Church Hall FRA

[paul21]

I have been asked to carry out upgrade works to a church hall which at present has an old manual sytem but no control panel, just sounders and manual call points. The FRA has recommended the addition of one smoke detector within the lobby area which has the mains room, boiler room and kitchen opening onto it. The FRA requests that this is connected to the existing system. Given that a panel would be required for the said detector I have advised that the existing system needs replacing to add it to the new panel and this makes the cost of one detector very high and I have suggested fitting a system to L2 as we would be cabling the whole building anyhow. I can think of ways of connecting the existing as is to the new panel and making it work but do not see that it would comply. Would appreciate any advice before I rule out all the other options.

[PhilB]

totally OTT in my humble opinion, but a good money spinner!!!

[Clevelandfire]

My reply would be a little more tactful than the previous posters comment but "compliance" shouldn't be an issue if the premises are properly risk assessed. A Category L5 system is in effect what has been specified by the FRA.  BS 5839 is only a guide and is not law.

I feel your sentiments aren't to try and get more money out of your client but simply to ensure that they are compliant which is perfectly understandable. In all honesty I wouldn't be too worried with what they have suggested with their FRA. One question though, why do you need a panel in this situation?

Part 6 systems dont always get specified with panels although I appreciate you might not be fitting a part 6 system. Why would you need to wire the place out?

[paul21]

My reply would be a little more tactful than the previous posters comment but "compliance" shouldn't be an issue if the premises are properly risk assessed. A Category L5 system is in effect what has been specified by the FRA.  BS 5839 is only a guide and is not law.

I feel your sentiments aren't to try and get more money out of your client but simply to ensure that they are compliant which is perfectly understandable. In all honesty I wouldn't be too worried with what they have suggested with their FRA. One question though, why do you need a panel in this situation?

Part 6 systems dont always get specified with panels although I appreciate you might not be fitting a part 6 system. Why would you need to wire the place out?

Firstly thanks for the reply, You are correct with your views on my sentiments, as it is not a part 6 system then how would a detector link to the existing manual installation and comply with BS5839?

[AnthonyB]

Sounds like an old 240V system if it is manual & you can't find a battery box and it's not a part 6 system, in which case it has to come out regardless of how many detectors you need- not a BS matter, but a statutory one.

You can jerry-rig the two together (see another of my threads) but I wouldn't advise it, it's not the competent thing to do really.

You could in theory use a Part 6 system for economy (mainly as you don't always need fire resistant cable) and they don't have 'panels' as such, but a   silence & reset switch, sometimes integrated into a 'master' call point, but consultation with the FRA assessor would be advised. It may be the robustness of a Part 1 system & all it's trappings is indicated, in which case a twinwire system should reduce the cost.

[Chris Houston]

A safety warning system with no battery back up is illegal under the signs and signals regs.

[Clevelandfire]

My point exactly. No battery back up is illegal now.... so why not install a part 6 , part 1 would seem too onerous here

[PhilB]

My reply would be a little more tactful than the previous posters comment but "compliance" shouldn't be an issue if the premises are properly risk assessed. A Category L5 system is in effect what has been specified by the FRA.  BS 5839 is only a guide and is not law.

I feel your sentiments aren't to try and get more money out of your client but simply to ensure that they are compliant which is perfectly understandable. In all honesty I wouldn't be too worried with what they have suggested with their FRA. One question though, why do you need a panel in this situation?

Part 6 systems dont always get specified with panels although I appreciate you might not be fitting a part 6 system. Why would you need to wire the place out?

Why do you want a panel, and why do you want detection in this situation, that is the point I was trying to make and no-one has answered that question!!!!

[Midland Retty]

Panel not required

AFD would only serve as an element of building protection in my opinion

[jokar]

Hold on, are we saying that a Part 6 system is acceptable in a non dwelling premises. I understand the implications but as far as the BSI are concerned and the author of that document, Part 6 is applicable to dwellings only.  As this is a commercial premises then surely a Part 1 system is the only acceptable one.

[John Webb]

In my opinion (and without seeing the FRA) a Part 1, L5 system should be adequate. I assume the object of the exercise is to protect the lobby (an escape route) from an incident in one of the three rooms.
But if the mains (intake I presume) room, the boiler room and the kitchen are separated from the lobby by 30min doors, it's not going to be easy for smoke to escape into the lobby from any of these rooms in sufficient quantity to raise an alarm in the early stages of the fire. Further more, if external doors are left open there is the potential for false alarms to be generated from wind affecting the detector in the lobby. If the place has to be rewired to a new panal I would be inclined to put the smoke detector in the mains intake room and a heat detector in the boiler room and the kitchen. These would probably give a quicker alarm of anything untoward in each area than one smoke detector in the lobby and also minimise the potential for false alarms.

Knowing only too well how such rooms, despite advice to the contrary, get used for miscellaneous storage detection in the rooms is a better option to cope with a fire arising from improper storage. (I've come across no less than three examples of petrol-driven lawn-mowers stored in boilerhouses in the last few years!)

The present system may well be battery-driven - I'd look in the mains intake room to see if there is charger/battery box tucked away.

And did the FRA include reference to installing beacons in consideration of the DDA requirements?

If the hall is used regularly by a playgroup, OFSTED require a part 1 FA system to be present. In my own church hall the local F&RS who inspected the premises for OFSTED first asked for an upgrade of the installed system to L1, but I was able to argue that an L5, with detection in storage areas and the kitchen to protect escape routes, was more sensible.

[Galeon]

The saying you cant have your cake at eat it , is always relevant. We reached the moon (allegedley) in 1969 , and all the technical advances since , and yet we have old  systems still in place. Its all about the Yankee dollar , there is no excuse to have such antiquated equipment around in the first place.

Who would want to stay in a hotel etc with a system like this.

To much time is spent in trying to circumnavigate around problems like this .

I would advise your client in the best way forward to help him in the future years ,he has to bite the bullet sooner or later.
Give him the options and let him make the decision.

As we know its getting like America , and as soon as the Public is involved and anything happens , you will get an ambulance chaser on the case.

By default your advice will be seen as a money making scheme.

You wont see an old vehicle in London soon under the emission scheme , and there nothing being contested , so why on earth should the trade pander to or worry about
systems that should be on the scrap heap long ago.

You will either get the job , or you wont , don't waste to much oxygen or wear your Biro out .

[Tom Sutton]

If there is a satisfactory passive alternative means of escape then why is AFD being asked for as part of the FRA? I could understand it in a sleeping risk but would not the manual call point system be adequate.

[Midland Retty]

Who would want to stay in a hotel etc with a system like this.

Hmmm true but the Church isn't a sleeping risk (unless you count the chickens used for underfloor heating)

As PhilB and TW point out, what is the AFD actually protecting? Why is a manual alarm system unacceptable?

In my opinion all that AFD would do is protect the building, it certainly wouldn't be of much benefit for life safety.

The inner room condition which John S Webb points out may only holds true if the lobby is of a certain size and you class it as being an access room, and even then there are more cost effective ways of dealing with inner room conditions.

[Galeon]

My point in general , is the age of  the equipment and its ability to perform , not the specific risk , whether manual or auto system .