Access for fire appliances

[Tom Sutton]

I have a problem concerning B5 (Fire appliance access) to a two storey outbuilding of a listed building (a Pub/coaching house) which has been converted into four dwellings.  The access is through an arched entrance 2.7m x 2.7m - not big enough for a Fire appliance.  The dwellings form a terrace, the closest dwelling is wholly within 45m of the High Street to which a Fire appliance can reach. The furthest point of the fourth dwelling is ~70m from a Fire appliance.
 
A 63mm dia 'wash-out' main and valve has been fitted by the water company, fed from the town mains. Its pressure has been recorded over a five days at 3.5bar and flow rate estimated as ~500ltr/min. It is within 30m of all points on the dwellings. I was 'advised' that the Fire brigade could adopt this as a Fire Hydrant but this does not appear to be the case.
 
Due to a catalogue of confusion, argument and delay etc. the dwellings are finished but the Building Inspector will not pass them because of B5. (nor will he advise how the problem can be overcome).

I recently received the above inquiry any ideas.

[jokar]

Speak to the FRS and find out what they are stalling on.  Nowadays, FRS are seeking residential sprinklers as a engineered solution for access difficulties such as this.  I know that this is impractical but it may well be why it hs been held up.

[Izan FSO]

Speak to the FRS and find out what they are stalling on.  Nowadays, FRS are seeking residential sprinklers as a engineered solution for access difficulties such as this.  I know that this is impractical but it may well be why it hs been held up.

Why speak to FRS? it is in the hands of building control (although we are stautory consultees) it is up to building control to approve compliance with ADB, however if they are stuck for a solution they may ask us for advice as to what we would accept.

The other case is that it is an AI and not local authority BC and it may be that the FRS have not yet been consulted. I had an application land on my desk today from an AI for a premises that has been open and trading for weeks following a major refit. we have some major issues with the finished scheme and now have an up hill battle to get it right.

[kurnal]

Nothing in the building Regulations is about property protection- its all about life safety.

If its just one or two of the properties that fall outside the the 45m guidance then address those specific issues. Improve the standard of fire safety in those properties - reduce the likelihood of someone needing rescue by the fire service- install a water mist or domestic sprinkler system, or beef up the passive fire protection to the means of escape?
The hydrant could be relevant if there is not another hydrant within say 100m of the appliance parking position (the 90m hydrant rule in B5 only applies to buildings with a compartment size exceeding 280sq m)  - otherwise a hydrant on the inner side of the arch does not contribute much at all to life safety of the residents.

[jokar]

IZAN FSO.  Isn't B5 for the safety of firefighters?

[CivvyFSO]

Most BC bodies will strictly follow what the FRS want with regards B5 requirements. It is access for our boys and girls. We should know how they operate, we should know where things can be relaxed and what should be insisted upon.

Is it a fire hydrant or a riser they have installed? A hydrant wont help the case.

If a riser was installed then in all honesty it would probably be more messing about for the crews connecting up to the riser than rolling out an extra length of hose from the appliance. We do have to fight for our access and facilities as we only get the one bite during the building regs process, but sometimes it is simply impossible to achieve the requirements and allowances have to be made and we need to be reasonable. As nice as a sprinkler system would be, the crews are still having to roll out the extra length of hose and we should have a good level of compartmentation between the flats and it is only 2 storey.

What we do need to avoid is where people try to use a gate width as an excuse for not putting the hard standing required for an appliance.

[CivvyFSO]

IZAN FSO.  Isn't B5 for the safety of firefighters?

It is still technically for the life safety of the people in and around the building. It is facilities to assist the fire service, not to protect them.

It is still technically building control who should be ensuring the requirements are met. However your point is valid, and that is why the BC bodies tend to follow the FRS's lead on this requirement.

[Tom Sutton]

Part of my problem has been a difficulty engaging with the Fire brigade.  They have been reluctant/too busy to discuss the problem or possible options and been unwilling to attend a meeting either at site or at their offices.

Today I contacted a company supplying dry risers and they have prepared a solution for a similar problem where the excess distance is 7m (ie 7 + 45m).  Do you think this might be suitable in my case?

