lobbies to 4 storey hotels

[CivvyFSO]

I would agree that an L1 system would not be good compensation for the lack of lobbies. The real risk of fire is from the bedrooms or kitchen/lounge, and they have detection already.

Smoke extraction/venting only deals with smoke. It does not hold a fire at bay like 2 30 minute doors will.

So, looking at Jokars suggestion of 60 minute doors. The only issue there is smoke can still affect the escape route for the time the door is open during escape or firefighting. So to offer a more onerous solution in true FRS style, 60 minute doors backed up with smoke extraction (Not venting) would acheive a similar (Or better) level of protection as lobbies. (Extraction would be extremely costly, but I think venting does not keep smoke from entering the escape route, it may help to keep conditions more tenable though.)

BUT a risk assessment may show that the building would be evacuated before any firefighting took place, and anyone escaping from the room of origin would be escaping while the fire was reasonably small so not much smoke would be entering the escape route. So 60 minute doors may suffice.

[CivvyFSO]

And also anyone drunk and NOT escaping is behind a nice 60 minute door.

[kurnal]

This is a difficult one and there is not an easy answer to it.
We need to carefully anlayse exactly what benefit the lobby gives us and then try and provide this benefit in a different way. I hate lobbies but they do a job in a simple and effective way.

The other thing is that in these type of cases the duty on the assessor is far more than on the Responsible person.
The responsible person only has to do what is reasonably practicable. And in this case it is to follow competent advice.

The assessor has to provide the solution and personally underwrite it, and unless you cover yourself by fully consulting with the fire authority, if we step too far outside the comfort zone of the guidance  there is no hiding place or refuge for the assessor  between writing the report and  the witness box.

To get anywhere with this we need ask : What does a lobby provide in these situations? The answer is two fold- it keeps any appreciable fire loading well away from the critical door to the staircase and it provides a tiny buffer zone which may just about prevent a bit of smoke from entering the stair as the occupants leave- but this is pretty tenuous. Once the occupants have left it provides two sets of fire door seals between the room and the stair.

We talk of the lilac guide and the red one before that. Let us also remember that when the lobby approach was first proposed as a design solution in these cases there was no such thing as an L3 system and if we were lucky there may have been a detector in the stair. Furniture safety regs were unheard of and fire door seals not invented. So todays lobby with L2 alarm, fire door seals and modern furnishings represents a far safer solution - the standard has increased greatly over the years.

What can we do about  it?


Eliminate risk in the staircase and especially no furnishings.
Control the fire risk in all rooms control of ignition sources and combustible materials especially kitchen and lounge
Keep all fire load as far from the doors as possible.
Particularly focus on the ground floor rooms - kitchen and dining room. Can we eliminate the door between kitchen and stair and give direct access from kitchen to dining room without coming through the stair- that door would take some hammer. If there is alternative escape from the ground floor rooms you could provide the equivalent to a lobby with a drop down curtain behind the door.

If replacing doors make sure we replace the complete doorsets and an hour door would be a better bet, installed, hung and maintained to the highest standard with a full range of intumescents in all areas- hinges, locks etc.  

Provide an L1 alarm and detection system- ie all spaces and all rooms not just those opening onto escape routess
Select a multi fuction detector such as Gent SQuad and set the response criteria as sensitive as possible.  

Management and supervision 24/7. Careful selection/ vetting of clients- ie a fairly high standard hotel not an HMO. All these to be maintained in the long term with a good management system in place and every element carefully inspected, tested and recorded on a weekly basis.

This may be enough to achieve an equivalent level of safety to a design compliant solution without the additional management controls in place.

The are some other alternative approaches worth considering eg water mist system in rooms or smoke exhaust system in rooms- there are some pretty interesting powered extract systems on the market that only require 600mm extract ducting .

Hope this is some help and good luck - please let us know the outcome.

[Mr. P]

But does not the upgrqading to an L1 system still only cover up to 3 floors?  Is it posible to lobby the rooms from inside?

[CivvyFSO]

Good idea with the lobbies if it is workable. I still don't see the benefit of an L1 system. The existing L2 should have detection in all rooms off the escape route anyway, any smaller cupboards opening onto the escape route could simply have combustibles and ignition sources taken out of them.

An upgrade to L1 does not replace the actual function of the lobbies. Protection of the escape route is paramount. Early warning is nice but it doesn't stop the smoke/fire.
Kurnal, with regards lowering the risk in all rooms: Surely that should be done anyway to comply with the fire safety order. (ALARP)

[wee brian]

Standard Hotel alarm sytem is heat detectors in the rooms smokes in the corridors - I would suggest smokes in the rooms - this would buy a little more time. You will need more time because the staircase will be lost earlier than with a modern design.

Changing from FD30 to FD60 is pointless but if it keeps people happy then why not.

As for smoke extraction, this is completely unworkable. You could use pressurisation but it steel seams like a sledgehammer to crack a nut to me.

