Tower blocks, emergency lights,safety signs

[Thomas Brookes]

Forgive me but London residential tower blocks are not my bag, but recently I was asked to quote for a big London housing association (sorry no names ) for fire exit and safety signs. There initial H &S chap wanted photoluminescant signs because they do not have ANY emergency lights in the escape routes at all and some of these blocks are 15 and 16 storeys with a central staircase with no borrowed light.

We did a couple of the blocks so they could see what we were doing and the quality of our signs etc, we even got the technical chap from the signs company (and we are talking one of the big signs manufactures top bloke) to assist us and check everything was as BS etc.
We got the first stage of the job and all was well, then towards the end of this stage the old H & S chap left and they got a new one.

The new guy said that he had spoke to the Fire and Rescue services that cover that area and they have told them that they do not need emergency lights (which is what we initially recommended) and also that they only want some basic self adhesive  signs. He claims that they have put this in writing.

To be honest I have not had loads of dealings with the London F & R services but to me this seems a bit odd not wanting any emergency lights or escape signs in a 15 storey building.
As I say residential tower blocks are not my thing so does anyone know of any strange regs that preclude tower blocks from the RRFSO, I toyed with contacting the Chief Officer but then decided not to bother.

[JC100]

I agree.
I work for a london housing association (not the one you're talking about) and find it quite strange that this is what the LFB have 'apparently' said. I can understand excluding emergency escape lighting on smaller buildings if borrowed light is sufficient but not on tower blocks and also with signage, generally residents will all use the lift and possibly have never used the stairs so i would have said signs are needed to direct accordingly.

1 - ADB says emergency lighting is required in all residential buildings above 2 storey.
2 - BS 5588-1 says escape lighting should fitted in addition to artificial lighting in windowless common stairs, common stairs in buildings higher than 18m.

Both of these go against what the LFB have apparently said so am confused also.
 

[kurnal]

Theres a pretty simple way to find out for yourself what the Fire Authorities views are on this! But who has carried out the fre risk assessment of the common areas and what is their view?

Certainly current guidance is to provide emergency escape lighting in the escape routes. In the old days - probably if the building was designed to the old CP3 Chapter 4 part 1 "Precautions against Fire- Flats and Maisonettes in blocks over two storeys" emergency escape lighting as we know it would not have been provided, but the requirement would have been for separate, protected circuits dedicated and direct from the main dis board, automatic time controls, and if the staircase had no borrowed lighting the circuits feeding the stairs should de separated from the circuits feeding the corridors. Very often such cables were buried in a small conduit and buried deep in the concrete or plaster of the building.
Now any such wiring,even if still installed and maintained to that standard will be about 40 years old, as it is reviewed there is a duty in the Fire Safety Order to "adapt to technical Progress" - ie consider applying current best practice as per the current standards. If the wiring has been replaced it more than likely does not have the protection it ussed to enjoy, and with modern wiring regs splitting phases across floors etc may make such arrangements very difficult to re-instate.

[Thomas Brookes]

Theres a pretty simple way to find out for yourself what the Fire Authorities views are on this!

Not being picky, but how do I get this from a certain Fire Authority

[kurnal]

OK fair point Thomas.

But going back to the rest of my posting BS5588 pt 1 is pretty specific over where emergency escape lighting should be installed in these places. And it is most unlikely that the original protected circuits are still in place and functioning so BS5266 installations would be the expected mimimum in windowless accommodation normally accessible to the residents, windowless common stairs, internal common corridors exceeding 30m in length etc. See 26.2.2. of BS5588 pt 1

[SidM]

Kurnal - Who is supposed to use the stairs when there is a stay put policy?  Inevitably, you & I know people will and besides the RRO does not cover fire fighters so on the basis of a cost saving risk assessment I would say: this block has a stay put policy & hence escape lighting is not required.

[kurnal]

Kurnal - Who is supposed to use the stairs when there is a stay put policy?  Inevitably, you & I know people will and besides the RRO does not cover fire fighters so on the basis of a cost saving risk assessment I would say: this block has a stay put policy & hence escape lighting is not required.

No such thing in law as a cost saving risk assessment. The risk to relevant persons from fire needs to be reduced to a level that is as low as is reasonably practicable. A stay put policy you may have- but there is always potential for further escalation and evacuation on arrival of the fire brigade at their discretion. Stay put policies depend on so many other factors that have potential to go wrong as illustrated so tragically recently. I agree that where there is a stay put policy then the risk of not providing EL is lower, on a liklihood/consequence argument. Thats why 5588 part 1 is much more lax in its recommendations than other parts in the (now outdated) series. If the old protected lighting circuits installed when the building was put up are still intact and in good working order  then yes stick with them. I bet you they aren't though and have probably been replaced with PVC in mini trunking.

[Thomas Brookes]

I pointed out to the management that although they have a stay put policy, whats the policy for someone visiting the building or cleaners, caretakers even the poor buggers putting up signes etc.
I was told this has been aproved by the F & R services so we are not doing it.

[TallyHo]

In common access routes within multi-storey dwelling buildings in excess of 10 storeys it is recommended that an NM/3 system should be installed.

However, if the majority of persons using access routes are familiar with them then escape signs may not be necessary.  I suppose you would have to argue that the occupants are unlikely to be familiar with the escape routes in which case illuminated signs should be provided, but I think they will maintain that signage is not required.

[wee brian]

Kurnal - Who is supposed to use the stairs when there is a stay put policy?  Inevitably, you & I know people will and besides the RRO does not cover fire fighters so on the basis of a cost saving risk assessment I would say: this block has a stay put policy & hence escape lighting is not required.

Stay put policies allow people to stay put. There isnt a rule preventing them from leaving if they want to. People who decide they want to leave (maybe the occupant of the flat on fire?) and the escape routes should facilitate their escape.

Also if the incident gets worse, then evacuation may be necessary - ergo - escape lighting is probably more important for stay put than for some other buildings.

[StuartH]

Some tower blocks employ persons who work in common areas such as cleaners and caretakers. These employees will almost certainly NOT have access to flats so may have to escape in the event of a fire. It would not necessarily be safe for them to stay put, and of course employees ARE covered by the RRO. It is also possible that residents may already be in the staircase or escape route when a fire occurs. In the case of the tower blocks that I have been involved with the staircase and means of escape routes are nearly always frequented by residents and their "visitors".