Fire alarm monitoring - blocks of flats

[JWatts]

Where a block of flats has fire detection in the communal area, how would this be expected to be managed?  Is there a requirement to have the alarms linked up to a monitoring system?

At the moment if the alarms in the communal areas sound then they just ring and ring.  You would assume, rightly or wrongly, that someone would do something; however this to me is not the correct way to manage this and also, what if someone doesn't do anything?

Does anyone have experience of how this is managed in residential accommodation?

[Midland Retty]

Residential tower blocks are troublesome in this respect, and can be a nightmare to manage, for the reasons you have already pointed out.

Generally blocks of flats aren't fitted with AFD, because of the problems common fire alarm systems  present in that type of environment.

It is not a legal requirement to have the fire alarm system linked to a remote monitoring centre, but if such provision can be made then it would make sense to do so, for the following reasons.

Firstly we can not guarantee residents will react appropriately and responsibly to all fire alarm activations. They may not evacuate or call the emergency services, for instance.

Also the fire alarm system may not be silenced or reset for quite sometime until a duty engineer attends site to deal with it, for example. This is often a source of annoyance for residents, and complacency can set in as a result.

In some extreme cases residents may actually vandalise the fire safety equipment in order to silence it.

British Standard 5839 recommends that fire alarm panels should be checked atleast once every 24 hours for faults. In unsupervised buildings this practice rarely occurs, and fault monitoring and system checks are thus a big issue to consider.

So what to do?

Firstly establish if you actually need the Fire Alarm System  - why was it installed? is it still needed now? Are there any alternatives that could be implemented to make the block easier to manage in the long run?

If AFD is required then consider having the system remotely monitored. Remember that depending on how modern and sophisticated the system is, faults could also be monitored remotely too.

If remote monitoring proves impractical consider approaching trustworthy tenants or residents. They could be appointed to take repsonsibility for the alarm panel (ie; check panel is healthy once a day, report any faults, contact the fire service if alarms are sounding, silence or reset panel on say so from the Fire Service)

Many people mock me for suggesting this, afterall trying to get people to volunteer in this day and age may seem like an absolute non starter, but you would be suprised, particularly if some form of incentive is offered (such as reduction of rent or service charges) how readily people will volunteer.

Clearly nominated residents would need to be given pukka training and guidance on how to perform that duty, but it can, and does, work very well.

With enough volunteers on hand you should always have suitable cover within the block!

[JWatts]

Hi Retty,

Thanks for your reply; what you say is exactly the dilema i'm going through now and where I struggle with my knowledge.

I know you say it's not a legal requirement for AFD to be installed, but most of our new developments, e.g. those over 4-5 floor levels, have AFD put in them.  No one feels competent enough to question the designer.

Also, regarding AFD in current blocks and whether it's needed, this is a problem as a lot of the blocks we took on or are quite old, so it's not clear why AFD was needed and I don't really know how to deal with this or who could make the decision. 

Any ideas welcome?

A monitoring system is what we are considering, what this is a huge cost, which they are willing to pay if there is no other option.

[kurnal]

We come across this problem very often. There are a number of variations on this theme, the most common scenario is that the architect or builder installs a common areas fire alarm and detection system without any thought to the fire strategy for the building.

In other cases one of the Approved Building Inspectors who works nationally insists on it where there are electrical cupboards in the staircase (despite the ADB allowing electrical installations in common staircases)

In other cases the builder decides to install an analogue addressable system throughout the building with sophisticated cause and effects in which the detectors in flats are configured to behave as stand alone domestic smoke alarms, but as they give a latching signal to the panel the system needs to be reset every time someone burns the toast.

The ADB gives the benchmark for flats, its really simple- design to the ADB, put in the compartmentation and ventilation and no common areas alarm is needed or desirable.

If you dont meet the ADB standard you need a credible alternative fire strategy, probably based on full evacuation.  And usually fatally flawed for all the reasons you and Retty set out.

