Fire Hazard and Fire Risk

[William 29]

I do get continually fed up with articles that refer to all FRA IOs as pesrcriptive guide huggers as I feel that I am certinally not that. ( i appreciate that some people have noted the fact that we are not all like that)

Point taken, there are some excellent FSO's out there I am just saying that they are a dying breed.

[jokar]

FSO, why would you need a AFD system?  That is not even considered in ADB for premises where people resort on a daily basis.  AFD is considered for sleeping risk only apart from specific areas about lone working, operation of other equipment and I can not remeber the other bit.

[Fishy]

The Guidance gives you a 'benchmark' level of risk - society views that as the 'acceptable' level of risk in that type of premises.  The aim of the risk assessment should be to either show compliance OR equivalence (which would be the likely tests in Court).  So... if you can argue that the hazard in a particular premises is less than the typical premises around which the guidance is constructed then you might conclude that it's acceptable to do less than the guidance suggests.

Hard to see how that could be done in this situation (saying that hazard and risk are "low" might be rather subjective - and is a three-storey premises full of timber of varying sizes, with public access and with a single means of escape really "low" risk, in relative terms)?

Always hard (impossible?) to make a judgement without seeing the place, of course, but a simple, low-cost fire alarm sounds like a reasonable risk reduction measure to me.

Therein lies a problem Fishy. The auditor is reading out of the codes of practice which, to my knowledge, doesn't say anywhere that there is provision to dispense with structural protection of stairways if a detection system is installed. If that was the case there would be many happier employers around.

I can't see New FSO accepting a three storey unprotected single stairway situation. Single door protection to all escape stairways, other than small premises, would be the bench mark to increase with the level of risk.

Agreed - I wasn't suggesting that the fire detection and alarm system was the only appropriate risk reduction measure.

[FSO]

FSO, why would you need a AFD system?  That is not even considered in ADB for premises where people resort on a daily basis.  AFD is considered for sleeping risk only apart from specific areas about lone working, operation of other equipment and I can not remeber the other bit.

Because the way I read this, there is one member of staff who takes people up to the 3rd floor to show them furniture. We all know how long the mrs takes to decide what she likes!!!!

As I said earlier, I could not comment properly without more detail, however if there are extended travel distances from the 3rd floor ther is potential (albeit small) for conditions to become quite uncomfortable down below and possibly expecting people to take a lung full of smoke.

There may be other control measures in place such as staff on all floors or a protected route , which would obviously lead to a review of what I have said.

I think it is difficult to make assumptions, but that is the reasoning why I would like AFD.

[FSO]

FSO, why would you need a AFD system?  That is not even considered in ADB for premises where people resort on a daily basis.  AFD is considered for sleeping risk only apart from specific areas about lone working, operation of other equipment and I can not remeber the other bit.

Now whos guide hugging....lol

[jokar]

Ok got me, but that is the point.  I may know something that is in a code but it doesn't mean I can or can not utilise it dependent on the hazard and risk.  As for part 6 systems, that nice Mr Todd may go apoletic if he finds that someone has recommende or suggested a part 6 system in a commercial premises.  Afetr all when he prepared it, all his definitions were for dwellings and that is the specificality of the part.

[FSO]

I agree with Mr Todd to a point.

If you have a small premises (under 200m2), would it really be an issue if the risk is really low??? After all cost v proportionality, a part 6 system may be a good enhancement to somebody has nothing currently.

For a small business, a part one system may tip them over the edge.

Lets be fair, the RP has to demonstrate that the system fitted is suitable and sufficient. I agree in principle that it would be difficult to argue away from the BS, but potentially it could actually be a system which the RP has designed and built himself.

I really dont see a problem with a part 6 system in a small, well managed unit.

[jokar]

No, I do not either and dependent on the Grade of system it will work well.  However, I wonder how you get around the whole defintions bit, perhaps other have had experience in court of this.  I can hear the barristers questions, "what type of dwelling did you recommend this system for"?  No it is a commercial premises.  Can you point out to me any paragraph in the document where it suggests that this system is usable in a commercial premises? No.

[FSO]

Totally agree jokar....it is still yet to be tried.

Surely thats what most people want though....lack of prescription?

Would it do its job? More than likely.

It would be an interesting one.

[William 29]

No, I do not either and dependent on the Grade of system it will work well.  However, I wonder how you get around the whole defintions bit, perhaps other have had experience in court of this.  I can hear the barristers questions, "what type of dwelling did you recommend this system for"?  No it is a commercial premises.  Can you point out to me any paragraph in the document where it suggests that this system is usable in a commercial premises? No.

Hey Joker, surely this is your point about code hugging?  What does it matter that the BS which we all know is recommendations anyway states that a part 6 system is only used for domestic premises.

If a part 6 detector or complete system is fitted in a commercial property that does the job intended based on a professional risk analysis then what’s the problem?

What about a commercial building with a part 1 system say to L3 coverage where an inner room is created and a single part 6 detector is fitted in the access room.  The BS would state that you should not combine the 2 systems or as we have said install a part 6 detector in the commercial building.  The point is the sole purpose of that detector is to warn the occupants of the inner room not the whole building.  So using a FRA approach it would be acceptable, however if we consult the guidance and apply the rigidly it would not.

