Guest house

[kurnal]

Exactly what it sounds like...

Get the guidance document for sleeping accommodation. Look up small B&B, and follow what it suggests strictly. The document says that all doors to sleeping risks should be 30min FR. It also suggests a grade D part 6 LD2 or 3. I would agree with anyone who says that this may not be appropriate in all circumstances, but the premises are pretty much mentioned by name and size (small, B&B) in the document with a specific solution.

Also, it is sometimes orders from above that the guidance documents will be enforced.

The jungle drums are saying that there is some movement afoot and further guidance in respect of the smaller B&B  and specifically addressing proportionality is to be issued by the govt  very soon ..................................(though it may be a case of send three and fourpence................)

[Izan FSO]

LD2 is a part 6 system as I described. You could have different grades of system, grade D would generally be the lowest acceptable standard that an FRS might ask for.

Civvy & Messy
It is worthy of note that there is an anomoly between the coverage of an LD2 system described in BS5839 pt6 and the coverage noted in the CLG guide. LD2 in 5839 says detection in escape routes ONLY (so none in rooms off) but the notes in the CLG guide state detection in escape routes AND rooms opening on to the escape routes. so make sure your risk assessment goes for the latter otherwise the FRS wont agree with the significant findings.

[Izan FSO]

The jungle drums are saying that there is some movement afoot and further guidance in respect of the smaller B&B  and specifically addressing proportionality is to be issued by the govt  very soon ..................................(though it may be a case of send three and fourpence................)

I think i have seen a copy of that document and it is mearly a few pages saying to the B&B sector yes it DOES apply to you and YES you will have to comply. i think the B&B sector were hoping for a let off or a document that said if you have domestic smoke alarms you will comply...........sorry carry out your fire risk assesment using the guides availabel from CLG.....

[kurnal]

Lets wait and see!

[jokar]

Nearlythere, I agree that we should follow an ACOP but the guidnace documents are not that.  Lets not forget that we are in a risk assessed methodology not prescription.  Civvy, I understand that certain FRS are telling there officers to folow exactlywhat the guidance states but that is not risk assessment.  It seems that whilst all signed up to the European directives and the RR(FS)O, FRS don't like it and want it changed.  If that is the case then lets see CFOA challenging the Government's legislation across the UK not doing it in an underhand way and making guidance something else.  After all, once BS 9999 gets published in October we will start having risk assessed travel distances of up to 90 metres and exit widths getting narrower, what happens to prescrition then?

[CivvyFSO]

Civvy, I understand that certain FRS are telling there officers to folow exactly what the guidance states but that is not risk assessment.

I have said this a few times now. The places where the FRS's are insisting on the guidance standards will be premises that have been found as very sub-standard. They won't be the premises that have been risk assessed properly and sorted out prior to the inspection/audit. It won't be a case of arguing about a technical detail. It will be fixing the 3 storey premises with no protection to the stair and no alarm system.

If this is the case then why shouldn't someone pick the solution out of the book? Protect the stair, fit AFD as the guide suggests. Maybe it is not a sleeping risk, maybe strips and seals could possibly not be necessary... Why should an FSO strive to lower that standard, and then take responsibility for doing something that was the RP's responsibility?

It is worthy of note that there is an anomoly between the coverage of an LD2 system described in BS5839 pt6 and the coverage noted in the CLG guide. LD2 in 5839 says detection in escape routes ONLY (so none in rooms off) but the notes in the CLG guide state detection in escape routes AND rooms opening on to the escape routes.

d) Any requirement for a Category LD2 system (e.g. in a statutory notice issued by an enforcing authority
or in a purchase specification) should be supplemented by information regarding the rooms in which fire
detectors are to be installed (over and above the fire detectors in the circulation areas required to satisfy
the recommendations of this standard for a Category LD3 system).

Sounds to me like a LD2 system can indeed have detection in all the rooms off the escape route and still be classed as an LD2 system. We specify an LD2, then specify where the extra detectors go. It is still an LD2.

[CivvyFSO]

After all, once BS 9999 gets published in October we will start having risk assessed travel distances of up to 90 metres and exit widths getting narrower, what happens to prescrition then?

BS9999 doesn't really give you risk assessed travel distances, it tells you exactly what the travel distance should be in specific scenarios.

i.e. People awake + familiar with the building, slow fire growth rate, high ceiling, sprinklers, over provision of AFD... Hey presto, there's your 90 metres 2 way travel and 2.7mm per person for door width. (This is just for example, don't go trawling through BS9999DPC just to find that it is 2.9mm, I don't really care enough

It could potentially be used in more of a prescriptive fashion that any of the other documents. Why should we alter any of the distances/widths etc in that document? They have done the working out for us/you. The differences in risk have already been accounted for in the document, why should the FRS give even 1 more metre than the document suggests?

[kurnal]

why should the FRS give even 1 more metre than the document suggests?

Hey what are the fire service giving? Its not their place to "give" anything.

As an RP its MY job to manage the risk and MY job to decide what is reasonable. Its the fire services job to police this and stop me from doing anything silly and bring me to book if I digress.

As RP and as an enforcer we may both look to the guides for a benchmark of what is reasonable and the way the Law is written if I want to significantly vary from the guide I may have to prove to the policeman that it it safe to do so.

If I can show that for my premises and activities that everyone can get out safely without being exposed to risk of injury - the time available for safe evacuation exceeds the time it will take for the tenability limits to be reached then as far as I am concerned the guides and travel distances can go in the bin.

Its not like speed limits on the road although a lot of enforcers treat it as such.

