Stay put or not

[Hightower]

I have recently conducted a fire risk assessment on the common areas of a modern block of flats.
Having considered all the aspects of the need for installing AFD I believe that should certain criteria be rectified e.g. the reintroduction of fire doors onto the apartment entrances, then AFD is not required.  All fine so far - my deliberation comes in providing a suitable fire procedure for the flats.

Until the doors are replaced then compartmentation is inadequate - so therefore a stay put policy is questionable, yet of course without an alarm fitted, then an evacuation procedure won't be initiated unless, of course by word of mouth.

Having stated to the directorate of the flats that they need to replace the offending doors (where necessary) I have gone ahead and provided a Stay put fire procedure.  I still feel a little edgy in doing this, however feel it is the better of the two options.  Wondered on the thoughts of others.

[nearlythere]

Hi Hightower
You say that you have gone ahead and provided a stay put policy. Have you advised that the stay put policy should not be commenced until the requisite doors have been upgraded?

[kurnal]

The proverbial rock and a hard place.
There is little point in instigating an all out policy unless you have some means of raising the alarm- which you havn't and some means of control over the people to ensure they respond to the alarm- again you havn't. The priority must be to protect the staircases and that should be easy.

My solution in these cases is to ensure that in the short term key fire doors between the lobby and the staircase are of a good standard and if the other fire doors cannot be upgraded quickly then to consider temporary domestic heat alarms with a smoke in the common areas linked together with other flats on the same landing. Sometimes this works, sometimes its impracticable but worth considering.   

[Big T]

From my perspective having worked in the industry of Social housing for some time you have a real quandry.

The RP needs to be informed directly that thte building is a significant exposure to your organisiation with regard to the RRO and as the RP he / she would be responsible.

Doors should be replaced immediately without question. No expense spared. Where doors are not fire rated then doors should be replaced with modern code compliant doors.

An evacuation strategy will not work long term but an evacuation strategy instigated by the temporary installation of an interlinked Manual call point system in the communal areas could be considered very short term while the work is undertaken. In my opinion it is not unreasonable to rectify this within a week. The RP will assist you in getting the right money if the issue is significant. If they do not then you can sleep easy.

A fire is statistically likely to occur within a flat and in addition is likely to occur whilst the flat is occupied. A manual system would in my opinion be suitable as the resident in the flat of the origin of fire could raise the alarm on exiting the flat.

Send a fire action notice to each resident.

A stay out policy will be wholly sifficient once all compartmentation issues are remedied

[kurnal]

I agree Big T but in those tower blocks not under the control of a social landlord it may be much more difficult to pin down who is responsible and who has control, and often to find the funds to carry out the remedial work, especially where the block is owned by a company the shareholders of which are the tenants themselves. This can be a real challenge, and if it comes to court judges MAY be persuaded to take a more realistic interpretation of "so far as is reasonably  practicable" and the suitability of interim measures. Perhaps? Only a test case would tell and then we are unlikely to get any generally applicable precedents from it.. 

[Hi Tower]

Hi Kurnal

Your point is very prevalent to the case I have in mind - the block is owned by the residents management company and managed for them by a building management company - to put things into perspective the manager I was recently talking to was very impressed that the residents had over the past year managed to raise £900 towards one of its previous fire risk assessment recommendations - this amount in reality will not go far and will certainly not cover the cost of replacing the necessary doors in the immediate future or any interim or otherwise fire alarm.
So the case is that in all probability at least one or more doors will still be in the same condition next year and no fire alarm installed - considering all this some sort of emergency procedure is necessary - but which one??!!

[kurnal]

How tall and how many staircases?

How many flats at each level?

What are the arrangements for ventilation of stairs and lobbies/ corridors?

[Hightower]

Kurnal

2 storeys with 3 exits on each floor and all exits available to all flats - no AOV but two exits at 1st floor level lead directly to open air and thus can be opened for ventilation purposes.  Exits are in the middle and at each end of the block.