[nearlythere]

No, I do not either and dependent on the Grade of system it will work well.  However, I wonder how you get around the whole defintions bit, perhaps other have had experience in court of this.  I can hear the barristers questions, "what type of dwelling did you recommend this system for"?  No it is a commercial premises.  Can you point out to me any paragraph in the document where it suggests that this system is usable in a commercial premises? No.

Hey Joker, surely this is your point about code hugging?  What does it matter that the BS which we all know is recommendations anyway states that a part 6 system is only used for domestic premises.

If a part 6 detector or complete system is fitted in a commercial property that does the job intended based on a professional risk analysis then what’s the problem?

What about a commercial building with a part 1 system say to L3 coverage where an inner room is created and a single part 6 detector is fitted in the access room.  The BS would state that you should not combine the 2 systems or as we have said install a part 6 detector in the commercial building.  The point is the sole purpose of that detector is to warn the occupants of the inner room not the whole building.  So using a FRA approach it would be acceptable, however if we consult the guidance and apply the rigidly it would not.

I wonder how one could rationally justify the reason for not considering a part 6 detection system suitable for a commercial premises, particularily small to medium sized premises, when it is considered quite sufficient for a dwelling, a catagory of premises in which there is a prolonged sleeping risk, a high risk kitchen, lone occupation, no emergency plan or evacuation strategy, no fire fighting equipment, no fire awareness training, no Fire Risk Assessment, no...........

Are we looking at commercial protectionism?

[Ricardo]

I wonder how one could rationally justify the reason for not considering a part 6 detection system suitable for a commercial premises, particularily small to medium sized premises, when it is considered quite sufficient for a dwelling, a catagory of premises in which there is a prolonged sleeping risk, a high risk kitchen, lone occupation, no emergency plan or evacuation strategy, no fire fighting equipment, no fire awareness training, no Fire Risk Assessment, no...........

Are we looking at commercial protectionism?

An answer to your quetsion may lie in Master T's own words, "the problem with formal recognition of a BS5839-6 system for use in workplaces is that it becomes something of a "thin end of the wedge".
There is serious potential for employers to then install smoke alarms or other forms of Part 6 systems as a cheap, sub standard alternative in premises that unequivecally require a proper fire alarm system complying with Part 1.
Thats why to avoid this sutuation Part 6 excludes from its scope any premises used for the purposes other than as a  dwelling.

It is worth remembering that the recommendations contained in Part 6 deal with quite complex and engineering related matters, and are not intended for the householder,. Clause 1 makes this clear that the BS is intended for Architects and other building professionals, enforcing authorities, contractors and others responsible for implementing fire precautions in dwellings.

[johnny99]

William, at fist it was a prohibition and the FRA closed the premises and then went ahead with the prosecution.  The prosecutors then got into a problem with the description of fire, fire hazard and fire risk.  The clients barrister was taking on the FRS and was winning.  The Rp was put under tremendous pressure and then invited to HQ on his own and subjected to "our costs are already 20K" if you accept, this will all go away and he caved in.  Bullying perhaps, the rights and wrongs who knows but my question still stands,

Something doesn't stack up for me here.  I don't know how fire brigades work, as I have only had problems with a local housing authority, but surely it is only for the courts to issue fines?   Local housing authorities can't fine landlords and I would be astonished if fire brigades could issue fines.  Surely, that's being judge, jury and executioner, and probably not legal.

[nearlythere]

I wonder how one could rationally justify the reason for not considering a part 6 detection system suitable for a commercial premises, particularily small to medium sized premises, when it is considered quite sufficient for a dwelling, a catagory of premises in which there is a prolonged sleeping risk, a high risk kitchen, lone occupation, no emergency plan or evacuation strategy, no fire fighting equipment, no fire awareness training, no Fire Risk Assessment, no...........

Are we looking at commercial protectionism?

An answer to your quetsion may lie in Master T's own words, "the problem with formal recognition of a BS5839-6 system for use in workplaces is that it becomes something of a "thin end of the wedge".
There is serious potential for employers to then install smoke alarms or other forms of Part 6 systems as a cheap, sub standard alternative in premises that unequivecally require a proper fire alarm system complying with Part 1.
Thats why to avoid this sutuation Part 6 excludes from its scope any premises used for the purposes other than as a  dwelling.

It is worth remembering that the recommendations contained in Part 6 deal with quite complex and engineering related matters, and are not intended for the householder,. Clause 1 makes this clear that the BS is intended for Architects and other building professionals, enforcing authorities, contractors and others responsible for implementing fire precautions in dwellings.

So "cheap substandard alternatives" are OK for premises where people are at greatest risk, their own homes, and "proper fire alarms systems" are OK for premises where they are not? A £4 single point detector is cheap. Does that make it substandard?
Is the potential for employers to install lesser standards, a thin end of a wedge, as you seem to fear not a policing issue for the various F&R Services to deal with as appropriate? That's what they are there for.

[AnthonyB]

The high end Pt 6 systems are not that cheap and other than a more basic control & indicator panel and the use of non FR cable aren't too far removed from a twinwire conventional system like the Rafiki stuff. Although you could argue that's the point - cabling standards and panel's fault monitoring capabilities.

There are many pt 6 systems in commercial use, including some used by Local Authorities in small office buildings - has anyone heard of them being required to be removed by authorities?

I'll be brave enough to accept a Pt 6 device in commercial situations on a case by case basis - just advised a pt 6 smoke for an L5 situation (access room) in a premises as it's a temporary situation (documented as being on that basis) as the cost of extending the main system far outweighs the risk or it's duration