Bedroom inner room??

[messy]

I have recently become aware of a situation in a Hotel annexe which bothers me.

The building is detached from the main block and was formerly a terrace of 4 houses. Upstairs is now open plan office space - admin for the Hotel - with plenty of MOE which create no problem.

Downstairs, the former ground floor of the houses are now four one bedroom suites, complete with a lounge bathroom and bedroom (kettle only no cooking).

The Hotel's RP have had risk assessment completed which has recommended that a secondary MOE be created from each bedroom as the bedrooms are accessed via the lounge, thereby making them inner rooms.

So the RP is now faced with installing four sets of french doors from the bedroom onto a grass area, with will cause some significant security issues in these remote suites

As an IO, I won't argue with the FRA significant findings and I accept that ADB does mention avoiding bedroom inner rooms. But I do reckon it's overkill and un-necessary.

Control measures include SD in the lounge (access room) and bedroom. The TD from bedroom to Final exit (ie outside) is about 4m.

Over provision or necessary - what do you think?

[kurnal]

The suites as described would appear to comply with the National guidance document for sleeping accommodation  page 73 which suggests that bedrooms may be inner rooms  provided there is a smoke detector in the access room.

Do I agree with it- well thats a different matter.

[Mr. P]

I understood that with 'inner room' situations you had choices - 1, vision panel in wall/door of inner room so you can see any develloping risk, or, 2, detection in access room with decibels level in inner room meeting requirements.  4m td! current explained set seems adequate, minimise ignition and fuel sources...

[Dragonmaster]

In this case, who will be using the units? If it is for guests, then you cannot guarantee the abilities of persons to respond immediately to the alarm (hearing impared, elderly etc). If the units are for staff, then perhaps window escape may be available (although not normally considered), as the RP can risk assess the abilities of the staff to evacuate without passing into the access room.

Also, should you consider that the access room is a higher fire risk to the bedroom (tv's, stereos, kettles etc etc - especially if for staff) in which case an alternative may be necessary. I know the guide talks about the access room not being of 'high fire risk' but unfortunately this is not defined in the guide. Is it meant to be those defined in ADB, or are they thinking of simply a higher risk than the bedroom?

[nearlythere]

I understood that with 'inner room' situations you had choices - 1, vision panel in wall/door of inner room so you can see any develloping risk, or, 2, detection in access room with decibels level in inner room meeting requirements.  4m td! current explained set seems adequate, minimise ignition and fuel sources...

The VP is not relevant to an inner sleeping room for obvious reasons.

A room of high fire risk is a kitchen, boiler room, room containing an internal combustion engine in fact any room where because of its use and contents there is a higher than normal risk of a fire starting and developing.

[davio1960]

Whilst the CLOG guides indicate they may all be considered rooms of high risk would you not consider this to be against the common practice i.e as indicated in ADB, places of special fire risk as per a boiler room.
In the case of fast food joints, using the fire safety guides  they would all then have to enclose the open kitchens and we would not have the same "ambience" when we are hungry...even if its a high street burger bar with kids... and dodgy sticky seats.... and ketchuped tables.... and straws that collapse in milk shakes!
Regards

[slubberdegullion]

I think Dragonmaster might have it here.  My mum and dad are not the fastest movers in the world.  I know that I myself take about ten minutes to rise when the alarm goes off in my hotel room - it's happened a few times.  My mum and dad would take at least twice that long.  Now what would have been going on in the access room in the mean time if the fire started there?  What are the chances of them making it 4m across this access room?  What would be my chances after 10 minutes?

But then, we're on the ground floor here.  What if the windows meet the standards of ADB for window escape for dwellings?  Window escape (even from the first floor!) is considered acceptable for every house in the land so why not from a hotel bedroom on the ground floor?  I've seen window escapes installed from first floor inner bedrooms in very sheltered accommodation for the elderly - and been unable to do anything about it because of what is acceptable by the book.

I think, on balance, whether for staff or guests, I'd accept window escapes - conforming to ADB recommendations - provided there was a fire door between the access room and the inner bedroom.  Complete AFD should go without saying.  And there would have to be clear and conspicuous signage and every assistance offered to help people use the window escapes.  

