Building Control

[Mushy]

Just been told that Building Control have told a Hospital that if an application for a store within a Hospital Street was sent in it would be refused because it doesn't conform with the HTM guide....how can something not conform to a guide?... I wouldn't have thought they could refuse on that ground...any one know any different?

Surely if it was to have no known ignition source...no obstruction to traffic and wouldn't narrow the Street (set in an alcove)...fire resistant..kept locked shut...smoke detection etc  then surely that should go a long way to acceptance...

maybe they could state that they are refusing on the grounds that it's a shi*e idea...I'd go along with that one 

[nearlythere]

Depends if the guide is "deemed to satisfy". But I would have thought BC should consider the proposal under it's approved documents.

BC don't necessarily look at things from the risk posed point of view and there are still uncontrolled fire risks in new builds.

[Northern Uproar]

From HTM 05-02, sec 1.15 "Alternative Solutions".

"...It is expected that NHS clients, designers and building controls and fire authorities will exercise judgement based on a full understanding of the problem, taking into account:

type of care provided
mobility of patients
planned staffing levels
age of patients
size of premises

This document describes a way of acheiving an acceptable standard of fire safety.....but it is recognised that there may be other ways of of satisfying the functional requirements.....If such an approach is used, the responsibility is placed on thise promoting the alternative approach to demonstrate that the alternative satisfies the functional objectives of this document"

So like any application to BC, you can either look at it as a check list againt the guidance (for the path of least resistance), or provide a strategy document justifying it, but its not up to BCO's to do this for you.

[Dinnertime Dave]

I have recently dealt with a similar issue with an AI. The toilet extension narrows the hospital street to 2 m. for a distance of 7m. Just highlighted the issue under my comments. I am concerned that toilets within hospitals present an arson risk in what is essentially an unobserved area.

Unusually for a BR consult i haven`t received a reply   

[Phoenix]

The correct guidance to use for a hospital is HTM05/02.  The guidance therein is designed to ensure that the functional requirements of the Building Regs are met within the particular constraints imposed by the fact that the building is a hospital.

A store room is considered to be a hazard room within a hospital and so, by default, should be enclosed in at least 30 minutes fire resistance.  05/02 does not allow any accommodation (let alone a hazard room) within hospital streets (other than sanitary accommodation) and this store room, even though it may be behind a 30 minute FR door and enclosure will be deemed to be within the hospital street unless it can be demonstrated to be a separate compartment in its own right.  That would require at least 60 minutes FR enclosure but also comes with other problems because it conflicts with other guidance for compartment walls (e.g. that they should follow department boundaries - and lots of other things).

All in all, it's not a good idea.

Why not put a solid wall around the area and put the access door to the store inside the adjacent department?

Stu

 

[Mushy]

Thanks all

pheonix

I'm not sure what you mean with reference other than sanitary accommodation 05/02 does not allow any accommodation within hospital streets....

all the wards, theatres and outpatients are off the hospital streets...maybe I've misunderstood your post

The store proposed is in an alcove of the hospital street and will not narrow it and it was proposed that the comparmentation would be an hour

The Hospital in question already has a store approved by building control on a Hospital Street with 60 minutes FR...curiouser and curiouser

I think you are right though...crap idea

[nearlythere]

I think there is a difference between within and off.

[Phoenix]

Exactly right, NT.  The departments that are off the hospital streets are separate compartments.

The presence of a precedent in the same hospital might be considered to support the new application but it may not do so.  Just because there is already something wrong with the design doesn't support the argument that you want to double the problem by adding another faulty design element.  That reasoning holds under the Building Regs and the RR(FS)O. 

On the other hand, maybe there was some well grounded reasoning that supported the construction of the first store and maybe this is also applicable for this second proposal.  That is a matter for the proposers to look into.

Stu

 

[Mushy]

I think there is a difference between within and off.

and of course the HTM doesn't mention either

apparently after some discussion an agreement been made

[Colin Newman]

Just to add my tuppence worth, separating the store from the hospital street and adjacent departments by 60 minutes fire resisting construction effectively creates a store compartment.  This store compartment should be provided with automatic detection. 

What cause and effects would be provided should the automatic detection be activated?  Would alarms in the hospital street and in the adjacent accommodation sound intermittently?  Or would the alarm zoning tie the store compartment with an adjacent compartment?

Would a developed fire in the store compartment threaten to breach the compartmentation to an adjacent compartment whilst simultaneously threatening the hospital street which presumably forms part of the means of escape from the treatened compartment?  Are there sufficient alternative escape routes?

I agree, the whole thing seems like a crap idea.