Fire alarms in communal areas of flats

[Fireblade]

My interpretation of Volume 2 of Document B is that fire alarm systems are not a requirement in the communal areas of purpose built flats, only the individual dwellings. However, I note that most of them appear to have them. Although it is without doubt good practice to install a system, it doesn't seem likely to me that a developer will install a system unless he has to, so why are they doing it? Is it due to the local BCO allowing some deviation from the strict requirements of ADB on condition that an AFD is installed to compensate. If so, does anyone know if there is guidance on this subject from Building Control. Alternatively, I may have completely misunderstood the requirements. In this case can someone enlighten me.

[FORRIE]

Fire blade, did the local Fire service request the fire alarm at planning stage?

[kurnal]

Puirpose built flats have a very high degree of compartmentation and ventilation to the common lobbies and staircases.

In flats if you do  provide alarms and detection to the common areas experience shows that people do not respond, or are very patchy in their response. Theres no control, no management, no discipline.
So the flats are designed in such a way that it should not be necessary to evacuate anything other than the flat involved in the fire. Every one else can stay put in safety.

But if you cant meet the high standards of compartmentation or ventilation, or have other accommodation such as lounges, laundries etc in the common areas then it may be necessary to install an alarm and detection in the common areas.

Many conversions of existing buildings cant meet the standards so alarms go in. In other cases its because the architect does no know any better and nobody advises them. The attitiude is often that the enforcers ensure minimum standards are met but dont advise the applicant if they have gone over the top. I guess thats my job.

[Fireblade]

Reply to Forrie - I have no information on why the system/s were installed, it was just an observation that a system was installed in a number of blocks of flats for no apparent reason.

Reply to Kurnal - I am inclined to think that your comment regarding the architects not knowing any different has probably hit the nail on the head. Apologies to those architects that do know any different.

[saddlers]

My interpretation of Volume 2 of Document B is that fire alarm systems are not a requirement in the communal areas of purpose built flats, only the individual dwellings. However, I note that most of them appear to have them. Although it is without doubt good practice to install a system, it doesn't seem likely to me that a developer will install a system unless he has to, so why are they doing it? Is it due to the local BCO allowing some deviation from the strict requirements of ADB on condition that an AFD is installed to compensate. If so, does anyone know if there is guidance on this subject from Building Control. Alternatively, I may have completely misunderstood the requirements. In this case can someone enlighten me.

As you correctly state ADB does not look for AFD to communal areas, although we are getting examples under the RRO where certain groups are requesting AFD to the communal areas as a recommendation under the Fire Risk Assessment to minimise the risks for people who could be working in the communal areas, and it may be that this is now being considered and implemented at design stage.

As Kurnal says, AFD can be used to compensate for deviations from standard guidance or to address a particular design issue, and these have to be assessed on a case by case basis in both new build or conversion works. It is important however to consider HOW the alarm will activate. As Kurnal says the assumption in apartments is, that the occupants of apartments other than the "fire apartment" to stay put in relative safety due to the high levels of compartmentation.

In taller apartments with single stairs, a simultaneous alarm activation in the communal areas could result in people evacuating their apartments and heading down the stairs when the building has been designed for them to stay put, and this could have implications on the fire service access.

I think this may be a reaction to what we are seeing since the introduction of the RRO.

[Tall Paul]

Saddler could be right here.  There could be a misunderstanding of the guides.  The suggestion is for LD2 in common stairs - but only if you forget to look at the accompanying note which says that this is for premises that do not conform to current building regulations.

If people are speed reading the guides and applying over-onerous standards, then that might have affected building designers approach to their more current work.

It would be interesting to look at why the architect has taken this approach on this occassion.

[Fireblade]

Thanks for the addition comment from Tall Paul and Saddlers.
It did cross my mind that the RRO may have something to do with the decision to install AFD, but it seemed unlikely as I would imagine, though I am not sure, that once built the developer would have no further involvement with the property. Having said this, it is possible that the architect decided that this was the best approach. I should point out my observation of the flats with AFD was across a large number of blocks in a very large development being undertaken by 4 or 5 builders. In all cases the blocks had AFD, I would doubt that all of these were designed by the same architect.

[wee brian]

The people that tend to recomend these alarms in their risk assessments often do a sideline in selling fire alarms.

[bolt]

There is a stronger drift towards getting out and stay out policy. Its in the government guidlines under the FRS framework and ADB to raise early warning of a fire and to get out safely. With exception of the largest buildings that have other safety measures including safe zones and phased evacutions i think this is the best attitude.

"They assume that in the design of the building reliance should not be placed on the FRS nor should it be based on the presumtion that the FRS will attend within a given time"

In addition the insurance companies I am sure would rather err on the side of caution and if they can save parts of the building from extensive fire damage from early detection its a better solution.  But the occupants should be told under the risk assesment what are the actual design capabiities of the building so they know that if the escape is compromised they may be better going back in the flat shut the door and wait for help.  Many occupants I am sure don't even realise this and are overcome by toxic fumes thinking they HAVE to get out.  Reading the ADB couple of times gives me the indication they DO want common areas AFD protection on new builds but its not required to go and enforce it on old purpose built flats unless the FRA gives strong reason to do so. I very much doubt we will see a new build over 4 story block of flats now without AFD unless its an open to air design.  It would be a hard case to justify NOT having it in the light of RRO and ADB guidlines.

[kurnal]

Hi Bolt
I dont share your view about the need or requirement for AFD in the commmon areas of purpose built flats- at least not to sound a general alarm.  Smoke detection is often intalled for the operation of the ventilation systems though.

Experience tends to show us that even where it is installed in flats people take no notice and a partial evacuation by some residents and not others is worse than none at all. Where systems are installed the more vigilant go to their flat doors and have a look to see it there is any sign of fire, and if not will either stand there talking to others or will go back inside. Most stay put. Its nigh on impossible to get people to move until they feel personally threatened by the fire. I think psychologically the corridor has a status of, and is treated like a street and the flats individual buildings on the street. This mentality seems to persist even in flats not built to support a  "stay put" policy.  

In the event of a fire in a conventional street the fire service always advise people to go indoors and shut doors and windows.

I think the risk assessment under the RRO in purpose built flats  would be better to focus on the maintenance of conditions that allow the stay put policy to remain the safe solution- maintenance of sterile corridors and staircases and the doors and ventilation systems that keep it safe.

[bolt]

kurnal,

I do take on board your comments and I think ultimately it’s a decision that will be made on an individual building basis. For example, a new block of expensive owner flats built down the Docklands would probably have a good maintenance and cleaning regime perhaps even 24 hour security and a nice reception lobby where a common AFD would not be out of place nor badly managed and easily justified.  This may be vastly different to flats put up for welfare dependant persons where the only attention it will ever receive would be to collect the rubbish once a fortnight.

So yes in this instance AFD may never work even though the actual risks in each case are similar.

[JimK]

There is a possibility that it could be related to an insurance policy. Depending on ownership of the common area it could be the insurance company that has required the fire alarm.- just a thought! :-)

[AM]

Would they not be in common areas to operate AOV's?

[David Rooney]

We have a block in Islington full of B list celebs, single stair case and lift lobby to each floor, one or two flats per floor. Mains powered "B&Q" detector in each lobby, not interlinked, and nothing on the stairs. The detector is simply to operate a louvred window in each lobby as a "smoke ventillation system".

Building Control say this is fine.

[wee brian]

Wheras you would like to sell them a £10k system - I rest my case.