Stay put policy

[Firewolf]

Not sure a stay put policy is the best idea for student accomodation... I don't know I could be wrong but I feel stay put and progressive evacuation should be left for the immobile, old or frail etc.

Then again... who knows - it could work - the building would need to be right however - damn good FR and compartmentation is required, good standard of AFD, and i would suggest well trained staff as Marshalls - as we all know students do need the preverbial rocket up there unmentionables to get them moving at times.

But it certainly would be intresting to see if this would work! This type of  procedure is unheard of in student accom really, normally only used in sheltered schemes and residential nursing / care homes.

With refernce to the fire in the sheltered scheme in Buckinghamshire I'd be intrested to know about the condition of the building - especially as there was one fatality. I suspsect very poor FR and detection was the culrprit perhaps?

Its like sopmeone already said - if you are going to look at PHE or a SPP then you need a fire tight building, an believe me thats very hard to achieve and maintain properly!

Seems to me there could have been very poor FR there.

[Mike Buckley]

We cannot judge the FR and detection just on the evidence that there was one fatality. It depends on where the fatality was when the fire started. I have been to a fire where the fatality was in fact the item first ignited and the fire was confined to the fatality.

Just because a raven is a black bird does not mean that all black birds are ravens.

Yes I agree that if you are going for PHE or SPP then the fire resistance of the building must be suitable, but this is back to the fire risk assessment.

[Firewolf]

We cannot judge the FR and detection just on the evidence that there was one fatality. It depends on where the fatality was when the fire started. I have been to a fire where the fatality was in fact the item first ignited and the fire was confined to the fatality.

Just because a raven is a black bird does not mean that all black birds are ravens.

Yes I agree that if you are going for PHE or SPP then the fire resistance of the building must be suitable, but this is back to the fire risk assessment.

No you're right Mike but i was approaching it from the angle that the victim was not in the room of fire origin.

In my experience Ive found that in sheltered housing schemes casualties have arisen due to poor FR and lack of adequate detection.

[jokar]

Not if the residents are not in danger.  Why on earth would you put people on the street if they are not affected by the fire?

[Mike Buckley]

Jokar I disagree, in general the best place for occupants of a building that is or may be on fire is in the street. That way no matter how the fire develops they are safe. However there are situations where the risk of getting people out onto the street is greater than the risk of leaving them where they are.
In an extreme case no one would advocate unplugging the patients in an Intensive Care Unit in a hospital just because the fire alarm goes off!
At the extremes there are black and white cases in the ICU case definitely defend in place, in the case of an office building, everybody out.
What we are dealing with in the case of residential homes etc. is grey, there is no simple answer. It has to depend on the abilities (or lack of) of the residents, the fire precautions already present in the premises, the staff likely to be present etc. etc. It all comes down to the Risk Assessment and a final decision as to what is the best option for the residents. In the crudest terms how many are likely to die in they stay in place verses how many are likely to die if you evacuate them outside at 3.00 am in a blizzard in January?

[jokar]

So 2 staff on duty with 30 residents, some of whom have debilitating illnesses, alzhiemers or another memory loss disease and we chuck the lot on the street in a light drizzle.  I think the owners may have more than a duty of care under fire to worry about.  Mind you it would probably be cheaper to leave them in the fire and kill the lot.

[Ken Taylor]

I think you need a plan that ultimately will include evacuation of the building if essential and possible. It should never be a matter of simply putting people out into the street. Sometimes there are nearby buildings; sometimes there are grounds large enough to provide assembly points; sometimes minibuses are on site, thermal evacuation wraps and blankets are readily available; progressive evacuation provides time to collect warm clothing, etc. The hazards of fire, the evacuation process and subsequent care all need to be considered in the risk assessment for care type premises.

[shaunmckeever]

In a multi-storey block of flats we do not tip everyone out on the street. The buildings I am looking at are constructed similarly to blocks of flats, the only difference is there are about six bedrooms per flat and they are occupied by students. Personally I am happy to have a stay put policy. The stay put policy that I am referring to was not devised by me but by a well known fire engineering consultancy. The landlords are not happy with the stay put policy and have asked me to review it. Judging by the responses above there is not much support for able bodied people to remain in the building, but I think knowing what students are like, refusing to evacuate when the alarm goes off, 60 odd malicious calls per month etc I think the best policy is to assume they are not going to move so lets protect them where they are. I know this requires tight management to ensure the fire precautions in place are not defeated by the students.

