dwellings need to be evacuated if a fire occurs.  Owing to the high degree of compartmentation provided in dwellings in modern blocks, the spread of fire and smoke from one dwelling to another and the need to evacute the occupants of adjacent dwellings are unusual.  The occupants should be safe if they remain where they are"

The whole emphasis was on compartmentation, fire prevention, co-operation by the inhabitants and structural fire safety measures - it's easy to jump to a conclusion and say fit an L1 system - but is it really necessary ?  

l

[Chris Houston]

I've been in various modern buildings and the trends I have seen are an increase in the use of combustible insulation materials, cladding materials and roofs, 30 or 60 minute compartments and tenants who know very little about the importance of fire door self closing mechanisms, or basic fire safety.  I would be quite worried if they were advised to stay put in the event of a fire.

Many modern buildings appear to be built as cheaply as possible and do not incoroporate brick walls that older buildings had, most clients instructions are to build premises that comply with the legal minimum standards.

Maybe there is some wisdom in providing the highest level of fire detection system - if it be a legal requirement or not.

[Allen Higginson]

As this buliding was previously a hotel (circa 1970) it is probably safe to assume that it would not meet current regulations in regards to compartmentization. As Chris has said, if the proposed fire system is correctly designed (including cause and effect programming with regards to evacuation and investigative delays on detectors etc) then it would be better to install an L1 system (one that comes with a no false alarm guarantee perhaps - sorry.can't miss an opportunity!!).
Alternatively,an L3 system with individual mains/battery detectors in each flat would be better than what they have at present.

[Big A]

Ok - so no common alarm system, but what should be installed in each flat then?

I would guess that the type of system you have in your house would be perfectly sufficient.

Chris are you really suggesting that a fire alarm should sound throughout a 20 storey block of flats every time someone burns the toast and that all the residents should evacuate? Even if that was the case, how effective would it be after the first half dozen or so false alarms? There's nothing like a few false alarms to encourage people to ignore the alarm.

[Chris Houston]

Chris are you really suggesting that a fire alarm should sound throughout a 20 storey block of flats every time someone burns the toast and that all the residents should evacuate? Even if that was the case, how effective would it be after the first half dozen or so false alarms? There's nothing like a few false alarms to encourage people to ignore the alarm.

No.

I am suggesting that most stakeholders are wrong to consider how to respond to alarm systems that are associated with false alarms and that we should concentrate on designing better systems that only operate in a fire situation.

[Graeme]

As this buliding was previously a hotel (circa 1970) it is probably safe to assume that it would not meet current regulations in regards to compartmentization. As Chris has said, if the proposed fire system is correctly designed (including cause and effect programming with regards to evacuation and investigative delays on detectors etc) then it would be better to install an L1 system (one that comes with a no false alarm guarantee perhaps - sorry.can't miss an opportunity!!).
Alternatively,an L3 system with individual mains/battery detectors in each flat would be better than what they have at present.

Buzzbomb

i have the exact same example which was an old hotel to which the rooms are now sell contained flats with MO smoke alarms with an L3 to the common escape route.

Each flat has a sounder from the L3 system.So if someone burns the toast they will only alert their flat but if they have a real fire escape via coomon route and operate nearest mcp to evacuate the remainder of the building.

[Allen Higginson]

As this buliding was previously a hotel (circa 1970) it is probably safe to assume that it would not meet current regulations in regards to compartmentization. As Chris has said, if the proposed fire system is correctly designed (including cause and effect programming with regards to evacuation and investigative delays on detectors etc) then it would be better to install an L1 system (one that comes with a no false alarm guarantee perhaps - sorry.can't miss an opportunity!!).
Alternatively,an L3 system with individual mains/battery detectors in each flat would be better than what they have at present.

Buzzbomb

i have the exact same example which was an old hotel to which the rooms are now sell contained flats with MO smoke alarms with an L3 to the common escape route.

Each flat has a sounder from the L3 system.So if someone burns the toast they will only alert their flat but if they have a real fire escape via coomon route and operate nearest mcp to evacuate the remainder of the building.

Yeah,I'd sort of come to that conclusion - as I said before,the only other way would be to install an L1 with delays on smoke detection or phased evac. - we do guarantee no false alarms but someone setting fire to their grill pan would not constitue a false alarm (it is a potential full-on fire after all)  so the system would go off as intended.
There are no sounders in the flats right enough and that would need to be addressed should a full evac be necessary.

[kurnal]

Relying on memory but,
as a former hotel theres every chance that the premises do not comply with the old CP3 in which dead end corridors were very limited ( max 7.5 m ) and had natural ventilation  whereas hotel bedroom corridors in those days were allowed up to 12m in a dead end.  AFD did not feature in either.

And in reply to Graeme surely if you go for L3 this will include DS in flat lobbies? I have encountered many systems in which heat detectors have been used in  the lobbies to flats, linked to a system with smoke detectors in common escape routes and a stand alone domestic detector in each flat- a compromise often found where means of escape cannot match the codes.