Student Accom

[JPAH]

I recently fire risk assessed some relatively new purpose built student accommodation in the form of a block of flats.  As normal dwelling units the block would comply with the requirements of ADB or 5588-1 for a small 3-storey single stair building in terms of travel distances, lobby protection to the stairs etc etc.  However each flat contained 5 ensuite bedrooms and a communal kitchen for students.  The internal entrance hall to each flat was protected and had self-closing FD30 doors [without intumescent strips or smoke seals].  The flat entrance door was appropriately FD30S. 

Each flat was fitted with a Grade D LD1 system - which was not linked beyond the flat.  In the common areas [outside each flat] was an L3 system - with a detector just inside the entrance door to each flat. 

The building was extremely well managed with regular fire drills, testing of alarms [internal and external to flats] and 24 hr presence onsite.

My view from being onsite is that this is ok.  The students were essentially living as a unit and there was enhanced provision above that required for normal dwelling units with additional [domestic] detection and self-closing doors.

Am I being too lenient?  Any comments would be appreciated.

[CivvyFSO]

I have seen many places similar to this. Usually there are 4-6 bedrooms, a communal area (or corridor) and a kitchen. This 'cell' has its own part 6 system and the communal area/corridor opens onto another corridor that serves many of these cells. The only alarm that will send a signal down to the concierge is a HD/SD (forming part of L3 coverage to the main corridor) that is fitted in the communal area/corridor. The local part 6 system only alerts the persons in the 'cell', and they can control this system themselves.

I don't see what else could be asked for. The flat occupants are protected, and the rest of the building is also protected should something break out of a bedroom/kitchen.

That being said, it is a regular problem that the students wedge the communal kitchen door open. This is usually controlled by reasonably strict management and good advice.

[kurnal]

Do you think that fire and smoke seals to rooms within the flats would be of benefit bearing in mind that these study bedrooms are not typical sleeping bedrooms they tend to be office/bedrooms/dens of iniquity, the single direction travel distance within the flats often exceeds the 9m for flats as per ADB? Just an opinion, like Civvy I wouldn't be losing too much sleep over it either way.

I bet theres no ventilation in the stair??

[JPAH]

Thanks Guys

Travel distances are fine and believe it or not there are vents to the stair.  The building is only 3 years old.  I've thought hard about strips and smoke seals to the internal doors [150 of them!] and I think I agree - better on than off.  Obviously I'm aware that the building was recently inspected and approved by Building Control and a previous fire risk assessor with no request for these.  My concern is exactly as you mention - when I was a student nothing would've got me out of bed!!

[Midland Retty]

I have had a great deal of experience with student accomodation and halls of residence in particular

Students (god bless them) can be strange creatures who, as you say JPAH , would seem to be capable of sleeping through World War three. It is also common for students to ignore fire alarm activations. Also rooms can get extremely untidy, and they smuggle in their own electrical appliances which don't always get PAT tested

So I think it is desirable (but not essential) to fit strips and seals on bedroom fire doors and increase the time smoke / flame can be contained.

Plus fire doors do warp / get damaged over time and inevitably gaps will appear so strips and seals are probably going to required at some point anyway.

[colin todd]

Dr Retty,  All evidence is that the fire risk to these students is no different to that in Retty Towers. Are the internal doors of the said mansion fitted with intumescent strips and smoke seals, and do you have the LD1 system that they have?? And do you really care whether, after a fully developed fire has been burning in a bedroom for a quarter of an hour with the alarm sounding all that time, a lick of flame is sustained on the hallway side of the door. Answers on the back of a fire risk assessment to the usual address.

[Clevelandfire 3]

Sorry that is a silly argument. Do you have an LD1 system fitted in your own home Colin? How can fire officers "practice what they preach" when often they live in single domestic dwellings which aren't subject to fire safety legislation and aren't anywhere near as big as or are totally different from HMO's or student accomodation we are talking about and thus have different levels of risk because the ammount of people staying there. I'd love to know if any risk assessor, consultant or inspector had LD1 in their home.I was an inspector for many years and had adequate detection in my house which was just battery powered. Why would I want to install mains powered detection for extra protection.I dont have anyone staying at home who i dont have control over, or where I dont know what they might be up to behind closed doors. The guidance published by HMG is there for good reason based upon previous experiences at fire incidents, and tests carried out using benchmark standards, but you yourself Colin already said recently it's hard to go againt tried and tested standards.

[kurnal]

These units are not Retty Towers, they are HMOs and measured against the HMO benchmarks they have strengths and weaknesses- major strengths in this case appear to be LD1, management and on site security, weaknesses include the occupants and the way the flats themselves are used.

Common sense would say that at the very least the kitchen door should be provided with fire and smoke seals. Students will always put something on the cooker then go back to their games of electronic ping pong or whatever inferior games they play these days whilst it cooks. Guaranteed.

