Means of Escape in Sheltered Housing

[GB]

I have an 'extra care' facility or sheltered / residential care hybrid development where the client wants to put soft furnishings e.g sofa chairs etc in the common areas. This includes corridors and circulation areas.

He cites the RRO guides where a small amount of combustibles is hinted at but not defined.

I am used to keeping MoE sterile as much as possible. Can anyone point me to the sections within the RRO guides applicable?

[Paul2886]

Make sure its fire retardant, its probably a no smoking area anyway but put signage up in the area, make sure it doesn’t impede the routes to safety which includes wheel chairs , ensure that there are means to prevent unauthorised intrusion into the premises. Where’s the problem if controlled and kept to a minimum, it might even take away an institutionalised appearance

[nearlythere]

I have an 'extra care' facility or sheltered / residential care hybrid development where the client wants to put soft furnishings e.g sofa chairs etc in the common areas. This includes corridors and circulation areas.

He cites the RRO guides where a small amount of combustibles is hinted at but not defined.

I am used to keeping MoE sterile as much as possible. Can anyone point me to the sections within the RRO guides applicable?

I think "small amounts" might mean a cosmetic level rather than converting a common area into a living space and all that that entails. However, as Paul is alluding to, it would very much depend on the level of risk within the area, for example if there are any sources of igniton, the distribution of furnishings and the existance of an alternative means of escape, etc. A risk assessment of the situation would be in order.

[CivvyFSO]

I wouldn't call a sofa a small amount of combustibles.

http://www.fire.nist.gov/fire/fires/sofa/sofa.html

I believe this will be a USA spec sofa which is not the same standard of foam as a UK sofa, but even a UK sofa will burn well once something gets it going. (Ask any of the operational/ex-operational guys here.) In my opinion it is a fire you can't afford to have in a common area, particularly in a place with any element of residential care.

[Phoenix]

Just to add weight, I have to agree completely with Civvy here.  I couldn't rest easy if I knew an escape route had been turned into a room and bedrooms had been turned into inner rooms.

The small amount of combustibles that might be allowed would be along the lines of a few chairs without upholstery, a pot plant or two and, at a push, maybe a coffee table with a very limited and well managed number of magazines (i.e. one Beano and two leaflets on funeral plans).

Stu

[Paul2886]

I don;t think GB was talking about making an escape route into a lounge and making rooms into inner rooms. Why we do we always have to exaggerate and assume someone is going to transform things into time bomb waiting to go off. The sort of thing I think GB was making is whether a small area can be set aside within a common area to make the place more homely and not stuffing it with masses of combustible furniture, tv sets etc. This sort of request should be risk assessed with many considerations and not just applying blanket statements to it.

[CivvyFSO]

This includes corridors and circulation areas.

Yes and on a risk assessed basis I will say without a doubt that you should remove all fully uphostered sofas and chairs from the escape corridors in a res/extra care home.

[Paul2886]

Sorry thats not a risk assessment thats a blanket statement....the easy route

[Midland Retty]

Generally I agree with Civvy ( I wouldn't say without doubt) - but in a Extra care shletered scheme scenarios combustibles in escape routes are not only undesirable but could compromise the evacuation strategy and means of escape severely

Paul I take your point about risk assessing the scenario, but in my view, however remote the chance of a fire occurring may be in the common areas, the consequences of a fire therein would be catastrophic. Often these places (extra care) are not staffed during the night, so early intervention of a small fire is unlikely.

[jayjay]

I would also agree that furniture of this nature should not be in any common areas.

Just look at the recent hooha regarding the potted plants and door mats in common areas, which was probably a bit over the top.

With regadards to the standard of the sofas it is illegal in the UK to sell non compliant domestic furniture so not sure how you may have the american standards?

[FSO]

Howabout in a fully sprinklered building then?

[AM]

Sheltered housing providers like seating areas in commumal spaces as it gives old people a place to rest between their doors and the lift, if they struggle to get about, and tend not to treat them as additional social spaces. Once that happens, you end up with bookcases, lamps and other items appearing (including random chairs that occupants don't want, which may not comply with current fire regs).

BS 5588 pt 1 does allow for seating areas in common corridors in certain situations (not in dead ends, cross corridor doors separating it, no dwellings open onto it, width not less than 1m etc).

