Res, care and when sprinklers are required

[Ashley Wood]

I have met with the building control officer today and he is not going to change his stance, 'What it says in the AD B is what it says and that's that.' I think a bigger issue is the staffing levels and the quality of staff employed at a lot of these facilities. I would have thought that the smoke detector would have gone off way before the glass bulb breaks. In this case the sounder in the room would have activated (or vibration pads) and the occupants would be aware of the problem. Then the staff would arrive to evacuate the room/building. I see a problem when there are not enough staff on shift, yes the sprinkler may then help the poor s** in the second bed but that's only because the staff cannot evacuate them.

I discussed doing a fire strategy, increasing the passive protection and making sure that each bedroom had a sounder in it. Not interested. So as a result my client has to spend the thick end of £50k on sprinklers or keep the beds as doubles....

This will back fire (no pun intended) because what it will do is make owners of these establishments change to single beds after the works have been done, that way saving a lot of money. Morally its wrong but it will happen.

[slubberdegullion]

Ashley

Can I ask, what is the building control officer's reasoning?  What is his logical argument for ploughing on with no regard to your reasoned proposal?

Just because it says so in the book is no argument.

ADB, remember, is guidance only.  Yes, it is a standard that should normally be followed, but application of its guidance must be tuned to the context of that application.  It Must be.  It's such a woolly document, so much is left to interpretation, it's almost as bad as the Bible (and let's not go there).

Of course, we don't have anywhere near the whole picture and there could be good reasoning behind the building control officer's stance.  But let's hear it.  Don't let him get away with anything less than a solid demonstration that these sprinklers will be necessary to maintain the current standard of safety in the building.

I still think sprinklers are worthwhile to install (in any premises) but the burden of this imposition does seem out of proportion to the risk it is trying to address.

What's his argument?

Stu

[Ashley Wood]

Stu,

reasoning would be a polite description. basically he is quoting chapter and verse from the AD B. He also states that evidence from testing has proven that a person in the second bed would survive a fire if a sprinkler was fitted! I do not think that such a test would have taken into consideration the fact that a smoke detector was fitted in the room. He also believes strongly that sprinklers fitted throughout the building would be a good thing, I cannot disagree with that. I asked if he would permit sprinklers only being fitted to the 4 bedrooms, no, he wants it throughout the entire area including corridors, stairways & other bedrooms. My client could go to appeal but he does not have the time to do this.

[slubberdegullion]

He also believes strongly that sprinklers fitted throughout the building would be a good thing,

This indicates to me that he is bordering on asking for general improvements to the fire safety in the building, and he is not allowed to do that.  

Of course, he can get away with asking for sprinklers throughout because of the guidance in the LPC rules.  Doesn't help you much.  What can you do?

1. Bite the bullet, put sprinklers in and be positive about it.

2. Go to a new bco

3. I think someone suggested the easiest option earlier - put in double beds until the irritating bco has gone away then change them for singles.

The last option you didn't get from me because, of course, changing the beds from double to two singles would be considered a material change and should be subject to a building regulations application!

Stu

[kurnal]

Stu
Sorry to nitpick but here goes

LPC rules dont apply to residential sprinklers- BS9251 is the only guidance I believe

ADB gives an example of a situation whre it may be permissible to use a sprinkler system to cover part of a building to address a specific issue ( 3 storey houses unenclosed staircase at ground floor)

You cant go to a different BCO once one has been initially appointed- their protocols don't allow it- even approved inspectors adhere to this rule

If you can prove to me that changing beds constiutes a material change I will show my "unambiguous fire cue" in the High Street.

[slubberdegullion]

Kurnal, that's a damn good point about 9251.  And Ashley, that may be your 'get out of jail free card'!

Stu

[Chris Houston]

changing the beds from double to two singles would be considered a material change and should be subject to a building regulations application!

Stu

Would it?  I don't know the answer, but it seems unbelievable to me that people need to check with Building Control when they move furniture about.

[Clive]

Does this apply to Bunk beds ?

[PhilB]

changing the beds from double to two singles would be considered a material change and should be subject to a building regulations application!

Stu

Would it?  I don't know the answer, but it seems unbelievable to me that people need to check with Building Control when they move furniture about.

That's not a material change of use or building work but I would pay good money to see Kurnal expose his unambiguous fire cue in the High Street so please prove me wrong Stu!

[slubberdegullion]

Statutory Instrument 2000 No. 2531

The Building Regulations 2000

Part II

"3(2) An alteration is material for the purposes of these regulations if the work, or any part of it, would at any stage result -

(a) in a building or controlled service or fitting not complying with a relevant requirement where previously it did;"

Stu

ps I know I'm on thin ice here, but anything for you Phil

[slubberdegullion]

Just looking at 9251 again and 5.2.3 does say that sprinklers should be fitted to all parts....

[PhilB]

Statutory Instrument 2000 No. 2531

The Building Regulations 2000

Part II

"3(2) An alteration is material for the purposes of these regulations if the work, or any part of it, would at any stage result -

(a) in a building or controlled service or fitting not complying with a relevant requirement where previously it did;"

Stu

ps I know I'm on thin ice here, but anything for you Phil

Thin ice??? you're treading water but I'm all in favour of the Bluff & Persuasion Act of Ninetey Umptty Frew!!!!

Come on Kurnal show us your unambiguous fire cue!

[Chris Houston]

Statutory Instrument 2000 No. 2531

The Building Regulations 2000

Part II

"3(2) An alteration is material for the purposes of these regulations if the work, or any part of it, would at any stage result -

(a) in a building or controlled service or fitting not complying with a relevant requirement where previously it did;"

Stu

ps I know I'm on thin ice here, but anything for you Phil

This isn't my area of expertise........But if the operators of the place, believed that (depiste the building control opinion differing) that as ADB is simply guidance on one way to meeting Building Regs, that therefore that moving about furniture did not cause them to fail to meet the relevent standards, it would therefore follow that they would not be expected to get any approval.......?

[Big T]

Why not accept that you cnnot put single beds in the double room until after BCO signs it off, then once it is replace them with single beds as your clients wishes. Re Fire risk assess the building and make the adjustments you have stated above, fire strategy, compartmentation etc.

[kurnal]

Phil B
I am not sure that you are yet able to cope with the sight of something of such wondrous beauty. Anyway i aint convinced- and neither are you.