Where I find these systems in flats, if they are not needed or indeed if they have have a negative effect on fire safety I sometimes recommend that they be converted to simple controls for the ventilation system or be removed. A poorly conceived, poorly maintained or vandalised fire alarm is much worse than no fire alarm at all.

[nearlythere]

Hi Retty,

Thanks for your reply; what you say is exactly the dilema i'm going through now and where I struggle with my knowledge.

I know you say it's not a legal requirement for AFD to be installed, but most of our new developments, e.g. those over 4-5 floor levels, have AFD put in them.  No one feels competent enough to question the designer.

Also, regarding AFD in current blocks and whether it's needed, this is a problem as a lot of the blocks we took on or are quite old, so it's not clear why AFD was needed and I don't really know how to deal with this or who could make the decision. 

Any ideas welcome?

A monitoring system is what we are considering, what this is a huge cost, which they are willing to pay if there is no other option.

I have been approached by a management company with 160 sites, not residential, wondering what to do with user servicing of fire alarm systems as the cost was huge.
They had contracted a FRA company to carry out FRAs, anually on the recommendations of the contracted company. I had to put them wise to that one and they now know they are being screwed, but its a little late, for now. (I look forward to taking over 160 sites for Assessment reviews in a year or two.)

My first piece of advice was for it to have it's sites properly assessed to determine if the fire alarm system is needed in the first place.
Secondly, if any alarm systems are out of warranty they can review the frequency of user tests to a less stringent regime.
There will be a third and maybe fourth available.

[Clevelandfire 3]

As per Retty's post consider if you need fire alarms in the first place. You mentioned new developments and it may be the architect settled for fire detection rather than 60 mins fire compartmentation. Bad move. Not much you can do about that. So as Retty said monitor or get residents to control the panel.

[wee brian]

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/england/professionals/buildingregs/technicalguidance/bcfiresafetypartb/bcfaqs2/bcfaqvol2

2nd FAQ

[JWatts]

Thanks for your replies and sorry for my slow response!

Reading through and looking at the links provided I have some more questions which I hope someone can help me with.  Please don't shoot me for what appear to be obvious questions, this area of fire safety is new to me

its really simple- design to the ADB, put in the compartmentation and ventilation and no common areas alarm is needed or desirable.

So why do so many designers put in AFD in the communal areas?

If you dont meet the ADB standard you need a credible alternative fire strategy, probably based on full evacuation.

Can you give me examples why the ADB standard wouldn't be met?

Where I find these systems in flats, if they are not needed or indeed if they have have a negative effect on fire safety I sometimes recommend that they be converted to simple controls for the ventilation system or be removed. A poorly conceived, poorly maintained or vandalised fire alarm is much worse than no fire alarm at all.

I totally agree, reviewing our buildings we have approximately 280 blocks with AFD in the communual areas, these blocks are mostly 2-4 floor levels.  How would I begin to start assessing whether AFD is needed? This is completely out of my area of expertise and has not been assessed through the fire risk assessment. 

[Phoenix]

its really simple- design to the ADB, put in the compartmentation and ventilation and no common areas alarm is needed or desirable.

So why do so many designers put in AFD in the communal areas?

You'll have to ask them.  There could be many reasons, rational or irrational.  Who knows what's going on in their tiny little minds.

If you dont meet the ADB standard you need a credible alternative fire strategy, probably based on full evacuation.

Can you give me examples why the ADB standard wouldn't be met?

Where a defend in place strategy would not be safe (for example, lack of compartmentation or possibly ventilation).

How would I begin to start assessing whether AFD is needed? This is completely out of my area of expertise and has not been assessed through the fire risk assessment. 

This is absolutely fundamental to any fire risk assessment.  If a fire risk assessor has been in, press him/her for an answer.  If they cannot answer then their competence is in question and consideration should be given to engaging a fire risk assessor who knows what they are talking about.  But the bottom line question you can ask yourself to get it clear in your mind is, "would it be safe for people to remain in this building if it were on fire?"