But if the existing windows cannot conform to ADB standards then it might be almost as cheap to put in doors as to replace the windows.

Stu

[slubberdegullion]

You know I talked of a fire door between the bedroom and the access room up there^^^^:  

What if it wasn't a fire door?  What if it was left open?  What if there wasn't even a door there?  What if there wasn't even a wall there to put the door in?

With only 4m t.d. in the access room it can't be a huge distance from the furthest point in the bedroom to the exit from the suite.

Why is the situation with an inner bedroom worse than if we had the same suite but with no internal walls? (Except for the toilet! Pur-lease!)  Why does the partitioned layout warrant an alternative when the open layout doesn't?

It can't be because visibility is reduced by the partitioning - the occupants are asleep a good deal of the time!  (And, frankly, they're not at their most vigilant then.)  They've got smoke detection to wake them in case of fire.

I don't know.....  If anyone from Arup's here, they should be up for an argument on this matter.  Phil, what about you?  Are you on holiday?

Stu

[messy]

Thanks for your replies.

The suite is for members of the public and has a fire door between the lounge and bedroom area.

It is ironic that if there wasn't a fire door, the bedroom wouldn't be an inner room and this 'problem' would'nt have arisen, although it could be argued that an open plan layout presents a higher risk. As it is, in the event of fire, with the fire door closed door, the punters may have time to exit via the windows and thereby are safer than if it were one room.

I reckon we, the FS community, tend to get our knickers in a twist far too often about inner rooms (and inner inner rooms), and resort to hugging presciptive codes rather than looking at/assessing the whole picture holistically

This is certainly the situation here as I am aware that the already low windows do open quite widely (although I have not measured them to see if they are ADB compliant) and it would not be a problem for all but the very elderly/non ambulant to escape via this route.

Being a mere IO, it's difficult when asked advice by a RP about such issues as I feel albeit  the risk assessor's method is the best way, it's over the top for such a small undertaking and ignores the 'where necessary' approach that I prefer.

[slubberdegullion]

I'm with you, messy.  And I wouldn't worry too much about the odd centimeter here or there when measuring the window openings.

Stu

[nearlythere]

Thanks for your replies.

The suite is for members of the public and has a fire door between the lounge and bedroom area.

It is ironic that if there wasn't a fire door, the bedroom wouldn't be an inner room and this 'problem' would'nt have arisen, although it could be argued that an open plan layout presents a higher risk. As it is, in the event of fire, with the fire door closed door, the punters may have time to exit via the windows and thereby are safer than if it were one room.

I reckon we, the FS community, tend to get our knickers in a twist far too often about inner rooms (and inner inner rooms), and resort to hugging presciptive codes rather than looking at/assessing the whole picture holistically

This is certainly the situation here as I am aware that the already low windows do open quite widely (although I have not measured them to see if they are ADB compliant) and it would not be a problem for all but the very elderly/non ambulant to escape via this route.

Being a mere IO, it's difficult when asked advice by a RP about such issues as I feel albeit  the risk assessor's method is the best way, it's over the top for such a small undertaking and ignores the 'where necessary' approach that I prefer.

I don't think that you can escape the definition of an inner room by removing the door. All you are actually doing is providing a very large vision panel which takes up the space of a door. It is still an inner room condition and I think that it if come to a legal ruling you would lose.

[CivvyFSO]

In my opinion the inner room situation is much worse that the same room set out as open plan...

The main reason is that  there is a huge difference between waking up to a fire in your room, and waking up because a fire alarm is sounding. Hotel residents rarely move until they get a knock on the door, or until the alarm has already been sounding for a long time. Give them a fire they can smell/see and it's a different story.

[Ken Taylor]

The situation seems reasonable to me on a risk-assessment basis, Messy. You could consider adding a stobe light to a sounder within the inner room - that should get their attention.

[PhilB]

doesn't scare me...and you all know that I scare easily!!

[slubberdegullion]

doesn't scare me...and you all know that I scare easily!!

Boo!