when is a corridor just a corridor?

[ps]

Hi - my first time on this site - found it by accident whilst trying to work my way through the RRO by googling some queries. I've downloaded the guides from the ODPM site, but, despite their clarity on most bits, I have a query.....

Probably a really silly question, but in a complex building, when does a corridor become an escape route, and when just an ordinary corridor?  I want to give the go-ahead for people to put up pigeon holes in a corridor - but think this won't be allowed.

Do all corridors in a building have to be sterile, if so, I've been in 100's of buildings that flout this, and given their prominence, I'd be surprised.

Any help or pointing in the right direction would be appreciated....

[kurnal]

Its all to do with the layout of the building, how far people have to travel to reach an exit and whether they have  a choice of directions by which to escape.

If the corridor has escape routes at either end and the total distance of travel from any point in a room to the room exit and then down the corridor to a final exit or protected stair is within reasonable limits say 9m in the room and then around 9 to the nearest exit from the corridor then there is no need for any control over the corridor- it can be treated as an inner room/ access room situation the corridor being an access room.
On the other hand if from the room exit  we then have to travel more than about 30 m if we have a choice of routes, or more than about 12-15 m if its a dead end corridor then the corridor needs to be a protected route and we would have to control what is put in there. Risk assessment rules using the travel distances set out in the guidance documents - as a guide!!!
Hope this makes some sense.

[wee brian]

A corridor with stuff in it becomes a room.  Thus rooms accessed from it are inner rooms. If my only escape is via another room (or corridor with stuff in it) then a fire in that room would leave me trapped.

Therefore I need to know about a fire in that room before it gets too big - providing AFD or suitable glazing will usually do the trick.

[ps]

Thanks guys - much clearer!

Thank you.

Can I be a pain and now ask another question? Do managing agents of domestic properties need to do risk assessments. I'm thinking of places where say 6 domestic flat owners get together, form a company then appoint a managing agent. Do the common areas, ie stairs, corridors lifts need assessment even if no one works in the building and the flats are entirely separate living accomodation (ie not a house of multiple occupation)?

Many thanks in advance if you can help.

[wee brian]

I suppose that the Body Corporate would be the Responsible person.

A risk assessment would be required but records are only required where there are 5 plus employees.

[jokar]

The simple answer again is yes.  The RP is either an employer, a person in control, Managaing Agent, or the owner.  Onlt single private dwellings are exempt from this legislation.  The property you describe is an HMO under the terms and conditions of 1 of the standard tests in the 2004 Housing Act and therefore the shared accommodation/common parts are within the RR(FS)O.

[PhilB]

purpose built flats post 1991 are not HMOs. However the common parts of all flats fall within the scope of RRFSO but there should be little needed other than keeping escape routes clear. Some consultants are recommending smoke detection and extinguishers in the common parts but this is not usually required.

[kurnal]

I have never found things so clearly defined- in the local spa towns there are very many large country houses, former hydros and even former mills, often listed buildings, that are converted into flats.
For various reasons they do not or cannot meet the design standards such as CP3 part IV 1971 or ADB. Where travel distances or fire separation cannot meet the recommended standards we have two choices- leave the building to fall into a spiral of decay or to make the building as safe as can be achieved within reason.
I must point out we are not talking inner city flats or tenements with all the associated social problems. More the sort of premises ps is referring to.  Until recently detection and alarm systems in the common areas have been one answer. Residential sprinklers now coming more to the fore.

I have often recommended fire alarms and smoke detection in common areas in these cases where the stay put policy would not be safe.

The agent and the management committee would be responsible persons ps. But the findings of the RA would not have to be recorded

[Martin Burford]

kurnal

Ah yes CP3 Chapter 4 Part1.I know it well.....the old ones are still the best !!...........Especially the rubbish guides for the RRO!!
I will await your response with anticipation lol
Regards
Conqueror

[kurnal]

One recent example of full evacuation recommended in flats was when I carried out a common areas risk assessment in a former mill (used in the famous Colditz film) which is now upmarket flats.
Seven floors single central staircase lobby protection excessive dead end condition 12.5 metres. But biggest issue was that the lift shaft fell outside the staircase enclosure, on one wing, the shaft rising through the dead end corridors and no protection other than the half hour sliding lift shaft steel doors- ie very little or no smoke control.

So a fire in a ground floor flat or common area could send smoke up the lift shaft to affect the dead end condition on all floors above.  The shaft was not ventilated at the top. I recommended a vent to the shaft and common areas fire alarm with  smoke detection, not happy to trust the stay put policy in this case. Will the vent be effective? Probably not- smoke will most likely not be very bouyant. But didnt feel secure to leave things as they were.

By the way- this was a recent conversion with building regs approval.

[wee brian]

So you send everybody out into the area that is full of smoke rather than leave them somewhere safe???

[jokar]

Am I missing something here.  I thought the safety of occupants was what the whole thing is about.  The 60 minute enclosure is for the occupants to stay put, no common fire alarm to rouse residents and put them into a dangerous situation.  Then if a fire occurs and is extinguished others may never know or if the building is considerd untenable then the FRS alert and evacuate.  Surely we do not want occupants coming down as firefighters go up.  Hose and water on the stairway and interference with F/F operations.  Best left where they are and moved as and when necessary.

[Big A]

That's fine in a purpose built block that hs the required structural protection. Kurnal is talking about a building where that is not the case (I think).

[kurnal]

The stay put policy works  and is the best solution where as Big A says the full structural protection requirements are met.

But if the full design requirements cannot be met what other safeguards can you put in place in compensation? (residential sprinklers apart)

The traditional approach in all buildings has been towards early detection of fire in compensation for shortcomings in other areas. In every other building the first place to provide detection has always been the  means of escape- corridors and staircases.

Can you imagine any other  building where the design strategy would be to leave people safe in their rooms, offices, workshops whilst the fire brigade put the fire out and make us all safe?

The stay put policy was a pragmatic response to the problem over the total lack of control over the tenants of  flats, but if the fire resistance enclosing the units was the only issue why would limits be set on travel distances  and requirements made for staircase protection, escape lighting etc?

I know that originally  vents in stairs and corridors were for the use of firefighters (CP3 chapter 4 part 1) , but its interesting that there now seem to be contradictions in  guidance. On the one hand  the guides say that it is unacceptable for a wheelchair user to be left in a refuge to await rescue by the fire service, but its ok to defend in place in a care home. My local officers keep reinforcing the message that the responsible person cannot rely on the fire brigade attending within any set time or to any set standards anymore. But we still stay put in flats.

[ps]

Thanks for the info here guys - one thing does concern me though - if people who do this for a living are confused and disagree - how on earth are mere mortals supposed to cope!  My understanding, from the many replies is that

1 They do need to do a risk assessment, despite nobody working there and the premises being private domestic flats
2 Logic (but not necessarily the law) says it should be documented
3 It is classed as a HMO (contrary to my initial understanding) I thought you had to share facilities such as a kitchen to be classed as an HMO - or am I still wrong??

If anyone can tell me if I've got it right thus far I'd be eternally grateful!

Many thanks in advance