Stu

[JWatts]

You'll have to ask them.  There could be many reasons, rational or irrational.  Who knows what's going on in their tiny little minds.

Obviously I will on a case by case basis, I was just wondering whether anyone else had been through this process and established what some of the rational and irrational reasons were?

This is absolutely fundamental to any fire risk assessment.  If a fire risk assessor has been in, press him/her for an answer.  If they cannot answer then their competence is in question and consideration should be given to engaging a fire risk assessor who knows what they are talking about.  But the bottom line question you can ask yourself to get it clear in your mind is, "would it be safe for people to remain in this building if it were on fire?"

This is the question i'm trying to answer.  A lot of our buildings that have AFD in the communal area were built between 1960 - 1980's; although they were purpose built blocks, they were handed over to us without any design history, so why the AFD was put into the communual area in the first place and to what standard the compartmentation has been built to is not available.

Our risk assessment process did not question whether AFD should be taken out or remain in the building, what it did question was what the ongoing management plan is of the AFD in these areas which has lead us to question what we are going to do.

It's whether we go down the route of the 'responsible resident', like many others have done, or face the more challenging route of whether the AFD should be taken out or remain in the building. It's not that our assessor isn't competent to make that decision, but not having access to why the original decision was made to put AFD in, whether it was right or wrong, is what is concerning.

This is an area which is new to me and I am trying to fathom the best route to take or people to use to help us with this decision, so please be patient with me

[AnthonyB]

Where AFD is in a common area of residential and clearly not for operation of smoke control, we immediately consider why it is there.

If it's a load of pt.6 single stations then they go as they are of no use even if the premises require compensation for structure.

A Part 1 system warrants investigation & if documentation exists to prove the structure is equivalent to the 90's edition of Part B then unless a convincing reason for it's existence arises it goes as well.

Should there be a structural vulnerability our first look is at upgrade, the last resort is to go from stay put to full evacuate as in real life the alarm system will not be responded to appropriately & promptly - also if we decide it is required it can't just have common area sounders, but  heat head and sounders in the flats, otherwise again there is no point being there.

With newish builds the documentation is usually available somewhere & it's quite simple to remove the alarms (although in some places the paperwork reveals it's there as a trade off, but this is rare).

In older buildings there is no paperwork and if there is any doubt as to the nature of the passive protection we advise the client to let us send around passive/structural specialist surveyors who produce a report which will help us determine definitively if:
- all is well, no alarm or other works needed
- minor breaches or substandard structure, remedial works viable, alarm not needed
- major substandard structure, remedial works may not be viable, alarm and full evac required.

You do see some odd things in residential properties - the giant 450mm x 150mm Fire exit signs in a 3 floor single stair newish flat block being one recent example (it also had a common alarm, very nice but i would have preferred if the smoke vents weren't in fault!)

[Phoenix]

So why do so many designers put in AFD in the communal areas?

Of course, sometimes they're there for the sole purpose of operating AOVs.

Stu

[JWatts]

Thanks for your replies.

In older buildings there is no paperwork and if there is any doubt as to the nature of the passive protection we advise the client to let us send around passive/structural specialist surveyors who produce a report which will help us determine definitively if:
- all is well, no alarm or other works needed
- minor breaches or substandard structure, remedial works viable, alarm not needed
- major substandard structure, remedial works may not be viable, alarm and full evac required.

This is exactly what i'm thinking should be done, is this a costly process, only i'm thinking the organisation will probably prefer to opt for the 'responsible resident' option to phone the fire service if the alarm sounds. 

[AnthonyB]

If you have a lot of premises it can stack up in cost, but in the long run can pay for itself in reduction in testing and maintenance costs. Not every site will need the intrusive survey.

[nearlythere]

You have to remember that many buildings have fire alarm systems installed because some designers or fire risk assessors didn't know, and some still don't, when they are not necessary.