As for the other doors - well in any other bedroom corridor in any other situation - and especially in a dead end condition we would expect to see  FD30S. Hotel, hostel, (and indeed I am told much sleeping goes on in Toddys offices). By treating this as a flat we may  apply the domestic benchmark applied to flats internal design - except that really its a HMO. If it were a domestic flat we would look to the history of the guidance- eg CP3 et al which set out travel distances and layouts - and made sensible suggestions that bedrooms should be closer to the flat entrance doors than risk rooms- such as kitchens and lounges.

Here lies another significant difference. Historically the lounge in a flat was considered higher risk than the bedrooms because thats where most fires were shown to start. I guarantee that in the student housing described the fire loading and activites in bedrooms are more akin to 6 lounges than 6 bedrooms. 

And if I stay at Retty Towers I am staying in a single household lovingly cared for and supervised by Mr and Mrs Retty (INNL). These student flats cannot be described as a single household. They are usually a clumsy attempt at social engineering by the establishment for first year students in which a group of students are carefully selected at random (yes I do mean that)  which at best brings together a diverse mix of friends and at worst creates world war three. In many cases the occupants sharing a flat cannot give a damn about where their peers are or what they are doing.

In summary if I were carrying out this risk assessment I would recommend that the lack of fire seals to the kitchen door is a substantial risk needing action  and the lack of seals to bedrooms is proably borderline tolerable/moderate risk for which an action plan should be implemented to ensure they are fitted on refurbishment. 

[colin todd]

Ah the tramlines of labels never die do they. The old ones are the best. Happily fire does not know or care what we call premises. What really matters therefore is the level of risk. Sorry to bore people with hard facts and proper research, which I know is less dramatic than emotional claptrap and totally ignoring what the poor chap said in the first instance that this is simply a block of flats. In some areas of the country, including that in which Retty Towers is located, there are serious social problems associated with flat dwellers but we dont ask for all the over the top measures discussed above. The LD1 system and good solid self closing doors is absolutely fine, and the risk assesor would be squandering money for which one day liability will arise when people go way over the top, by asking for excessive measures. It has been shown statistically that the risk to occupants of a shared student house (or in this case a flat) is no different to the risk in a single family dwelling-FACT!!! regardless of what subjective junk one might sling at students.  As for going against guidance, BS 5839-6 says all of this, and would only ask for the detection specified for a single family flat, but these people have the benefit of the addtional AFD and the self closers that would not now be needed in a single family flat. (The doors though are not as suggested in the first question FD 30 if they have no strips. But who cares?)

[Graeme]

. Do you have an LD1 system fitted in your own home Colin? 

I do..perks of the job..

[JPAH]

This is fantastic - like watching a very slow game of tennis.  I am tending towards my initial instinct that the building is fairly safe.  I think [as per Kurnal] I will recommend seals and strips to the kitchen only [it is at the end of the corridor next to the flat entrance door] and that only in replacement or general maintenance work seals and strips would be recommended to bedroom doors.

[colin todd]

You do realize of course that, by fitting the strip, at a cost of possibly over £100 per kitchen door, you are implicitly saying you can envisage people being around for over a quarter of an hour  POST FLASHOVER of a fire in the kitchen, having been given warning by the heat detector more than 20 minutes before any fire spread beyond the kitchen is likely to occur. And there is presumably some reason that this post flashover fire is more of a risk to the young students than to an aged old lady in a flat in a sheltered housing block. Reasonably practicable is different from practicable and "lets chuck in a bit more" just to be sure since its not our bill anyway.

[kurnal]

The kitchen will have a heat detector rather than a smoke detector, in my experience a fire could develop to flashover whilst persons are still present- there are so many variables.

The aged old lady most likely lives alone and does not share her flat with five other people none of whom have any relationship with her and all of whom cook independently of the others.

Qualitative risk assessments will always be subjective. Our opinion expressed on a forum will always be founded on our perception of the scenario and our past experiences. Its good and helpful to have an exchange of opinions and I am happy offer mine and take on others views.

My view is that the risk profile of the scenario is very different to a flat occupied by a single family unit.  Others will always see it differently. C'est la vie.
 
 

[Clevelandfire 3]

You do realize of course that, by fitting the strip, at a cost of possibly over £100 per kitchen door, you are implicitly saying you can envisage people being around for over a quarter of an hour  POST FLASHOVER of a fire in the kitchen, having been given warning by the heat detector more than 20 minutes before any fire spread beyond the kitchen is likely to occur. And there is presumably some reason that this post flashover fire is more of a risk to the young students than to an aged old lady in a flat in a sheltered housing block. Reasonably practicable is different from practicable and "lets chuck in a bit more" just to be sure since its not our bill anyway.

£100 per door? can you qualify that Colin because I've never heard of such excessive costs. Also you seem to forget about the issue of business continuity and building protection, not mention the fact that we aren't talking about shared accomodation on this thread.

[nearlythere]

This will always be the subject of a prolonged discussion and the matter is not helped when we read prosecutions including the absence of intumescent strips on fire doors.
I tend to recommend that doors to the types of rooms considered to be fire hazardous, and all the codes describe them, be fitted with strips and smoke seals. This cuts down on the costs and shows a common sense approach, I think.