Lacors, please explain

[SidM]

Case Study D8: Bedsit-type HMO of 3 or 4 storeys

Fire detection & Alarm System

Grade A LD2.  The guidance then goes onto state that where there is cooking facilities within the bedsit then apart from a heat detector an "additional Drade D, non-intelinked smoke alarm" is required.  If the Grade A system already installs a detector in the bedroom, why do you need an additional non-interlinked detector?

[jokar]

To give earlier detection and warning in the bedroom as it has a heat detector installed.

[colin todd]

All written by people who, in all probability do not have detectors in bedrooms or kitchens at home but are happy to make other people do what they would not do in their own home.

[val]

Very good Colin, which is why your firm is re-writing the DASH guide but using the same benchmark standards as the LACORS guide. Or are you intending the good people of the east midlands to have different standards?
The difference, of course is that in a similar situation the Housing Act, using the HHSRS would probably come up with the same standards irrespective of the type of tenure. It is simply that Housing Officers tend not to enforce in owner occupied premises.
LACORS are now in the enviable position of half the country saying that the standards are too low and a 'still angry scotsman' saying the standards are too high.
Let me see....does that mean they have pitched it somewhere in the middle?

[colin todd]

No they haven't, they have run on tramlines of detection in every room regardless of risk. On a point of accuracy, the DASH guide is not being re-written as such, but the good people of the East Midlands will be properly served by risk-based guidance. On a further point of accuracy, I am not angry, particularly as lots of people want training on the LACORS guidance. On a final point of accuracy, the HHSRS would not result in smoke detectors in every bedroom of a single family dwelling house, nor do those who seek to impose it on others have it in their own houses. Funny that.

[kurnal]

Has any research ever been undertaken to quantify the benefits or otherwise of installing a smoke detector in every bedrom for the purpose of protecting the occupant of the room in case of fire? If not then its high time some was done so that this argument can be quantified and benchmarks reviewed.

At the moment some brigades are enforcing this in hotels and guest houses, requirng the replacement of heat detectors for smoke detectors, in other areas they work to BS5829 part 1 2002 and accept that the detector in rooms is only there for the protection of the escape routes and so a heat detector and fire door will do fine working in tandem unless the occupant of the room is disabled.

The lacors guide requires detection everywhere in some cases.

Until somebody can show through research and analysis  for all propery types whether:

1- people are dying in the room of origin or not ( easy- if the statistics are good enough)
2- Whether a detector would operate early enough to enable escape whilst conditions remain tenable (this bits easy by modelling)
3- Whether people are likely to wake up as a result of inhalation of smoke or the noise of a fre in their room without provision of detectors(perhaps depends on the degree of intoxication etc)
4- Whether the additional unwanted signals in hotels would bring a system into disrepute or whether this could be controlled (eg just place a self contained detector in the room or work to a double knock system with staff alert)

Without proper research we will keep going round in circles on this one and published guidance will reflect opinion of the writer rather than fact.

Another thread current at the moment covers the benefits of installing smoke detectors in disabled rooms and the possible reasons for this- ie disabled persons may take longer to respond to an alarm and so earlier warning is necessary (earlier than a heat detector???) and, more to the point - may be offered assistance by  a manager as a result of the alarm. But there is also the point that as there are few disabled rooms the number of unwanted signals is unlikely to rise as a result of this policy.

It seems to me that provision of smoke detection in all bedrooms in a HMO is much more likely to lead to unwanted signals and bring the system into disrepute/ vandalism than in a hotel where staff should be available to manage the event and deal with it wth minimum disruption to guests.

[colin todd]

Has any research ever been undertaken to quantify the benefits or otherwise of installing a smoke detector in every bedrom for the purpose of protecting the occupant of the room in case of fire? If not then its high time some was done so that this argument can be quantified and benchmarks reviewed.

At the moment some brigades are enforcing this in hotels and guest houses, requirng the replacement of heat detectors for smoke detectors, in other areas they work to BS5829 part 1 2002 and accept that the detector in rooms is only there for the protection of the escape routes and so a heat detector and fire door will do fine working in tandem unless the occupant of the room is disabled.

The lacors guide requires detection everywhere in some cases.