[greg]

I find it quite amazing how on this site people lambast Fa for being so prescriptive and then say well it met the old guide so it must be OK. '

I think Bill G says it all

'This is where I am finding it hard to justify any good reason as to why the lobbies are not needed , or what I can provide as an equilivant to a lobby.

[wee brian]

The bottom line is that you cant make a silk purse out of a pigs ear.

It's one thing to have standards for new buildings, but with existing buildings you have to do what is reasonably practical.

If you cant get a building to meet the standard you need to consider what the implications are. If you cant fit the lobbies in and any other solution is either unworkable or stupidly expensive then you will have to do without.

Redcuce the risk to "As Low As Reasonably Practicable" is not the same as reduce the risk to zero.

[CivvyFSO]

Changing from FD30 to FD60 is pointless but if it keeps people happy then why not.

I suppose you could look at it from the point of view that by the time a 30min door has been breached people should be out of the building anyway and any firefighting operations would necessitate that door being open so it is not protecting anyone.

So, while it looks good on paper, the actual benefit of it is minimal.

This is all assuming that a 30 minute door will last 30 minutes in a true fire scenario, which tends not to be the case as the test conditions under BS476 are not really the same as the destructive power of a fully involved room.

[Bill G]

I would like to thank you all for your commets so far - but it is at this point that I should point out.

I am a FA enforcemnt officer and at the moment our local focus is upon hotels. Our policy is to serve enforcment notices upon premises that do not meet the current "standard/guide" in relation to lobbies and detection.

My concern is that over the years we have issued certificates on premises when in the light of day we possibly should have said were not fit for purpose. I appreciate that when dealing with existing buildings they will never up to the standard that can now be achieved in a new building (we should try and achieve as close to the 100% as is possible - just because it is existing should not be an excuse to lower standards to far) . I have no desire to close buildings down but I am concerned that as an enforcment officer I am obliged to serve notice upon this type of premies fully aware that it is almost impossible for the occupier to reach the standard . I am due to go out to several premises of this type in the next week - of which I will end up serving notice on every one of them and I will not have any realistic idea of how to achive a reasonable solution. It may or may not surprise you that we have not recieved any guidance (from our HQ's) as to a reasonable solution that may be aceptable to this type of problem( the head is firmly in the sand).
My ultimate dilemma - am I just serving notice on places that will never achieve a standard and thus close down, in favour of the "lodge" type premises that are being opened up all over the place. It make me wonder who were the stakeholders consulted of the new guide?
(I should point out that all of the comments above are mine and in no way reflect service policy !)
I note that the majority of respondants to my request have been private consultants and I thank you for your comments - it would be useful if any servivng FSO have had similar problems and what guidance have they rcieved form their HQ's.

[TullyM]

My authority are also intent on enforcing the guide rather than the order. So as to avoid a perscriptive and often unachievable approach I have started to ignore part 2 of the guide and concentrate on part 1, which puts the onus on the occupier to come up with a solution.

In this case the fire risk assessment need only demonstrate that 'if there is a fire, heat and smoke will not spread uncontrolled through the building to the extent that people are unable to use the escape routes'. I can't see why an L2 alarm and single line fire resistance cannot achieve this in this case. The half-hour standard often quoted is to achieve additional protection to the buidling to firefighters, which does not have to be considered by the occupier with regard to the FRA.

My thoughts only.

[Pip]

Bill,you know what they say,'if you stick your head in the sand,all everyone will see is an arse'
I understand your dilema as an enforcement officer,and the lack of guidance from either HQ or the government .What has your line manager said?By serving the notice,you may force some hands.i.e. the hotel may appeal,and the service will have to decide on a policy.It is not your fault,as an I.O. that you are in this position.Or pass the file up to a senior officer,as you cannot deal with it due to a lack of service guidance.rest assured,if you don't cover yourself,they will look to blame you. :-(

[Martin Burford]

BillG
I have been following this topic with great interest, however I must say at this stage your identity is rather ingenuous, and you should have been honest and upfront at the outset, which makes me wonder what type of IO you really are.........could Joe public trust you?..I have my doubts because of your actions so far. I was an FPO, when the world was real......and would never have tried to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. I agree with Tully.s analysis of this real or ficticious situation, unless I can be persauaded otherwise.
Conqueror.

[Tall Paul]

Bill, as a current serving officer I would offer the following advice.  In the witness box you will be asked to justify actions based on knowledge and experience.  The guides offer helpful advice to assist in establishing a consistency of standards where possible... but as with all guides are open to interpretation, discussion and variation.  Where experience and knowledge come in is helping to determine which variations are acceptable or suitable and which are ill founded or dangerous.

Whether a serving officer or a serving risk assessor, we are all seeking to help in determining those fine lines, offering alternatives, and most helpfully discussing the foundations on which the guides were built on in the first place.

Explaining to a defence barrister that you were simply following service policy might leave you in an uncomfortable position.  You do need to apply yourself to service policy... whilst taking some of the comments provided on threads such as this to assist in shaping policy from here on in.

Good luck with that,
Paul

[Tom Sutton]

Bill G would you accept an engineered solution?