LACORS Guidance

[kurnal]

Thanks Johno and Val for your explanations.

Personally I am unable to come to terms with paragraph 21.3. I thank Johno for your your explanation of the logic but it still does not rest easily with me. This clause did not appear in the draft consultation version of the guidance- it appeared only in the final version and so I  wonder if it was fully debated;.

If smoke in escape routes is the most serious threat to safe escape and being exposed to smoke or combustion products is the most common cause of death from a fire then any measures recommended in official guidance should address these hazards. Rather than recommend the omission of seals in order to deliberately promote the passage of smoke  into an escape route (which also contradicts the principles of prevention) then the guidance should have addressed the issue by recommending LD2 coverage in three storey or taller  premises with a single staircase. The cost / benefit analysis of LD2 in these circumstances will stand up to any scrutiny.

As the guidance is written I agree that with a single staircase and an LD3 system smoke seals will delay the operation of an LD3 system,  but by omitting them although the time to detection will be shorter the tenability of the escape route is likley to be seriously  degraded and the route available for a much shorter time.

The worst case could be from a smouldering fire in the room, the smoke passing through the gap between the door leaf and frame would be cool and possibly lack the bouyancy to reach the ceiling in the hallway and operate the detectors.

That why I feel this recommendation is flawed.

[black arts]

"re-arrange tens of thousands of premises" or save lives?

The choice is yours

[PhilB]

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?

Sorry Val I was being flippant, I apologise and I do appreciate that you are trying to make the best of a bad situation.

 I don't suggest landlords should rearrange lots of premises, unless the risk assessment deems that there is no other way.

However I was trying to make a serious point, I dont think a fire door between an inner room used for sleeping and a risk room would help the sleeper, particularly as the door according to the guide should be without smoke seals. and if landlords went out and purchased and fitted such doors as the guide appera to recommend, it could cost thousands of pounds and achieve very little.

[nearlythere]

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?

Sorry Val I was being flippant, I apologise and I do appreciate that you are trying to make the best of a bad situation.

 I don't suggest landlords should rearrange lots of premises, unless the risk assessment deems that there is no other way.

However I was trying to make a serious point, I dont think a fire door between an inner room used for sleeping and a risk room would help the sleeper, particularly as the door according to the guide should be without smoke seals. and if landlords went out and purchased and fitted such doors as recommendation, it could cost thousands of pounds and achieve very little.

Am I being a little picky by asking why no mention of the standard of the wall or partition the door is in?

[jokar]

Many years ago now, the defunct GLC had a nice orange guide that covered most if not all premises.  It seems now that we have to have a different guide for each type but within them we lose the basic principles of fire safety.  We know that we should have greater protection for sleeping risk premises and for all of us, nearlythere's post above is a valid question that needs an answer.  What would be the point in a BS 476 door set put in a non fr partition?

Having sat on a few BSI and other comiittees, I understand some of the problems as they go on a consensual basis and the srongest voice often wins out.  I think that the old HMO guide with the correction on some of its diagrams was as good as the LACORS one.

[johno67]

Although I agree with all of the sentiments expressed on bringing HMO's up to the standard, that as Fire Safety Professionals, we would want them to be, I fear that in practice this will be far from easy to achieve.

Lets face it, if landlords are forced into a position whereby they are going to have to spend significant amounts of money on bringing sub-standard accomodation up to scratch then many will not do so, or will withdraw the service they provide. If enforcing authorities are comitted to inspecting these premises and issuing prohibition notices or enforcement notices then many HMO's will be forced to close.

The result in both cases will be many more of the most vulnerable people in society on the streets, and I'm sure that's not what any of us want, wherever we view it from, and something that our paymaster will not accept under any circumstances.

"re-arrange tens of thousands of premises" or save lives?

The choice is yours

Who is that aimed at? Do we insist on and enforce the absolute standards and turf 100's maybe 1000's of people onto the streets, or do we work with what we have and try to make the best of a bad situation? I know as a F&RS employee I would want the latter of those choices.

And why have HMO's suddenly come to the fore as such a high risk. I know that when we looked into this as a brigade not so long back, we found very little evidence of fires causing deaths or serious injuries outside of the room/flat of origin. Historically we viewed them as such a problem as every flat fire that was attended by a brigade would be recorded on the FDR1 data as a fire in a same use, multi-occupied building. The Small Landlords Association carried out a study into HMO fires in London a few years back and their conclusion was that there were a higher proportion of fires within HMO's because of the people that the housed. However they found little evidence of this affecting others outside the room/flat of origin. Now I know that they are looking at it from their point of view, but I would ask the question of F&RS personnel - how many fires have you been to in HMO's that have caused death or serious injury to those outside the room/flat of origin?

I know there are some pretty awful places out there, I have seen quite a few myself, and I understand that it may be a problem that is being stored up for the future, but I have to ask why the sudden concern, is it down to the fact that a new guidance note has come out? Surely the biggest problem for society is the amount of deaths and serious injuries resulting from RTC's and dwelling fires?

[nearlythere]

Hello Johno67
Can I say that nobody is questioning the purpose of this guidance. What is being questioned is its quality and the rationale for some of the advice given. I have asked if anyone can explain the need for a fire door between an inner and access room. Have I missed an explanation somewhere?