Until somebody can show through research and analysis  for all propery types whether:

1- people are dying in the room of origin or not ( easy- if the statistics are good enough)
2- Whether a detector would operate early enough to enable escape whilst conditions remain tenable (this bits easy by modelling)
3- Whether people are likely to wake up as a result of inhalation of smoke or the noise of a fre in their room without provision of detectors(perhaps depends on the degree of intoxication etc)
4- Whether the additional unwanted signals in hotels would bring a system into disrepute or whether this could be controlled (eg just place a self contained detector in the room or work to a double knock system with staff alert)

Without proper research we will keep going round in circles on this one and published guidance will reflect opinion of the writer rather than fact.

Another thread current at the moment covers the benefits of installing smoke detectors in disabled rooms and the possible reasons for this- ie disabled persons may take longer to respond to an alarm and so earlier warning is necessary (earlier than a heat detector???) and, more to the point - may be offered assistance by  a manager as a result of the alarm. But there is also the point that as there are few disabled rooms the number of unwanted signals is unlikely to rise as a result of this policy.

It seems to me that provision of smoke detection in all bedrooms in a HMO is much more likely to lead to unwanted signals and bring the system into disrepute/ vandalism than in a hotel where staff should be available to manage the event and deal with it wth minimum disruption to guests.

Yes there is  research on the subject. That is why the CLG changed their support for detectors in bedrooms in new dwellings.

You are right about the inconsistent views of F&RS on this for hotels. We are currently pursuing a determination from the CLG for one case.

In answer to your questions, there are statistics on this. It depends now whether you are talking hotels or HMOs as the two are very different. Also, it cannot be assumed that the physical state of a room occupant would be such that a smoke detector would be any different.

Yes you are right about false alarms and disabled rooms, etc. However, do not bother some enforcing officers with facts, evidence and statistics as it confuses them.

[kurnal]

In answer to your questions, there are statistics on this. It depends now whether you are talking hotels or HMOs as the two are very different. Also, it cannot be assumed that the physical state of a room occupant would be such that a smoke detector would be any different.

Thanks Colin- I would very much appreciate it if you can give me a pointer as to where details of the  statistice or research may be found? I have seen the work done to inform the 2006 update to ADB but could find little relevant to this aspect there?

[colin todd]

Go back to the 1980s and you will find BRE research on deaths within bedrooms of origin in hotels and boarding houses. And you only need to look at statistics to see that nowadays no one dies in the bedroom of fire origin, so smoke detectors in the rooms can only be to protect people who dont die anyway. HMOs are different, and a significant number of deaths do occur in the room of fire origin. Any suggestion as to why would be censored by Messey's Thought Police, cos people out of their heads on drugs and alcohol are just as important to society as a Chief Fire Officer. (In fact, people out of their heads on drugs and alcohol probably ARE chief fire officers.)

[jokar]

The provision of detection will not stop a person dying either accidentally or any other way from fire wwherever thet reside but it will potentially keep the other residents alive in hotels, hostels or HMO's.

[PhilB]

Go back to the 1980s and you will find BRE research on deaths within bedrooms of origin in hotels and boarding houses. And you only need to look at statistics to see that nowadays no one dies in the bedroom of fire origin, so smoke detectors in the rooms can only be to protect people who dont die anyway. HMOs are different, and a significant number of deaths do occur in the room of fire origin. Any suggestion as to why would be censored by Messey's Thought Police, cos people out of their heads on drugs and alcohol are just as important to society as a Chief Fire Officer. (In fact, people out of their heads on drugs and alcohol probably ARE chief fire officers.)

and this could take us back to the debate of smoke or heat detection in hotel bedrooms. Some FRS are requiring heat detctors to be replaced with smoke. They are missing the point of why the detection is provided in the room in my opinion.

Yes I know the person in the room is a relevant person and in a new installation smoke would of course be preferred but heat detection has not lead to a fire death in a hotel to date. Surley money could be more wisely spent reducing risk that actually exits, fitting strips and seals for example.

[jokar]

I am still intrigued as to how a certificate for a BS 476 door can still be valid if you cut bits out of it to retrofit S&S.

[colin todd]

Philllllllllllllllllllip!!!!!!! All these years I have waited for you to say something sage, wise and ever so sensible. What you have said is so worth waiting for!!!!!! You have it bang on!!!!! Wish you told the boys that when they came to your former centre of whateveriness.

[wee brian]

I am still intrigued as to how a certificate for a BS 476 door can still be valid if you cut bits out of it to retrofit S&S.

Yes, but why would I care?

[jokar]

Wee B, I have no idea whether you care or not.  What concerns me is that a good close fitting door to BS 476 is an acceptable door.  Cut it up to fit S&S and it may be that no longer.  Which is best, or is there no difference?