Small Bed and Breakfast establishments- means of escape

[kurnal]

Many small B&Bs are having their collars felt by the fire authorities for the first time, as prior to 1 October last year they fell outside the control of the Fire Precautions Act and the workplace Regulations.

And whereas on 30 September 2006 had they asked for fire safety advice the majority of Brigades would have told them to install interlinked smoke alarms and applied similar standards to private houses - ie enclosed staircase with standard domestic doors or opening windows provided the first floor is less than 4.5m above the ground, overnight on October 1st the requirements changed drastically.

Whilst the window exits would be deemed acceptable in accordance with the current national guidance for new dwelling houses “Building Regulations Approved Document B- Fire Safety”, the National Guidance issued in support of the Fire Safety Order 2005 does not allow for this.

This new guidance applies to all sleeping accommodation from the smallest guest house to the largest hotel and its recommendations are intended to be applied as far as is reasonably practicable, according to the circumstances of the case.

I am aware of several small premises who after many years trading are now being served notices and finding the requirements unachievable. One traditional farmhouse has been served with a notice requiring an external  means of escape from a first floor bedroom, where previously there was an opening window 1 m square leading onto gently sloping tiled roof.

You cannot provide an external escape from a chocolate box cottage, or enclose the staircase on a traditional farmhouse.

Where do we draw the line?

If the Farmhouse B&B a hotel or a farmhouse?
Is the country cottage B&B a character cottage or a hotel?

Does the fact that the owners are present and supervising at all times- unlike many lodge type hotels- count for nothing?

[Bill G]

Well speaking as an enforcement officer where we have just served several notice's on  similar establishment's - one of which subsequently went to appeal . The court upheld the standards of the "RA guide" so I suppose in short the answer is they need to comply with the quide (fully).

Do FA's need to inspect them when there are bigger fish to catch is a question for each FA. I suppose they are an easy soft target.

The big problem that we are finding with this type of premise is that the occupiers are shocked that the law applies to them as it is not a hotel but there home !! . Unfortunatley they are trading as a commercial enterprise and as such should comply.

[Midland Retty]

I do understand where you are coming from Kurnal and I quite agree each B&B should be looked at on its own merit.

On the flip side of the coin there are some absolutely terrible B&Bs out there which really do need the intervention of the Fire Authority.

At the end of the day these people are running a business and must accept they have to comply with the RRO, however Fire Officers need to take a measured approach towards them and recognise that sometimes it just isn't possible to upgrade traditional buildings using "conventional " fire safety precautions.

[Pip]

This is a bit of a problem,and i believe that in my area the Inspections are being halted until further guidance has been issued by the government-effectively the local small hotel industry would close if the new guidance was applied.However,it is not as if there has not been some guidance available since the early 90's.The Home office/Scottish Office Guide 'Fire Safety management in Hotels and Boarding Houses' stated that small hotels not requiring a Fire Certificate should have:1)management responsibility2)Available escape routes(no definition of what that meant) 3) simple detection and warning(no definition) 4)( simple emergency lighting (no definition) 5) fire extinguishers 6) notices in event of a fire 7) staff training evacuation drills.
Unfortunately very few local councils enforced any of this, so now it is a bit of a shock now that the fire authorities are coming around and asking for a rise in standards that should have been in place years ago.

[firelawmac]

Goodwill advice would have always been given but as you know Pip, goddwill advice just aint enforceable!! At least now you have the teeth that was lacking before.

[firelawmac]

goodwill as opposed to goddwill....sorry!!

[Pip]

Goodwill advice would have always been given but as you know Pip, goddwill advice just aint enforceable!! At least now you have the teeth that was lacking before.

possibly but many of these smaller hotels never had a visit from the fire service because they fell outside of certification and were the demise of the local council.

[nearlythere]

Whilst the window exits would be deemed acceptable in accordance with the current national guidance for new dwelling houses “Building Regulations Approved Document B- Fire Safety”, the National Guidance issued in support of the Fire Safety Order 2005 does not allow for this.

One traditional farmhouse has been served with a notice requiring an external  means of escape from a first floor bedroom, where previously there was an opening window 1 m square leading onto gently sloping tiled roof.

You cannot provide an external escape from a chocolate box cottage, or enclose the staircase on a traditional farmhouse.


Does the fact that the owners are present and supervising at all times- unlike many lodge type hotels- count for nothing?

1,     This is not a private dwelling. It is a dwelling with part used for commercial reasons where sleeping facilities for the public is provided.

2,     How good is you granny at sliding down tiled roofs in the snow?

3,     If the property is not adaptable to provide B&B accommodation then it is not suitable for that purpose.

4,     Do B&B owners never go out?

[Dinnertime Dave]

Just prior the the fire safety order coming into force I identified 40 B&B premises within my area, I wrote to each one detailing the changes and giving them the opportunity to contact me to discuss any issues. how many replied? yes you`ve guessed it none. I think they have all gone underground.

Incidentally whist carrying out the research I identified 6 that should have had a fire certificate!

I`ve just received a request from the local tourist board to come and chat with concerned hotel owners.

[Dragonmaster]

In the 'good old days' we knew we had to enforce the FP Act - so we did! Those falling outside what I consider to be some arbitary set of guidelines (less than 6, ground & first floor only) continued to trade in their 'chocolate box' way. Like Dinnertime Dave, our goodwill advice probably found its way into the recycling pile, but surely anyone staying at a small B&B has the right to wake up in the morning without being affected by a fire or a lack of a suitable MofE?

If you're taking money from someone, you should carry the consequences and comply with the regulatory environment. Sleeping risks are sleeping risks - wherever they are!

[val]

When the legislation and guidance was being drawn up there was absolute clarity on the fact that the impact on small hotels and B & B's would be significant.

There is also be significant impact on residential care premises.

The law is retrospective and risk based. You create a risk, you have to address that risk 'as far as is reasonable'. Fire and Rescue Authorities are justified in asking for a risk assessment (significant findings for Phil) and challenging those that do not address the issue of detection and warning or escape routes. Whrther they are small, short of money or like a 'chocolate box' is really immaterial to the law.
H & S and food safety legislation has applied to these premises for decades, so lets not kid ourselves that the operators are just 'really nice people' just trying to make a few bob on the side.
Having said that, I can be really reasonable in allowing sufficent time to comply but 12 months + is probably stretching things a bit.

[Midland Retty]

When the legislation and guidance was being drawn up there was absolute clarity on the fact that the impact on small hotels and B & B's would be significant.

There is also be significant impact on residential care premises.

The law is retrospective and risk based. You create a risk, you have to address that risk 'as far as is reasonable'. Fire and Rescue Authorities are justified in asking for a risk assessment (significant findings for Phil) and challenging those that do not address the issue of detection and warning or escape routes. Whrther they are small, short of money or like a 'chocolate box' is really immaterial to the law.
H & S and food safety legislation has applied to these premises for decades, so lets not kid ourselves that the operators are just 'really nice people' just trying to make a few bob on the side.
Having said that, I can be really reasonable in allowing sufficent time to comply but 12 months + is probably stretching things a bit.

You've hit the nail on the head Val...

It was a similar argument a few months back with a lot of landlords with HMO properties pleading they were being unfairly targeted by the new HMO Licensing schemes.