It looks the FRS will not speak to him and the BC will not give advice so what should he do. Present, for instance, the dry riser proposals and see if BC will accept it? Are there any other ideas that he may consider other than the dry riser and res sprinklers which has been suggested?

[CivvyFSO]

The dry riser solution is in ADB.

16.3 Note 1 : If the provisions in paragraph 16.2 or 16.3 (the 45m from all points...) cannot be met, a fire main should be provided in accordance with paragraph 15.3.

This is a riser within the building with access to the inlet no more than 18m away,(i.e. Inlet could be near the gate.) not a hydrant. Since this would be accepted under ADB, then he should speak to the FRS to see if they want to go through the motions of connecting to a riser in a 2 storey building, or if running 1 more length of hose out is more suitable.

[messy]

Do you why the WO can't be converted into a hydrant?

In my experience, it's fairly common for hydrants to be fitted as wash outs in the first place

[kurnal]

The dry riser solution is in ADB.

16.3 Note 1 : If the provisions in paragraph 16.2 or 16.3 (the 45m from all points...) cannot be met, a fire main should be provided in accordance with paragraph 15.3.

This is a riser within the building with access to the inlet no more than 18m away,(i.e. Inlet could be near the gate.) not a hydrant. Since this would be accepted under ADB, then he should speak to the FRS to see if they want to go through the motions of connecting to a riser in a 2 storey building, or if running 1 more length of hose out is more suitable.

Yes I agree civvy- but in practical terms what benefit does it give? (I dont mean to shoot the messenger by the way - I know we feel the same from your own posting)

 Why spend good money on a such a pointless and expensive solution? In this case distance from access point to furthest point of floor area is 70m. A compliant layout would be 45m.

So What? 45m is two lengths of hose to run out.  70m is nearly 3 lengths of hose (direct distance).  If life is at risk how long does it take to run out threee lengths compared to two? an extra  5 seconds?  

How long does it take to find the fire main inlet, smash the glass, unroll a hose and couple, run in to the other end of the main, find the outlets, couple another length of hose, flake it cos you are on top of the job, then have the problem of all the kinks as you charge the hose- at least 60 seconds longer.

Sometimes there is an attitude amongst inspectors that "You are not compliant in this area so what will you give me in exchange?" - thats the type who would insist on a fire main in this situation. On the other hand of course it could also be the fault of the architect or fire consultant for not digging in their heels and arguing for common sense.

[Tom Sutton]

CivvyFSO are you not using ADB Vol 2 to solve a situation in ADB Vol 1. I am with Kurnal on this one I think a dry main would be pointless, considering its domestic dwellings, other than BI wanting some compensatory solution.

Messy, I see a WO as a hydrant the FRS do not pay for but in this case maybe the size of main (63mm) is the stumbling block the smallest I have seen hydrant fitted was 75mm. Any experts on BS 750.

[FSO]

This sounds a little annoying. If the FRS were on the ball, this should have been picked up at planning stage under local enactments. Failing that BC should have picked this up at lines on paper stage!

9251 sprinklers would be our answer everytime for a problem like this. We have a big push on these at the moment.

[kurnal]

I agree with regard to BS9251 sprinklers- they are fatastic and in an ideal world every home would have them. But would they be a proportionate requirement to the minimal increase in risk caused by the extension of the travel distance for fire service access from 45m to 70m, ir would it , in enforcement terms be a sledgehammer to crack a nut?

Could we not save the fire service an equivalent amount of time to compensate for the additional distance by having an autodialler linked to the fire alarm system, or a big sign with the address number and an external strobe linked to to the fire alarm system or a sign showing the location of the nearest hydrant or full detection to LD1 in the property so that the fire is detected at the earliest opportunity allowing the maximum opportunity to escape?
What do you think?

[Tom Sutton]

As the result of posting #11 the response was "At last.  The voice of reason! I agree fully with your logic and I shall let you know if the building inspector will also agree".

On a personal level what I do not understand is why the 45metres when I rode the big red lorries we a hose reel that reached 240 feet (73 metres) also four lengths of 1 3/4 connected flaked hose and a 1/2 inch branch in a locker next to the pump that reached 300 feet (91.4 metres.)?