[novascot]

If there are no sources of ignition in the area what is the problem? Keep conbustibles separated from ignition sources and there will be no fire. Assess the area looking at the potential for any fire and the likelihood / chance of having a fire and the potential consequences then take it from there.

As long as the fire load is kept to a minimum and the escape route is not impeded, there is an arguement to allow furniture complying with The F&F Regs allowing the od folk to rest during there walk to and from destinations when required and keeping the place less like an institution.
They shouldn't be used for long term sitting. There are Lounges or day rooms for that.

[CivvyFSO]

Maybe I was just trying to cause a bit of trouble with the 'without a doubt' remark. I seem to be going out of my way to antagonise people at the moment.

FSO, the chances are that even in a sprinklered building the corridor would be impassable should the worst happen. And to me, all the different levels of impassable are still impassable. (Look at recent determinations regarding bedrooms as inner rooms in sprinklered apartments.) Having an escape route that cannot be used is certainly not supplying a suitable means of escape. Something like water mist that is designed to extinguish the fire might be more acceptable to some.

Jayjay, I don't care how they use it, I care about the fire loading. The USA standard only comes into it regarding the pictures. NIST is an american institute, so the sofa in the test will be of USA standards. I'll have a look and see if BRE have done anything if it matters that much.

Novascot, you should help rewrite the HTM documents, hospitals would seem much less bare and clinical then. Regarding people who have to rest on their way back to the room, doesn't the limited mobility of these people mean we should be veering towards better protection for them? I am not talking about not allowing them any form of seat to rest their legs, just fully upholstered 'sofa-chairs' and the like.

IMO too many people (Generally us non-firefighter types who haven't seen a fire retardant chair going like the clappers) think that just because something is fire resistant that it isn't a problem. Maybe an appreciation of all that it has to do to pass the BS476 tests might help.

[Phoenix]

I'm not trying to creep up to you Civvy but, again, I have to fully support your comments here.

I don;t think GB was talking about making an escape route into a lounge and making rooms into inner rooms. Why we do we always have to exaggerate and assume someone is going to transform things into time bomb waiting to go off. The sort of thing I think GB was making is whether a small area can be set aside within a common area to make the place more homely and not stuffing it with masses of combustible furniture, tv sets etc. This sort of request should be risk assessed with many considerations and not just applying blanket statements to it.

Paul,  you should be quite clear that putting fire load into an escape route makes it, for fire safety purposes, a room; and rooms off it, inner rooms.  Maybe it doesn't matter what you call it, a "room" or a "fire loaded corridor", but the principle is equivalent to it being a room.

Howabout in a fully sprinklered building then?

Civvy's answered this for you but a very thorough analysis and discussion of the issues involved can be found in the BRE report 204505 "Effectiveness of sprinklers in residential premises".  You can get this freely on-line but I think you have to register with the BRE.  It may also be available via the CLG site.  And while you're there also look at BRE report BD2546 "Sprinkler Effectiveness in Care Homes", also free.

If there are no sources of ignition in the area what is the problem? Keep conbustibles separated from ignition sources and there will be no fire. Assess the area looking at the potential for any fire and the likelihood / chance of having a fire and the potential consequences then take it from there.

You're missing the point here and Retty has already, earlier in the thread, covered this.  Any risk assessment, you will agree, is about balancing likelihood against possible consequences.  In this case, as is usually the case with fire risk assessments, the possible consequences are the worst you can get and, therefore, the only way to deal with the risk is to all but eliminate the likelihood.  Leaving a readily ignitable fire load in a corridor, irrespective of whether any potential ignition source is apparent or not, does not go far enough towards eliminating the likelihood.  Removal of the readily ignitable fire load would, for me, virtually remove the possibility of the severe consequences occurring. 

If the fire loading material was not in a readily ignitable form, such as un-upholstered chairs, I don't think many would be worried about it.

As long as the fire load is kept to a minimum and the escape route is not impeded, there is an arguement to allow furniture complying with The F&F Regs

There may be an argument, but it's a very poor one.

What is this minimum level of fire loading you're going to allow?  One sofa?  Will that not make the escape route impassable if it's on fire?

Stu