There are 25 flats on each level.  Several of them are let.

[kurnal]

Hitower
From your user name I had assumed 20 storeys!

This is much less of a problem all round. It seems to me there may be many possibilities to reduce the level of risk without necessarily going for an "all out" policy. Remember that all the more complex issues and strategies for the design of flats eg AOVs only applied to blocks above two storeys high.

Have you considered the possibility of escape from each flat via windows- is this possible beariing in mind storey height and obstructions?

If all flats have a choice of directions to escape you could reduce the overall level of risk by fitting temporary additional fire doors across corridors ? This would reduce the number of flats exposed to risk from any one fire and at the same time creating that double door one hour fire compartmentation for the others?

The following is not a dig at you but an overview of the industry as a whole. Your query has just prompted it at this time. After all I have no idea of what your role is  - you may be an owner, fire consultant or fire fighter for all I know.

With all due respect my approach to this type of problem is to use my qualifications, knowledge and experience to formulate an opinion on the level of risk and the most appropriate steps that need to be taken in the circumstances of the case. To make a judgement on behalf of my client as to what is likely to be considered "Reasonably Practicable" and be prepared to stand by it even in the witness box. I believe that is what my client is paying me for.

There are loads of so called fire risk assessors out there who do not serve their clients well because they either  are too scared or inexperienced to do anything other than follow the letter of the guide book or others who are too shortsighted to see what the real problems are and focus on the trivial.

But please dont let my winging put you off further postings on this or any other topic. Welcome to the forum.

[jokar]

In a defend in place strategy. all but the flat involved stay in the premises.  All doors act in some way to hold back fire and smoke and magistrates or a Judge will take this into account.  Bearing in mind the comments already made about the raising of funds and other issues such as the terms and conditions of a lease and you have a real problem.

No matter whether a fire door replaces the doors in situ, the door once opened will allow smoke and products of combustion out into the stairway.  However, it will have to be some fire to breach into another flat from the stairway.  More likely is the scenario of external flame spread which will occur and put peole at risk no matter what type of door is installed.

[Hightower]

My user name is an insight into my height - you'd probably have to look upwards if we met - and of course I look down on most??!!!!

[Hi Tower]

Kurnal

I take note of your comments about making a call on what is reasonable and practicable about a given circumstance(s) and then standing by it, even if required to do so when in a court of law - I have made an informed decision based on my experience and qualifications (which is clearly not guide book led or I'd just recommend a Gd A LD2 as per page 55....)  on believing that a defend in place policy would best suit the situation I found, however, if I can go back to my original point of the thread I wondered what the opinion  of readers was about the dilema I described of 'when to inform residents of the stay put policy and what policy (if different) should be offered until the measures of compartmentation were addressed to a satifactory condition - bearing in mind that no AFD is in place.

I am not asking for any advice on wether I have made the right decision of having AFD or otherwise (I'm sure there will be many opinions) but rather comments on the decision of informing residents with an appropriate fire procedure during the interim between identifying the lack of compartmentation and having it rectified or (if you like) conversely not having AFD and having it fitted.

[kurnal]

Because it has been shown time and again that in most blocks of flats one out all out simply does not work - people at best come to their doors and stand there to see if they feel they are personally threatened by fire and smoke and if not they go back inside or find the alarm panel and smash it off the wall.

Choice 1  surely has to be to do what you can quckly as possible to reduce the risk of a stay put policy to that which is tolerable until permanent measures are put in place.

The one out all out policy is the last resort and can only work effectively in conjunction with AFD  (which needs to include heat detectors in flat lobbies) and an audible alarm system throughout the building. Smoke detection in escape routes only is likely to give a warning when its too late bearing in mind the response times in flats. And that will take time to implement as well as costing a fair amount- effectively wasted money. Its backing a loser in my opinion.

But we are no doubt have a different view on that!