FRA's for Nurseries (infants)

[MC]

Hello all

We have been tasked to carry a FRA at a local nursery / day care centre, what we are wondering is will this propertie fall under the guidelines laid out in BB100 ( Design and managing against the risk of fire in schools). Or is there another type specific guideline document that we need to be aware of.

Kindest Regards

MC

[redbadge]

BB100 does relate to Nursery  Schools, I guess it depends on whether it's state or privately owned???

[kurnal]

Probably stating the obvious- if so sorry-  but I assume you have considered the RRO guide for educational premises.
The BB guides are very specific to schools,  and actually nurseries / day care centres often borrow or take over existing buildings so much of the specific guidance in BB100 / BB7 may not be relevant.

You may wish to look at the protocols agreed between the enforcement agencies- prior to the RRO  OFSTED had agreements with most fire brigades with a prescriptive agreed set of standards, not relevant to your risk assessment I know but may be useful background info- in addition to smoke alarms and extinguishers, telephone and emergency plans, levels of supervision it also had some agreement on security versus means of escape.  OFSTED or the local brigade may help on this- they may have all bitten the dust post RRO.

[jokar]

You also have to consider the evacuation plan very carefully.  Where do you put babes in amrs and toddlers, certainly not on the street.

[Tom Sutton]

MC I can send you the OFSTED CACFOA protocol for day care premises however it is pre FSO and now needs revising but all you would need to do is substitute FSO for Workplace Regs.

The way I interpret the guidance is as Kurnal says apply the appropriate DCLG guides.

[Martin]

The Education Act 2002 defines schools and nursery schools

(a)a community, foundation or voluntary school or a community or foundation special school,
(b)a maintained nursery school,
(c)a city technology college,
(d)a city college for the technology of the arts, or
(e)an Academy;
 

Nursery education is defined as involving 3 to 4 years old. So if your nursery only caters for this group and is by definition a school then BB100 may be relevant. If this is childrens day care prior to joining 4 year old provision in a school environment then bb100 won't be relevant.  However most children's day care will extend from leaving nappies to joinng school as a reception pupil at term after 5th b'day.

Are we in danger of confusing the application of standards for risk asessment? There are sections in BB100 for instance relating to fire risk from cloakrooms based on history of smoking caused fires which are at first sight are totally presrciptive but in my opinion can be adapted for an infant school in light (pun fully intended) of their limited/non=existent smoking by pupils.

[TickityBoo]

Many day nurseries are converted (sometimes extended) 2 storey buildings which were originally domestic.  Consequently, some of them do not have fire resisting or even nominal fr doors off the stairs, let alone self closers.  Clearly, any escape stair serving the upper floor should be a protected stair but with little kids around, trapped fingers in heavy fr self closing doors is a real risk. 

If justified in the risk assessment, is it reasonable to remove/omit self closers due to this risk of injury to infants if additional measures are put in place, such as full AFD coverage and documented staff training re manual closing of doors.  I am sympathetic to this approach and, after all, considering the nature of the occupancy is an important part of the risk assessment process.  The reality is that self closing doors are therefore normally wedged open to prevent accidents.  Another option would be to consider swing free self closers but these are expensive for small nursery businesses.

And what about non fr doors? I have issues with that as hollow doors are quite common now in domestic buildings and offer little protection, but others may disagree if it can be shown by drills that evacuation is rapid.  My only worry is that many of these premises have only 1 escape stair.  Interested to hear opinions.

[TFEM]

There are now "finger protection strips" on all the school doors I encounter nowadays.
Not quite sure what the technical name for them is but they prevent little fingers getting trapped in the door and do not interfere with any closing device.
John

[Tom W]

Agree with the above, the strips can be fitted for about £15 a door so no excuse for not having S/C 

[nearlythere]

Something to bear in mind is that when you attach the protective strips there can be an increase in resistance to the door closing fully overriding the latch and the SC device can need tweaking.

[tmprojects]

I don't know of any fee paying nursery that doesn't cater for children up to school reception age (4 yr). so nearly all would be a nursery school.

