Fire authority retrospective enforcement

[Rocha]

I am involved in 4 student halls of residence buildings at a University in the north of England.  They are approx 7 years old and have L1 fire detctions systems installed.  They consist of single stairwell, with two flats per storey which consist of 6 studios flats each.  Smoke detection is fitted to stairwells, flat corrdiors etc and heat to the studio bedrooms themselves.  The studios include cooking facilities, therefore smoke detection would result in high false alarm rates.  This arrangement was agreed by all relevant parties during design stage.

The local fire authority have now decided to change their policy and not accept heat detectors to studio bedrooms.  Saying that the student may die of smoke inhalation before the heat detector activates and that the death of the person in the room of origin is no longer acceptable.

The local fire officer has served a notice on the owners of these buildings to install mains wired self contained smoke detection to all bedrooms to accompany the already fitted heat detectors.  Massive cost implications and massive disruption.  I presume the idea being to provide earlier warning for the person in the room of origin only.

My questions are:

1.  Do the studios fall under the scope of the RRO or are they classed as single private dwellings,
2.  Can the smoke detectors be enforced retrospectively,
3.  As heat detectors to studios is recomended in BS can it be argued that we are compliant,
4.  If push came to shove wouldn't battery opertaed smoke detectors do the same job.

Any guidance very welcome.

[Chris Houston]

What do you think is best for the students?

I'll let others answer 1-3 but I can happily answer question 4 for you: "Categorically not!".  Battery operated may run out of batteries, students might nick the batteries or remove them to prevent activation when they light their happy cigarettes or joss sticks.

[Rocha]

We would be happy to spec multi sensor detectors to all new builds from now on.  However to retrospectively fit smoke detectors to all studio bedrooms would not be practical and would lead to even more ignorance to fire alarms, which is already a major issue with our students, although we have few due to current fire alarm arrangements.

Rocha

[jokar]

Our friend CT is currently involved with a determination for the same subject, perhpas he will give us an update on where it is.  The FRS are not complying with 5839 but are looking at the term relevant person in regard to the RR(FS)O.

1. Single private dwelling is not a term used in the Order it is domestic premises and I do not believe that student accommodation would fall under the description.
2. An enforcers can enforce what they like but the onus of responsibilty rests with the RP and as such you can appeal any notice.
3. BS are recommendation only but yes as above you can argue at appeal that you are compliant as the BS recommends HD in most bedrooms.
4. Grade F smoke alarms to Part 6 will and do cover the same area, many people in their own homes have 10 year battery life smoke alarms, many fitted under CFS by FRS.  I do not think they are a suitable alternative to HD but it could provide the compliance with the enforcement notice as all they are asking is that the individual in a room awakes when they set themselves alight and this would most definitely do so.  The fact that they may fall back asleep is their problem not yours, the means of escape will still be clear when the HD goes off.  We should remember that fire alarms are there to protect the means of escape not individuals.

[AnthonyB]

I've a few retro cases on the go at the moment - sometimes the FRS have a point & the client is in the wrong, but on others the FRS are taking the mick.

They could cite as a reason for this as 'statutory bar' i.e. they certified a building first in 1978 & thus couldn't enforce adaptation to technical progress since as the place didn't change much but that their habds are now untied and they are making up for lost time!

[Tom Sutton]

They could cite as a reason for this as 'statutory bar' i.e. they certified a building first in 1978 & thus couldn't enforce adaptation to technical progress since as the place didn't change much but that their hands are now untied and they are making up for lost time!

I wouldn’t think so, are they not simply auditing the FRA in light of modern day standards. If the RP/competent person has a good case that the FRA is suitable and sufficient, they should take on the FRS and win; if not then the FRS should enforce the FSO.

[colin160174]

1. Single private dwelling is not a term used in the Order it is domestic premises and I do not believe that student accommodation would fall under the description.

So on that principle if I let a flat to 2 students, it is no longer a residential apartment? Domestic premises are domestic premises, regardless of who is living in them.

[Martin]

Do the studios have shared toilet/washing facilities. Unles each studio has it's own facilities it will be part of an hmo. If they are genuinely self contained then the they will be a series of domestic premises with common landlord staircases etc the same as any other block of flats.

[kurnal]

I am a bit puzzled - is the students studio a single room containing both cooking equipment and bed or is the bedroom a seperate room? Its pointless putting a smoke detector in a room where the cooking takes place but it could read as though the bedroom is an inner room?

[Rocha]

The studios comprise of bedroom, kichen and toilet facilites in one room.

[Midland Retty]

Insisting that smoke detection be installed within the studio i think is totally inappropriate. It is the means of escape we are trying to protect with AFD not the occupants of the room.

Back to the point of whether battery smoke detection could be used in conjunction with interlinked heat detection within the individual studios....it's not brilliant.... but I wouldnt say a categoric "no" as Chris Houston did.

If well managed, if a rigid maintenance plan is in place why cant domestic single point smoke detectors be considered. As far as Im concerned the Uni has already proven compliance by having an L1 system (incorporating heat detetcion in individual studio apartments) to protect the MOE , Rocha has gone one further and suggested additional protection through single point battery powered detectors in each room.

If the Uni are of the mind to go beyond what the regulations call for and want to protect the occupant in the room I'd suggest battery smoke detectors are an option.

[kurnal]

Its a nonsense to even think about putting a smoke detector in a room where cooking takes place.
The thing will be ripped down and disembowelled.

I do recognise that BS5839 part 1 is focussed on protection of escape routes and that the Fire Safety Order came much later and introduced a new focus- the concept of the relevant person- but BS5839 part 1 2002 is still best practice guidance which we should aspire.

I personally have a lot of sympathy with the view that smoke detectors may be of benefit in bedrooms and have the potential to protect the sleeper far more effectively than a heat detector. But theres sense and reason. And smoke detection in rooms where cooking takes place is neither.

Now in a hotel bedroom where we were seeking to protect an ambulant person I would have no difficulty with a stand alone battery powered smoke alarm in addition to the heat detector. Does the job its intended to do and persons staying in a hotel room will complain if it starts chirping so weekly checks and battery supervision isnt a problem.

I think an appeal is essential in this case..

[Rocha]

Thanks everyone for your valuable input.

Could anyone expand further on whether the studio would be classed as a domestic premises or not?? and therefore exempt from the RRO.

Rocha

[jokar]

I believe that the fire mag had an article that had case law form a judge on what a single private dwelling is which may give you somwe clue.  As stated earlier that is not the term used in the Order and to my knowldege there is no case law definition of domestic premises only the definition in the Order.

[Izan FSO]

Back to the point of whether battery smoke detection could be used in conjunction with interlinked heat detection within the individual studios....it's not brilliant.... but I wouldnt say a categoric "no" as Chris Houston did.

if you are worried about your students taking the batteries and installing a mains operated detector in each room is cost prohibitive why not go for somthing like this      http://www.housesafe.com/    as an alternative and keep the HD