Means of Escape in Sheltered Housing

[Paul2886]

Walk into a hosptital, notice the reception desk, notice the soft furnishings around it it, notice the corridors giving access to the treatment rooms with soft seating immediate outside. look up and see the fire exit signage within these areas. Shall we take all of them out, ensure all the walls are concrete blocks, take the carpets up and have concrete floors and what about those perishing pictures they have adornong the walls with wooden frames....my goodness I seem to be describing an inferno just waiting to be triggered. The serious point here is that you'll never see any escape route in the premises you describe thats totally free of combustioble materials including the occasionally chair. Look at the bigger picture and risk assess it or can we just sit at home on the end of a phone doing a fire risk assessment because its no more than just applying codes

[kurnal]

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?

Your client is looking at paragraph 1.11 of the guidance.
IMO it depends on tha area served by the corridor. If it is a corridor directly serving accommodation units or bedrooms I would insist it is kept sterile.
If its in a general circulation area onto which no accommodation units or bedrooms open directly, (ie there is a fire door separating the corridor from the area involved)  and any accommodation that connects with this circulation area has an alternative MOE then you could be a little more relaxed.

[FSO]

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.

So clearly ADB is wrong about not having self closers on resi care rooms fitted with sprinklers then?

I dont see a big issue in a sprinklered building, providing the furniture complies to 7176 or a similar standard.

[CivvyFSO]

FSO, are you trying to say that a sprinkler system stops CO HCL HCN etc from being produced? Unless you are going to fully extinguish the fire, these things will still be produced.

ADB also says that you should take into account of the need to manually close the doors during sleeping hours. Is this because the sprinklers fail to perform as well at night or because it is recognised that sprinklers are not the be-all and end all of fire safety?

Working on the ADB example, I will 'allow' chairs. So long as you remove them every night.

[FSO]

FSO, are you trying to say that a sprinkler system stops CO HCL HCN etc from being produced? Unless you are going to fully extinguish the fire, these things will still be produced.

ADB also says that you should take into account of the need to manually close the doors during sleeping hours. Is this because the sprinklers fail to perform as well at night or because it is recognised that sprinklers are not the be-all and end all of fire safety?

Working on the ADB example, I will 'allow' chairs. So long as you remove them every night.

No Civvy that is not what I am saying at all. The point I am trying to make is that ADB relaxes the self operation of a physical fire gas barrier when fire suppression is fitted. So ADB must assume it, not me.

Clearly I accept that doors should be kept shut at night as the response times will be longer, so is it saying fires do not occur during the day??

What are we trying to stop here, fires starting in common areas or mitigate fire spread? There is a clear difference.

If the risk is managed to an acceptable level with the appropriate standard of furnishings, no sources of ignition, well tranined staff and good procedures.....how large is the issue? Especially in a premises with a fitted fire suppression system.

I can understand the risk based approach here and the location should be considered for its suitability e.g not on dead ends etc, but sometimes I feel we should apply some common sense.

Incidently, I have attended a few fires in sprinklered buildings where there has been a small fire (im not talking warehouses here) and the fire has been pretty much extinguished prior to our arrival.

[Paul2886]

Well said FSO, you sound like a fire risk assessor that looks at the bigger picture

[CivvyFSO]

Incidently, I have attended a few fires in sprinklered buildings where there has been a small fire (im not talking warehouses here) and the fire has been pretty much extinguished prior to our arrival.

I am sure that will often be the case.

We have many years of statistics regarding sprinkler systems. The success rate for non-life-safety systems controlling or extinguishing the fire is about 95%. So 1 in 20 you are looking at a potentially large problem unless you fit a full BS EN 12845 life safety system which drastically reduces this rate of failure due to the redundancy inherent in the system. Even then you are looking at designing it to a design fire size, as even though it is acknowledged that the fire will often be extinguished, or at the very least kept very small, we still need to safety margin to allow for the unusual/unlikely events that DO occur, given enough fires.

[Phoenix]

Walk into a hosptital, notice the reception desk, notice the soft furnishings around it it, notice the corridors giving access to the treatment rooms with soft seating immediate outside.