[val]

Hello Johno67
Can I say that nobody is questioning the purpose of this guidance. What is being questioned is its quality and the rationale for some of the advice given. I have asked if anyone can explain the need for a fire door between an inner and access room. Have I missed an explanation somewhere?

Nearlythere

Your attention to detail is similar to your manners...see 10.31 yesterday for at least an attempt at an explanation.

Pragmatism is seldom pretty but is often the only way to move things on.

I assume that under your direction the issues raised in this article in 2004 has now been addressed.

FIRE DEATHS AND INJURIES STILL TOO HIGH HERE - MINISTER

Minister with responsibility for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, Angela Smith, MP, today outlined the Government’s proposals for strengthening and improving the fire service and fire safety legislation here.

Launching the consultation document ‘Northern Ireland’s Fire and Rescue Service’, the Minister said: "Fire deaths and injuries in Northern Ireland have been falling over recent years, but the figures are still too high. Our proposals are designed to reduce the risk of fire; improve the fire service’s response when fires do occur; and develop an even more highly skilled and safer workforce.

[nearlythere]

Good morning Val. I hope I find you well and trust you had a relaxing weekend.
Thank you for directing me to the post which, as you say, is an attempt to offer an explanation. Have you considered why there is no mention of the standard of the partition the fire door is in? I would have though that this very important point should have been covered. Indeed the diagram C3 showing the inner room condition does not even mention the fire resisting door and, although a minor detail, shows the door in the open position.

Can't quite get the point of the reference to Angela Smith's proposals. Is the purpose of the fire resisting door in question to reduce the risk of fire, improve the fire service's response and develop an even more highly skilled and safer worhforce?

[Big T]

All,

If i am 100% honest the LACoRS guide is causing me more of a headache than the RRO at the moment. I now find myself looking for all the contradictions between 5588pt1 and the LACoRS guide and presenting to the board on 6 of our operating companies. Great stuff. As if looking after the risk assessment of 3500 blocks of social flats wasn't enough. Ta.

In my opinion the guide is not very helpful. Its wooly. Again. Like all the other guides that have been released. And provides another book of contradiction for the landlords of dangerous properties to hide in.

"No intumescent strips or cold smoke seals Mr enforcing officer? I don't need to install them, I have removed the smoke detection from the bedrooms instead"

The government would have been better off writing a fire risk assessment template. One that all fire brigades accept and covers every single aspect a landlord should consider.

The recommendation to install fire extinguishers in all floors of blocks of flats has annoyed me. A lot. It ommitts the (flipping sensible) line in 5588pt 1 about installing extinguishers "Where vandalism is unlikely" Which in my opinion is a headache that will haunt anybody whio decides to install extinguishers in the communal area of a social housing block. And lets face it, this guide is aimed at the social houing sector and not the glistening modern high rises built by Barratt and Co.

It was discussed about the 200 people consulted many from the housing industry but Local council input versus housing associations were to the tune of 26:3 and of those three where were the biggies? Riverside, places for people, Affinity Sutton, London and Quadrant etc. The companies who have tens of thousands of residents and thousands of properties?

[wee brian]

Since when did anybody put smoke seals in houses??

Brand new houses dont have them (other than the garage) so why would you impose it on an existing one.

The LACORS guide had to try and get consensus from dozens of FRAs and HAs. Its never going to be perfect but the alternative was the madness caused by FRAs trying to enforce the Sleeping risk guide in HMOs where it was totally inapropriate. At the same time HAs were enforcing the HHSRS and Doe 12/92 in other bits of the same building.

Theres a common standard for both systems now. Over the years it will get tweaked and fiddled with but its not as bad as some of you guys suggest.

Everybody on this forum was made aware of the consultation draft so I'm sure you would have raised all of these issues then.

[Big T]

Since when did anybody put smoke seals in houses??

I see smoke seals installed in HMO's everywhere. And IO's stipulate the requirement all the time accross our HMO stock.

[Midland Retty]

Since when did anybody put smoke seals in houses??

I see smoke seals installed in HMO's everywhere. And IO's stipulate the requirement all the time accross our HMO stock.

Ditto

We arent talking private, single domestic dwellings Wee Brian.

We are talking HMOs which house vulnerable people.

[kurnal]

Wee B
I have looked through the consultation draft and have not found  any reference to the omission of door seals as a compensation to the lack of detection. Please correct me if I am wrong.

If I am right, then could this have been inserted  in direct response to an individual consultation- indicating a possible fault in the QA process and short circuiting the procedure?

[Big T]

It is as bad as we are all making out Wee B other wise we wouldn't bother typing. And in all fairness the only support for the document has come from the people who wrote it.

It is wooly, everyone here who has read thinks that certain elements of it are dangerously worded espcially the smoke detection intumescent strip issue I have highlighted above, I am miffed that it talks about extinguishers in the communal areas of flats which has nothing to do with the housing act and is enforceable Fire and rescue services.

I guarantee that Fire services will attempt to enforce properties to provide greater fire safety provision than that recomended in the LACoRS document.