Thanks for the contributions so far.
Shaun

[Ken Taylor]

Shaun, the 'on the street' bit was following on from Jokar's response, of course.

In your case, my inclination would be to have an evacuation policy - even though they may not all comply. At least this 'puts the ball in their court' when things go wrong and not yours. Like you, I would, however, plan the protective measures upon the assumption that some will remain.

Whilst they may not be too interested in evacuating for drills or when the sounders are first activated, if they smell the smoke and see the appliances arrive, they'll probably be quite keen to get out.

[JB]

We get very differing views from fire officers about whether stay put policies are acceptable in sheltered housing schemes. Some FOs insist that we have a stay put policy, regardless of the fire tightness of the scheme, some say we cannot have one, regardless of fire tightness, some say we can have a SPP providing fire doors are well fitting and have smoke seals. The existence of deep rebates seems to be considered by many fire officers to be a suitable substitute for smoke seals - I found the debate on this topic on the FireNet site very useful.

The approach we have taken is that where there are smoke seals on the doors we will advise tenants to stay put (providing the scheme is fire tight in other respects). Where smoke seals are not present we will advise them to evacuate to a safe internal area if there is one available (eg a communal lounge with an exit to outside). Tenants who cannot evacuate because of disability can stay put and we will fit smoke seals to their doors - their names and flat numbers are listed inside the fire panel. In some cases we may upgrade the fire doors throughout the scheme so that a stay put policy can be adopted, eg where there is no suitable internal assembly area, or where the cost of providing one would exceed the cost of upgrading the fire doors.

[honeyroast]

in the case of student accomodation i think if they can get out without assisstance they should. Halls of residents are notorious for door wedging, if you can't say for sure that the doors will be shut its a big risk using stay put.

Perhaps makng them do regular dry runs and explaining why its important to have the fire doors shut would help.

The staff should also be prepared and there should be nominated persons to check if everyones evacuating

[steve walker]

In a multi-storey block of flats we do not tip everyone out on the street. The buildings I am looking at are constructed similarly to blocks of flats, the only difference is there are about six bedrooms per flat and they are occupied by students. Personally I am happy to have a stay put policy. The stay put policy that I am referring to was not devised by me but by a well known fire engineering consultancy. The landlords are not happy with the stay put policy and have asked me to review it. Judging by the responses above there is not much support for able bodied people to remain in the building, but I think knowing what students are like, refusing to evacuate when the alarm goes off, 60 odd malicious calls per month etc I think the best policy is to assume they are not going to move so lets protect them where they are. I know this requires tight management to ensure the fire precautions in place are not defeated by the students.

Thanks for the contributions so far.
Shaun

That sounds sensible to me. If you have similar protection to a modern block of flats then stay put sounds reasonable. The standard of fire safety can be improved by suitable fire alarms in each flat and you could consider a staff alert system (if there is staff).

[AFD]

I have been to quite a few buildings ( sheltered, student and private ) that are multiple dwelling/occupant buildings with 'stay put policies', and when surveyed found that there is not complete compartmentation above celings ( suspended or fixed) or in doors and walls , the use of a stay put policy can only be used by an organisation with complete confidence in the compartmentation, construction or suppression.  I usually find it is used by organisations and advisors that do not want to confront and deal with an evacuation problem in their buildings, and they are playing the 'odds' in that it will never happen to me !

[novascot]

It is not too long ago that during a multi rescue operation a female was told to "stay put" because she was in a different tenement building separated by a party wall. Unfortueately smoke permeated through that wall and the lady died. You can imagine the uproar. There is no stay put in these circumstances now.

Hospitals and Res Care are obvious "kinda stay put", in as much as they stay in the building but are moved horizontly from zone to zone if and when required.

Remember though that there may come a time in that emergency where vertical evacuation must take place and the owners/occupiers/responsible person must have in place, the means to achieve this.

[Ken Taylor]

Exactly, Nova. That's why I dislike the term 'stayput' and believe that fire plans for  care and other non-domestic residential accommodation should address ultimate evacuation if it becomes necessary.