Scotlands first determination

[Ricardo]

The outome from the CI of Scottish F&RA of Scotlands first determination under the Fire(Scotland) Act 2005 as amended.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/254432/0093111.pdf

[jokar]

Well, that is a sensible approach.

[CivvyFSO]

Almost makes a mockery of the benchmark guidance though. Most HMO's are going to have difficulty forming a second escape route, and sprinklers will always be expensive. Even where a second escape route is able be formed, if Mr McJock down the road can run a place with no second second escape route, and still doesn't have to put sprinklers in, then why should Mr McTavish up the road when their premises are identical?

[Midland Retty]

It was a very strange determination in many respects not least because the application asked for clarity as to whether the premises in question fell under the scope of the Fire (Scotland) Act

Also the enforcing authority's requirement that either a secondary means of escape or sprinkler system be installed seems completely OTT on paper

As you say Civvy - it does rather make a mockery of the guidance!

[Ricardo]

I see the CI has determined that sprinklers is unreasonable in this case, but he seems to me to be saying in his reply to the dutyholder at the end of the document to consider installing them, even a partial system, I always thought that both BS’s for sprinklers domestic/residential and commercial recommended full coverage of a dwelling or building with sprinklers with the recommended exceptions of course.

[ando]

Although i am not the least bit shocked by the decission, i did find it a bit strange that he thought the service should have presented more information about the actual cost of installation.
I agree with ricardo, the installation of partial sprinkler systems is not normally recommended as sprinkler systems are designed to tackle fires in the room of origin and not to offer protection from fires breaching compartmentation.
I can see where he is coming from,  it seems in this case that there is an existing building with existing measures which could never meet the current benchmark standards without serious amounts of cash, so best to  judge whether the existing measures are adequate and are the most that could or should be reasonably taken in this instance.  Don't forget that the benchmark is based on current building standards for new builds or renovations.

It would be like fitting airbags to a model T ford...possible but a waste of time and effort and certainly not required in law.

Hope to be able to debate the merits or otherwise of this determination with todd of todd hall or a colleague of his who can perform the same duties as said learned gentleman next month at scotlands higher seat of fire learning.

[CivvyFSO]

I think that the reference to the Fire Authority showing an approximate cost of the system is to back up whether it is reasonably practicable. i.e. How can you say that the benefits outweight the costs without having an idea of the cost? Also if it goes to determination you should be supplying more information to back up your case, as was also lacking in the SD in hotel bedrooms determination recently. (Not that it would have made much difference in that case, but you should be able to quantify the difference that what you are asking for will make.)

[colin todd]

Ando, At the superb seat of learning to which you refer, you will be aware that officers are taught that the meaning of as low as reasonably practicable means proportionality between cost, time and trouble in one scale and risk on the other.  I think that this is all that Brian Fraser (hereafter, IMO to be regarded as Sir Brian on account of the excellence of the prose and the measured and reasonable atttitude, so typical of the cool guys and gals of Scottish Government, regardless of whether or not everyone agrees with the outcome) was suggesting  should have been addressed in the submission.

Not only was the determination well-written, but it demonstrated total impartiality and, frankly, the balls to side with the duty holder, rather than scrabbling around trying to find justification to side with the fire service. Just as well I am not into making invidious and contentious comparisons..........................

I make no comment as to whether I agree with the determination or not, as it is difficult to determine all the facts from the limited overview it is possible to publish.

With regard to partial sprinkler protection, the determination has just explained that one should not be prescriptive, and then people want to apply sprinkler standards prescriptively!!!! God help us all.  Sprinklers in such applications are NOT designed to protect the room of origin per se, they are to protect the escape route from spread of fire and smoke BEYOND the room of origin. The principle to which the determination refers is entirely sound.

[Ricardo]

Hello Mr T, you are an early riser, were you at one of your late night clubs again with Joanna? anyway I read your post and I think I see what you are getting at, I hope.

Here we have an existing building with a single escape route, and it appears that it is not reasonably practicable to install another, according to the outcome.

So it is critical that the one escape route is fairly bomb proof in case of fire to allow safe escape, and if the building is to be a single staircase, the TD should be small( unsure what the TD really is), have a good AFD system, and fire doors to the bedrooms.

And I assume it could be argued that sprinklers in the escape route only would benefit the use of that route being safely used for escape in case of fire in a bedroom or indeed god forbid one breaking out in the escape route. Job done?

[CivvyFSO]

Sprinklers in the escape route only would be of very little benefit, if any.

[Princess]

While talking to the great man regarding this Joanna girl, he asked me to mention that he does not think anyone would be suggesting sprinklers only in the escape routes.

[kurnal]

Hiya princess I dont remember that conversation with you, perhaps you were talking to Toddy?

Do you know the Joannas on my foot......you hum it son.....

"And I assume it could be argued that sprinklers in the escape route only would benefit the use of that route being safely used for escape in case of fire in a bedroom or indeed god forbid one breaking out in the escape route. Job done?"

Dont know how you could argue that one Ricardo. if the fire is in a room adjoining an escape route and smoke percolated from the room into the escape route, sprinklers in the escape route would not activate till the heat was sufficient,and eventually when they did (long after the route becane untenable) would not reach or suppress the fire, and would cool any smoke driving down to a low level and eliminating any natural bouyancy.

No I dont go with these partial sprinkler systems myself because if going to the expense of tanks and pumps its crazy not to spend a little bit more and cover all areas. But if you need to do it then it should cover the rooms in which, if a fire occurs, the escape route will be threatened.

[Ricardo]

Hi kurnal

I do apologise for that stupid statement I came up with,I had picked up Mr T wrongly,when he described what the purpose of the sprinklers were for, eg to protect the escape routes and not just for protecting person/s in room of fire,I must admit when I first read Mr T's comments what I was thinking he meant was sprinklers in escape routes only, I see the error of my ways now,of course he could tell me he was turning 35 next birthday and I would believe him such is his powers of persuasion and charm, now the Joanna I am talking about is the one who Mr T adores along with the princess of course

[kurnal]

Ricardo dont start apologising for stupid statements on here or you may start a fashion and if we all have to start doing it we will end up overloading and  crashing the server.

You can go and stand with Davo in the quiet corner for a while if you like- Hey Davo youv'e been there since Christmas you can come out now. And no sulking mind.

[Davo]

Gosh thanks Prof

Can I have my keyboard back as well


davo