LACORS Guidance

[val]

Kurnal & BigT - Thank you both v much.  That's the approach we intend to take and it's good to hear that this new doc has little relevance.  Incidentally, it's a really badly written guide IMO.  Right, back to work!  Thanks again..........

Must have been written by a Senior Fire Safety Officer. An Inspecting Officer would have been more appropriate.
If the guide is considered stupid by those who have to make sense of it then it must be considered a complete waste of taxpayer's money and the balloon who scribed it sacked.
Forgot.  This is local government we are talking about. Squandering taxpayer's money is the norm and nobody is ever held to account.

My my!

So that long consultation that took place with over 200 resposes, nearly all of which were accomodated, passed you by! It was actually written by a very, very experienced Housing Officer with support from a whole range of stakeholders including the biggest landlord representative group, the National HMO Network, CFOA and the CIEH. Multiple balloons!

It was not funded directly out of taxpayers money, (although indirectly, everything is). Much of the outlay will be re-couped through sales.
Please read the guide carefully as it tries to address a whole range of conflicting advice/enforcement options in difficult premises. It takes a pragmatic approach to existing premises. It could have gold plated everything and turned half a million socially needy tenants out on the street. That would have been good.
If you like, I'll make sure that you are invited to sit on the next steering group so we can all benefit from your charming considered opinions!

[kurnal]

Val
no doubt that much effort and discussion went into producing the document but where a new guide such as this is produced and includes such departures from accepted good practice- such as the recommendation to omit smoke seals from doors to rooms to ensure the smoke detectors in the corridors go off sooner, and no justification or research is given to justify this approach, then credibility is bound to be questioned.

[nearlythere]

Kurnal & BigT - Thank you both v much.  That's the approach we intend to take and it's good to hear that this new doc has little relevance.  Incidentally, it's a really badly written guide IMO.  Right, back to work!  Thanks again..........

Must have been written by a Senior Fire Safety Officer. An Inspecting Officer would have been more appropriate.
If the guide is considered stupid by those who have to make sense of it then it must be considered a complete waste of taxpayer's money and the balloon who scribed it sacked.
Forgot.  This is local government we are talking about. Squandering taxpayer's money is the norm and nobody is ever held to account.

My my!

So that long consultation that took place with over 200 resposes, nearly all of which were accomodated, passed you by! It was actually written by a very, very experienced Housing Officer with support from a whole range of stakeholders including the biggest landlord representative group, the National HMO Network, CFOA and the CIEH. Multiple balloons!

It was not funded directly out of taxpayers money, (although indirectly, everything is). Much of the outlay will be re-couped through sales.
Please read the guide carefully as it tries to address a whole range of conflicting advice/enforcement options in difficult premises. It takes a pragmatic approach to existing premises. It could have gold plated everything and turned half a million socially needy tenants out on the street. That would have been good.
If you like, I'll make sure that you are invited to sit on the next steering group so we can all benefit from your charming considered opinions!

With absolute respect to you Val I am extremely pleased to hear from someone who seems to have been involved in or is in support of the drafting of national guidelines on Fire Safety. What a pity that more like you could not join our discussions more often.
The Housing Officer? Experienced in what Val? Housing? Can you have the experienced housing officer explain the rational behind that part of the document I immediately picked up on at the eary stages - inner rooms?
I have not read the rest of the guidance carefully as I am still trying to make something of the horse and cow hotel document. Remember? Maybe you know who wrote it also?
I'm also sure that many others on this forum have a specific query on this document also. So if you hang about a little you should hear from them soon.
Are you honestly telling me that at a round the table meeting the landlord representative group, the National HMO Network, CFOA and the CIEH scrutinised these guidelines to the full and to a man voted it through as a policy document? Are you honestly telling me that Val?

I can just visualise the support given to the Very Experienced Housing Officer, who I have no doubt is a member of the salt of the earth society, by the bodies you referred to.
"We are too busy. You write it and we will sign it off."

I would love to sit on the next steering committee Val but you know what? My contribution from 15 years in a Fire & Rescue Service Fire Safety Department would be far too sensible. Much better to leave it to experienced people.