BB100 states;

This guidance on fire safety design covers all schools maintained by Local Educational
Authorities (LEAs) in England and Wales: that is nursery schools, primary and secondary
schools, boarding schools, community, community special and voluntary schools as well as
pupil referral units. It also provides useful advice for the design of independent schools.

having said this can anyone tell me why there is a distinction in the BB100 between LA run premises and independent schools?

Although the RP guide for Educational Premises does identify them;

This guide is intended for premises where the main use of the building or part of
the building is an educational premises. These include schools, colleges, universities,
Sunday schools, academies, crèches, adult education centres, after-school clubs,
outdoor education centres and music schools.

[tmprojects]

In most modern premises all doors are self closing fire doors, this is usually for property protection. but some are to protect means of escape. it is important to know which is which.

In no circumstances is it acceptable to wedge, or remove the self closer, from a fire door that is installed to protect a 'protected route'. particularly in a childcare premises.

if catching fingers is a risk then install the safety strips. you don't solve one risk by creating another.

You have to consider the occupancy! Even with early detection you may need to escort children along a (no longer protected) corridor past the room the fire is in. How do you think they would they behave if they where aware of the fire!

My point is reinforced by your last comment. Single stair protected route! only way out! and your happy for them to wedge the fire-doors so the little blighters don't catch there fingers.... Really!!!

[TickityBoo]

Thanks for the responses. Tmprojects, I don't think we've been introduced. I appreciate the points you make, if not the manner in which you make them. If you reread my post you will see that I said I sympathized with the problem of trapped fingers and can understand why self closers are sometimes removed or doors wedged open. I didn't say I was happy to remove self closers. And the strips  will not stop fingers getting trapped at the handle side of the door leaf which is forced closed by the self closer. Sometimes you have to adapt to the occupancy eg. Redlam bolts in dementia wards etc due to the greater risk from non fire related hazards. The consensus here is obviously that the risk of trapped fingers is not serious enough to outweigh the risk from fire. That doesn't mean its not worth consideration.

With regard to passing the fire, you do know that the English guide for educational premises suggests afd is an acceptable alternative to passive measures in dead end conditions.  At least the alarm is raised.

Finally, my point re. wedging doors was not an endorsement of bad practice but a recognition of what happens in the real world. Really!

[colin todd]

Tickity, my only wonder is that, since you live in Morningside, you have even come across nasty cheap hollow core doors.  I bet those in your house are worth as much as a house in the Leith colonies!

[tmprojects]

TB,

Having re-read your post and my reply. I should appologise, i do seem to have come across as a bit of an arse. Sorry.

and, nice to meet you too.

having said that, i would like to re-inforce my point (hopefully in a better way!!).
1. The CLG guide is, to be honest, a bit cut-and-paste.
2. No new build childcare premises, i have knowledge of, has provided anything less than 2 Means of Escape from all classrooms (important to make this distinction).
3. Of any old school building, or conversion, that has sought to comply with the Fire Safety Order(FSO) that has increased their detection. i don't know of any that have used this to justify the elimination of a protected route. (i expect to be shot down here)
4. Without wanting to go all Archimedies...  a kids fingers in the hinge side could easily be broken, crushed or dismembered by the closing force of  self closing fire door, hence the provision of hinge protectors, now standard H&S control measure. This wouldn't be the case at the handle side (unless adjusted very badly).
5. if you identified in your FRA the need to hold open a fire door for business or safety purposes then you should recommend holding the door open with a BS EN 1155 recognised holding open device.

Of course the risk of trapped fingers requires assessment of the hazard and associated risks. and will require control measures. but those measures should not compromise measures put in place to reduce the hazards of another risk. what i mean is... you can't say...Oh alright wedge your fire doors so the kids dont trap their fingers.

To summerise my view.... and in direct answer to your question.

I do not think you could justify in a FRA the wedging of, or removal of a self closer from, a fire door that serves a protected route. specifically if it serves a dead-end. if you wished to hold open a fire door to a protected route then i recommend applying a holder prescribed within BS EN 1155.