Notice the alternative exit routes separated by fire resisting doors....

I can understand the risk based approach here and the location should be considered for its suitability e.g not on dead ends etc, but sometimes I feel we should apply some common sense.

Talking of common sense... FSO and Paul, I think you have to ask yourselves, what is a dead end?  

Might it be a location in a building from which there is only one route out?  

Do you think dead ends are critical because, if you lose that singular exit route to a fire, any people on the wrong side of it will be in a severe pickle?

Do you think that this principle might apply to people in rooms whose only escape route is out through the corridor that contains ignitable fire loading?  Might such people be considered to be in a dead end?

I think there is a chance that you are being led towards accepting an unsatisfactory level of safety because you have seen furnishings in corridors in similar premises but you have failed to notice that such areas are separated from escape routes by FR construction and doors.  (Paul, your comments about hospitals indicate this). Yes, part of one escape route might have furnishings in it but there will always be an alternative route that obviates the need to pass through that fire loaded area.

It is simply not acceptable to have soft furnishings in the only escape route from bedrooms in a building such as we are discussing here.  And I re-iterate, as Civvy has done, sprinklers make no difference.  Reference to the previously mentioned documents will make this clear.

Look at the bigger picture and risk assess it or can we just sit at home on the end of a phone doing a fire risk assessment because its no more than just applying codes

It's not code hugging, it's collective wisdom based on rigorous and broad research.  It's tried and tested.  

You are doing yourselves and the whole fire safety industry a dis-service if you take it upon yourselves to lower fire safety standards the way you are proposing.  You are also leaving yourselves open if anything should ever go wrong in the future in one of the buildings where you have allowed safety to drop against the weight of all fire safety guidance.

Stu

[nearlythere]

Mind you when you are in a normal bedroom, for example, containing all sorts of  combustibles, you are in a dead end condition. In a fire situation your escape route starts from where you are are.

[Phoenix]

Mind you when you are in a normal bedroom, for example, containing all sorts of  combustibles, you are in a dead end condition. In a fire situation your escape route starts from where you are are.

Ha ha ok.  But that's what travel distance limitations in rooms are all about.

Stu

[Paul2886]

Phoenix, You have missed the point I'm making. I can assure you I have asked for stuff to be moved from escape routes in the past but I do not make blanket statements on the issue. I do understand about dead-end situations, single directions of travel and the potential hazards of placing combustible items on escape routes but there are situations and conditions where this can be relaxed, surely.

[nearlythere]

Mind you when you are in a normal bedroom, for example, containing all sorts of  combustibles, you are in a dead end condition. In a fire situation your escape route starts from where you are are.

Ha ha ok.  But that's what travel distance limitations in rooms are all about.

Stu

Yes. A dead end condition. If you can travel in one direction only, no matter where you are, you are in a dead end. If it is more than 18M travel distance, according to practically all the guides, and maybe a bit more in factories, you need an alternative.

[Phoenix]

Phoenix, You have missed the point I'm making. I can assure you I have asked for stuff to be moved from escape routes in the past but I do not make blanket statements on the issue. I do understand about dead-end situations, single directions of travel and the potential hazards of placing combustible items on escape routes but there are situations and conditions where this can be relaxed, surely.

Of course there are, Paul.  But the scenario presented here, without further mitigating circumstances, is not one that would normally be accepted.  The actual case that started this thread, or any other similar case, may have such mitigating circumstances that would vary the requirements. 

This forum is good for exploring diverse and opposing attitudes and perceptions, and it would be a naive person who posted what he (she) believed to be an absolute truth without expecting ten people to shoot it down in flames.

But there are standards.

Stu

[FSO]

Would you be worried if it was metal furniture then?

[Phoenix]

Not at all, provided it didn't obstruct any route.  Heavy timber furniture (not upholstered) can be ok, provided it's in limited quantities, because it's not readily ignitable, but you have to watch out for tables or anything similar that can become a respository for magazines and papers.  The staff might swear blind that no papers or books will be allowed to accumulate there, but go back after a year and time will tell a different story.

Stu