[val]

Nearly There

Yes, those groups really did scrutinise the document on a number of occasions, Experienced fire officers from London, Notts, South Wales and Manchester did work extensively on the document.

The author knows more about real HMOs and the real problems caused by prescription than I, (or maybe even you), will ever know. Your description is rude and tasteless and has no place on this forum.

Your approach reminds me of those people in Moreton who used to wet themselves because they had found some exotic contradiction in CP3 or BS 5588.

As for the guide having no status...try telling that to the RPT or Magistrates Court next time you stand before them.

[PhilB]

a fire-resisting door of an appropriate standard is fitted between the inner and outer rooms (typically
FD30S standard for non-high-risk outer rooms). Why???.

Nearly There
Yes, those groups really did scrutinise the document on a number of occasions, Experienced fire officers from London, Notts, South Wales and Manchester did work extensively on the document.
The author knows more about real HMOs and the real problems caused by prescription than I, (or maybe even you), will ever know. Your description is rude and tasteless and has no place on this forum.
Your approach reminds me of those people in Moreton who used to wet themselves because they had found some exotic contradiction in CP3 or BS 5588..

Val I appreciate that you feel annoyed but I do think Nearlythere and Kurnal make valid points. It does seem strange that some areas of confusion were not identified in the extensive consultation procedure. Perhaps that procedure needs improving.

Can you answer the question Nearlythere posed regarding the fire door between an inner room and access room?

Having personally worked in two of the brigades that supplied the experienced fire officers who worked on the document it does not surprise me that some glaring errors are included.

Whilst the author may know more than most about real HMOs and problems with precriptive fire safety, the guide does appear to have too many flaws.

...... & I have also worked at Moreton but I rarely wet myself, well not that often as far as I recall.

[kurnal]

Hi Val
Personally I am accustomed to finding my nether regions rather damp from time to time.

So sorry now I have admitted this please who if anybody can shed some light on some of the logic behind these clauses? I am not hostile - just interested to learn? Especially the smoke seals query and where this idea came from?

Or is it another of those cases in which people take credit for the producton of the document but nobody will discuss or take responsibility to explain  any of the detail - like the table in the sleeping guide where the guidance quotes and then re-writes the definition of LD3 in BS5839? Was it intentional or was it a cut and paste error? Nobody will tell me- but  I am having the RRO guidance quoted by enforcement officers on a regular basis as over riding BS5839?

[nearlythere]

Nearly There

Yes, those groups really did scrutinise the document on a number of occasions, Experienced fire officers from London, Notts, South Wales and Manchester did work extensively on the document.

The author knows more about real HMOs and the real problems caused by prescription than I, (or maybe even you), will ever know. Your description is rude and tasteless and has no place on this forum.

Your approach reminds me of those people in Moreton who used to wet themselves because they had found some exotic contradiction in CP3 or BS 5588.

As for the guide having no status...try telling that to the RPT or Magistrates Court next time you stand before them.

Val. Again with respect, I would find it much easier to explain to a magistrate how the the guide has no credibility than explain to a barrister the benefits of having a fire door between an access and an inner room.
Are you honestly saying that experienced fire officers from London, Notts, South Wales and Manchester did work extensively on the document? What were they experienced in? It certainly wasn't Fire Safety.

[johno67]

As a late contributor to this full blooded debate, I would like to mention the following points:

I have come across the no smoke seals theory before in relation to dwellings. The thinking being that if you have detection in the escape routes only, then you would want some smoke to enter these escape routes at an early stage of the fire (hence no smoke seals) in order to set the detection off. The alternative would be having a severe fire that would only be discovered when it violently forced its way out through some other route (door, ceiling etc) cutting off the escape of the occupants. If you adopt this approach I think the detection in escape routes only then no smoke seals would make sense. If there is smoke detection in the rooms as well then the smoke seals would provide extra protection. I realise it is a perverse incentive but I can see the thinking behind it.

With the inner rooms - if a bedroom, for example, has 2 doors leading from it with each door leading into a seperate lounge then is it still an inner room. I would say it probably was, as an inner room is a room which you access through another room, which would be the case here. You access the inner room through lounge 1 (access room 1) or through lounge 2 (access room 2). I have come across this before where a 2 houses have been linked to form 1 HiMO. Again in this situation maybe the fire doors would make sense.

