What type of Fire system

[Chris Houston]

In my personal opinion, you need a fire alarm system that complies with the recommendations contained within British Standard 5839, Part 1, 2002.

Chris Houston BA (Risk Management), FIRM, MIFireE.

[Wiz]

pdenni - there you have it!

Chris has a BA in risk assessment, and he and all of the others that have answered and given the opinion that BS5839 part 1 is almost certainly required, all have a wealth of experience in these matters.

Whilst none of them can categorically say that a 5839 part 1 system is the only option (because none of them have all the facts to hand) they all agree that anything less than a 5839 part 1 system is hardly likely to be acceptable. That is the way to go. Accept nothing less.

Maybe this will be enough to convince your customer to have a 'proper' system.

I still suggest that your customer have a proper full fire risk assessment carried out first anyway. This is the real legal requirement in this matter so it could be suggested that this is the most important thing.

[Richard Earl]

hi pdenni
i hav had a chat with my work mates at tecserv and ythey agree with all our people on the site, if you work from BS if the crap hits the fan then everyone can say it was carried out to BS then their is a bench mark to fall back on.

nearly all my advise on fire signage has to be to BS standards, then hopefully this will be good enough if i have ever to go to court, aanything less leaves every one open to prossicution.

just my thoughts sorry

[pdenni]

hi

thanks for everyones replies

pdenni

[GB]

In summary therefore, while it is not considered by many to be best practice to connect smoke detection into an intruder alarm within a non-domestic premise, it is not in direct contradiction of BS 5839-1?

Is this correct?

[Graeme]

no

BS5839-1 relates to buildings and detectors into alarm systems do not comply with this standard.

[kurnal]

BS5839 also recommends that there should be a uniform sound for fire alarms throughout a building. So if the smoke detectors have their own sounders, or if they initiate the burglar alarm whilst thefire alarm has its own sounders this is another area to consider

[AFD]

While we are on the subject of BS5839 and the prevous mention of appropriate standards and how you would defend ypourself in a court of law . It states in the Scope section of BS5839 pt 6 ;  
" This part of BS 5839 gives recommendations for the planning, design and installation of fire detection and fire alarm systems in dwellings and dwelling units that are designed to accommodate a single family, and in houses in multiple occupation that comprise a number of self-contained units each designed to accommodate a single family. "Blah Blah blah"  ". It does not apply to any premises used for purposes other than as a dwelling (e.g. small shops, factories or similar premises used solely as places of work)"
So how come I keep finding them in commercial/industrial buildings ? Just thought I'd ask ?

[kurnal]

The risk assessment may show that no automatic fire detection is required for the workplace. But then for additional peace of mind or for an element of property protection, linked for example to a burglar alarm,  the responsible person may wish to provide it as an enhancement.  If the premises would comply without detection there little liklihood of a court case in these circumstances, civil or criminal

[AFD]

So that is why they state it is to compensate for no enclosure to a staircase, extended travel distances, or a single stair !  All in none domestic premises !  I must be missing something ?

[kurnal]

No in the circumstances you describe they are inappropriate.
Butf If an enforcement officer you hold all the cards.

[AnthonyB]

While we are on the subject of BS5839 and the prevous mention of appropriate standards and how you would defend ypourself in a court of law . It states in the Scope section of BS5839 pt 6 ;  
" This part of BS 5839 gives recommendations for the planning, design and installation of fire detection and fire alarm systems in dwellings and dwelling units that are designed to accommodate a single family, and in houses in multiple occupation that comprise a number of self-contained units each designed to accommodate a single family. "Blah Blah blah"  ". It does not apply to any premises used for purposes other than as a dwelling (e.g. small shops, factories or similar premises used solely as places of work)"
So how come I keep finding them in commercial/industrial buildings ? Just thought I'd ask ?

Because they are sold by at least one manufacturer as suitable for small commercial & retail buildings, village halls etc and areas generally less than 1 zone - therefore it's not uncommon to find a Part 6 grade C system of smoke alarms, heat alarms, call point alarms and a master call point alarm/controller linked. I often find these in smaller units that had no fire system at all when built as the certificate/section 9A/build regs at the time didn't require it, but are in reality just too big for a verbal alarm to be effective. The cost savings by a part 6 system (particularly in cabling) make them popular and are far better than nothing.

In multi occupancies you often find part 6 residential alarms used in either an L5 or P2 role on floors where tenants have put them in with no thought for other occupiers when adding heads to the central system may be more appropriate (especially with the experience of a recent fire where the tenant in the area on fire forgot to break the call point glass to warn the rest of the building after his single station smoke alarm alerted him to a major fire!)

[AFD]

So ? Are you saying they are satisfactory in none residential premises or not, we know why they put them in. My opinion is as per the BS they are not meant for none domestic premises. and do not compensate for a unsatisfactory standard of means of escape (generally passive).
Also there is no satisfactory test regime laid down for Pt 6 Systems under the BS5839 pt6 ,when provided in an industrial commercial premises, you would want to use the pt1 testing and maintenance procedures even when installed in any none single domestic environment.

[CivvyFSO]

I have occasionally asked for pt 6 systems as part of inspections. Risk appropriate of course.

Some buildings are generally converted houses and it may be, for example, to make up for a lack of compartmentation from the basement. Maybe 30min seperation when guides would ask for an hour. So you have something like a 2 storey terrace + basement that used to be a dwelling house, now it is an office, so no sleeping risk but different occupiers between ground and first. Why should they have to have a part 1 system?

As regards testing, 'a suitable system of maintenance' would clearly be required.

The employers guide used to specifically mention pt 6 systems and the new guides do not state a particular standard. Legislation simply states 'to the extent that is appropriate... fire detectors and alarms'

I am sure alarm companies do not like it and will possibly use the BS to talk people into pt 1 systems when a pt 6 may be appropriate.

If it does the job it is intended to do then whats the problem?

[AFD]

As long as they do the job intended ? I have no problem with that, but I believe they were designed to work and remain serviceable in a domestic environment also hence less servicing.  It would be interesting to hear from a manufacturer to see if they are built to withstand different physical and atmospheric conditions found in none domestic uses.  Otherwise, why spend millions on a formulae one car when a ford focus will get you around the track for an hour and half !