[jokar]

Civvy, please do not think I am attacking you on a personal basis. You are the brave one from a FRS that puts his head above the water and staes what is going on.  However, I reserve the right to disagree with some of the statements that you make as you do with me.  The phrase you use " sub standard premises", what is the fire hazard, what is the risk to people from fire, what is the management of the premises like.  These are things that the RP through an FRS should be addressing and then looking to guidance to look for the best outcome on the basis of ALARP.  NOT and I repeat NOT being told by an FRS that they should have this that or the other.  It may be the FRA and the enforcer have the same outcomes but often as not they will not.  The other thing that I am slightly bemused about is the fact that we seem to treat all people as idiots and agian their not.  In large complicated premises we have different scenarios but in a small premises I am sure that people who can book accommodation and arrive tat the destination miles from their own homes and find their way to bed and back to breakfast in the morning are able to get about.  They are not mentally incompetent and whilst a smoke alarm is good value and a plug in torch will provide light should they need it, to have to provide fire door sets to BS 476 part 22 and 31 when the walls may not be a 30 min standard and destroy a house for what it really is seems ludicrous.  After all Article 34 has responsibility on the RP not the enforcer.  The other thing of course that for years now FRS have stated that in a 2 storey premises you can block the door with towels or something similar, shout out of a window and if necessary lower yourself by your hands to get out.

[jokar]

As regards 9999, it is a risk assessed document, it states that right in the front pages, of course scenarios have to be met but that is risk assessment.  Look at things like hazard, risk, risk management, ceiling height, numbers of people and anything else and make a judgement, the outcomes will be a risk asseessment.

[jokar]

The other thing that I find strange is that on the announcement of the RR(FS)O, the Governmentwrote on the CLG website an FAQ.  One of the questions was, what type of premises will FRS now look at.  The answer and it should still be there is high risk premises only,  What is high risk about premises like the topic that started this thread?

Are FRS trying to find work for their FSO's as most large premises are being run properly so we are now picking on the smaller ones of less risk?  I do not see M&S or Sainsbury amang the prosecutions, afetr fire audits I understand as the RR(FS)O is basically a reactive H&S document but Lancs are proving that by picking on small business you can make a name for yoiurself and get written up in many areas.

[Mushy]

Jokar

The reason the fire safety officer went round to this small guest house was they had a chimney fire the night before and I presume he/she either went round on request of the crews or that it is standard practice to visit after a fire.

Can I just ask a couple of questions after reading the guide.

With automatic detection systems is it right that an LD2 grade A is a separate circuit to the electrical mains and LD2 grade D is the same circuit on battery back up?

Also if you have a two storey guest house with one route from the first floor to ground floor like this one...are you allowed to have an open staircase as long as all the doors off it are fire resisting...and is this classed as a protected route?

Is the travel distance from the furthest point in the bedroom to the final exit...and if so and if it exceeds the laid down distance in the guide...do you then need two ways out or can auto detection compensate for excessive travel...and what would you class as excessive

Whats a plug in or stand alone emergency light...is it a torch?

ok that's more than a couple

[jokar]

An open staircase is exactly that, a staircase that is open to all floors it passes through such as in some small shops.  If you then put fire door sets, thats the doors and associated frames into openings surrounded by FR structure then you have a protected route to the final exit.  Travel distance is measured to the protected route as 1 way travel if there is only the 1 exit from a room.  The protected route becomes a place of relative safety and therefore travel distance would end there.  You can extend travel distance with additional ceiling height or with AFD.  However, as AFD is needed in this type of premises then it can not be used as a compensatory feature as it can not compensate for something as it has to be there.

A Grade A part 6 system is almost a BS5839 Part 1 commercial system with a few differences that are highlighted in BS 5839 part 6 as regards height of call points, sound levels and a few other bits.  A grade d ld2 system to Part 6 would be more than siutable in this situation with hard wired smoke alarms and a battery back up.

Have you read the LACORS guide, does it assist this situation?

A variety of companies provide a plug in torch which is permanently on charge to be used in an emergency situation

[Paul2886]

Mushy,
Does this help:
BS 5839: Pt.6 grades fire detection systems from Grade F up to Grade A. Generally speaking, the greater the fire risk and the more demanding the application, the more comprehensive the system needs to be.

Grade F - System of one or more battery powered smoke alarms (and heat alarms if required)
Grade E - System of interlinked mains powered smoke alarms (and heat alarms if required) with NO stand-by supply. The interlink can be hardwired or radio-interlinked. Please note that Safelincs Ltd will not distribute Grade E alarms, as we only recommend alarms with backup batteries.
Grade D - System incorporating one or more interlinked mains powered smoke alarms (and heat alarms if required), each with an integral stand-by supply. The interlink can be hardwired or radio-interlinked.
Grade C - System consisting of smoke detectors and sounders (which may be smoke alarms) connected to a common power supply, comprising normal mains and stand-by supply, with central control equipment
Grade B - Fire detection and alarm system comprising fire detectors (other than smoke alarms), fire alarm sounders and control and indicating equipment to either BS EN 54-2 (and power supply to BS EN 54-4), or to Annex C of BS 5839: Pt.6
Grade A - Fire detection system incorporating control and indicating equipment to BS EN 54-2, and power supply to BS EN 54-4, installed to BS 5839: Pt.1 with some minor exceptions

[Mushy]

Thanks Jokar and Paul the info is appreciated.

jokar have I got this right the way you describe a protected route

If a staircase is open...by that I mean similar to a domestic house whereby there is no enclosure of the staircase..ie no fire door at the top and bottom..then it is still a protected route if all doors off it are fire doors?

I only ask because I looked up protected route in a building control guide and it says that the only facilities off a protected stairway should be sanitary accommodation or wash rooms, a lift well, a reception desk or enquiry office at ground level...I probably read that wrong!!

Thanks for the Lacors tip