Only a thought!

[PhilB]

With the inner rooms - if a bedroom, for example, has 2 doors leading from it with each door leading into a seperate lounge then is it still an inner room.

John,
In my humble opinion an inner room is only an inner room if the only escape route is through an inner room. If the escape route is via one , two or many access rooms the room is not an inner room.

[johno67]

Phil,

If the bedroom had 2 doors, one leading to lounge 1 and the other leading to lounge 2, and lounges 1 and 2 are also connected by a single door, would you not consider this to be an inner room?

If not, would it be an inner room if the non FR door between the 2 lounges was left open; or
If the door between the 2 lounges was removed?

[val]

There was lots of discussion on how to make certain undesirable, though common, interior layouts more safe. None of the options were very attractive. Where the (generally) sleeping accommodation has to exit through risk rooms such as kitchens or lounges, the options considered were window exits, detection and 'buying a bit more time'. I know the presence of a window exit makes the inner room technically not an inner room. The FR door does buy more time and you could argue that it effectively relies on some other party coming to rescue the occupant but it is not a perfect world. Much of the guide is based on early, reliable AFD which is designed not to generate too many false alarms and therefore may actually be left working.

Similar principles were adopted for back to back terraces where the stairs come down, typically, between the lounge and kitchen. They could never be made properly safe in the traditional sense but there are tens of thousands of them and they make cheap accommodation. Recommendations of separating the base of the stairs with FR to give true alternatives looks feasible on paper but in practise these doors would be wedged open as it is the main thoroughfare between kitchen and lounge.

Johno67 has perfectly given the rationale behind the ommision of smoke seals.

Other areas you might like to consider for discussion are;

Substantial construction rather than 30 mins FR
Acceptance of solid doors rather than fire doors
Limited FR between basements and ground floor
Use of escape routes via adjoining premises or roofs
FR to protect external escapes (not always possible)
Provision of fire fighting equipment
No E/L in familiar low risk premises
No pictures of cows!

[PhilB]

Phil,

If the bedroom had 2 doors, one leading to lounge 1 and the other leading to lounge 2, and lounges 1 and 2 are also connected by a single door, would you not consider this to be an inner room?

If not, would it be an inner room if the non FR door between the 2 lounges was left open; or
If the door between the 2 lounges was removed?

Answer to question 1, no.

Answer to question 2 If the door is open they would still be two rooms but yes they would act as one room.


If the door is removed, yest it would be like one room. Do you really think the authors were trying to cater for this rather wierd scenario?

But the questionremains, what good would a fire door be between the inner room and the access room(s).

[PhilB]

There was lots of discussion on how to make certain undesirable, though common, interior layouts more safe. None of the options were very attractive. Where the (generally) sleeping accommodation has to exit through risk rooms such as kitchens or lounges, the options considered were window exits, detection and 'buying a bit more time'. I know the presence of a window exit makes the inner room technically not an inner room. The FR door does buy more time and you could argue that it effectively relies on some other party coming to rescue the occupant but it is not a perfect world. Much of the guide is based on early, reliable AFD which is designed not to generate too many false alarms and therefore may actually be left working.

I see so the fire door is to hold back the fire while the person awaits rescue by ladder, who came up with that cracker?, it's better than the pictures of the cows!

[johno67]

Answer to question 1, no.

Answer to question 2 If the door is open they would still be two rooms but yes they would act as one room.


If the door is removed, yest it would be like one room.

Agreed

Do you really think the authors were trying to cater for this rather wierd scenario?

Probably not, but the debate does seem unbalanced. The people who write this type of guidance will always come up with the best options they see fit at that time. It seemed like a pack was forming with poor Val being lined up as the target. I wish more people would try to look at why a particular item has been included instead of scoring easy points rubbishing it, often at the expense of others.

But the question remains, what good would a fire door be between the inner room and the access room(s).

Again I'm not sure but I am sure this would be the best fit solution for the problem they were looking at at the time.

[val]

Thanks Johno67

My shoulders, like the rest of me, are fairly broad.

PhilB

Have you any suggestions to the issues we struggled with other than forcing landlords to re-arrange tens of thousands of premises?