However, during informal discussions with CLG post determination there was a suggestion that the available guidance may need to be revisited in order to address this specific issue. It was also made clear that in hindsight the matter should not have gone to determination but should have been dealt with by the courts.
Thats an interesting observation. I have always been surprised at the determination process being used as this should only be used where both sides accept that there is a case of non compliance but there is disagreement over the technical solution to be adopted to remedy it. Clearly in this case there was no such agreement in respect of non compliance.
However the courts could not get involved unless an enforcement notice was served. I wonder why the Authority did not take this approach? They obviously felt convinced they could make it stick?
I await the reviewed guidance with interest, though BS5839 was updated as recently as 2008 so is not scheduled for further review for some time.
To me the biggest problem here is the lack of any credible empirical evidence or learned research to show, one way or the other, the benefit or otherwise of installing smoke detectors in rooms used for sleeping accommodation. My personal gut feeling is that in the event of a fire in the room there must be an increased chance of surviving that fire if a smoke detector is installed. But I have looked for research data on this without success. For me the issue is this. Whilst we have measures of tenability, and could calculate how quickly a room would become untenable and compare this time with the time to detection for both heat and smoke detectors, there is no evidence on the likelihood that, in the absense of detectors, a person would be awakened as a result of the fire - ie by the smell of smoke, temperature rise et al. At least none that I have been able to find. But like many of you I have attended fires where the fire stimuli awoke person sleeping when the detectors failed to operate because it was the "wrong" type of smoke.
The other thing that has always struck me as inconsistent is that BS5839 part 1 and the research documents that underpin it are clear that there is a balance to be drawn between unwanted alarms and life safety, and that the role of the heat detectors is for the protection of the means of escape. But then BS5839 goes on to recommend smoke detection in rooms designated for use by disabled people. I have always thought this inconsistent but assumed that this is so that the managers can attend the room in the early stages of a fire to render assistance. However this is speculation because the underlying reason for this was not explained in detail. If a smoke detector is a compensation for a disability exactly how is that position arrived at? What is the compensation? Earlier detection of fire? or making management aware earlier to they can assist? Evidence to me which tends to support the argument for smoke detection in general....but in the absence of empirical evidence its hard to move this argument forward.
But I agree with you Colin, Sir Ken did us all a service in at least drawing a line in the sand. Prior to his determination we had huge inconsistencies amongst Fire Authorities.
Poll