Hotel bedrooms:heat or smoke. The advice of Sir Ken Knight re a hotel

[colin todd]

Just to remind people, in the case of one hotel where the fire and rescue authority wanted all the exisiting heat detectors in bedrooms changed to smoke detectors, with the wisdom of Solomon, Sir Ken Knight advised the Secretary of State that:

"I have concluded that in this case, the use of heat detectors in the hotel bedroom provides a suitable technical solution to demonstrate compliance with the FSO"
 
Sir Ken's view is, of course, consistent with the advice in BS 5839-1, but it is good to have that advice confirmed by an expert of Sir Ken's stature.

You can read the full determination at:


http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/fire/hotelfiredetection

[deaconj999]

I wonder what the Certificate previously issued under the 71 Act took into consideration was an adequate means for raising the alarm, if memory serves was it 6(1)(e).

Therefore I ponder, not wonder - were the heat detectors identified when the cert was brought into force.

Anyone know any more ?

[colin todd]

Yes they were.

[CivvyFSO]

GFSM, it is worth remembering that the FP act only protected employees. It is the addition of the protection of relevant persons under the RRFSO that got FRS' all hot under the collar thinking we could suddenly enforce SD in bedrooms.

[Phoenix]

Don't forget that we thrashed this matter to death about a year ago.

http://fire.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=4428.0

Stu

[deaconj999]

GFSM, it is worth remembering that the FP act only protected employees. It is the addition of the protection of relevant persons under the RRFSO that got FRS' all hot under the collar thinking we could suddenly enforce SD in bedrooms.

Quite right, good point

[colin todd]

Where on earth did the (mis) interpretation come from that the FP Act only protected employees? I think that might be the Workplace Regulations, but in the word of that famous consultant to all, the good Kurnal, why let the facts spoil a good story.

[deaconj999]

Earlier I agreed with CivvyFSO, now CT has made me think that the FPAct71 actually came about after the Saffron Waldron Hotel Fire. Surely the FP Act Came about because of the Devastating fire was the last straw, was it the Holroyd report or something similar that then suggested an act for fire was needed ?

Therefore, to protect, everyone in a building.

Anyone know more please?

[colin todd]

GFSM, You are more or less correct. Safron Walden was the last straw. Hotels were shown previously to be high risk for the PUBLIC.

[AnthonyB]

And it's predecessor the OSRP sections on fire that brought in the MoE/fire certificates were also influenced by a fire where several of the public were killed.

Although it is true that if a premises had no employees at all and wasn't caught under licensing it slipped through the net - your scout and church halls for example.

[Galeon]

I don’t know what all the flapping about is on this ,matter , if you have a fairly decent intelligent system you could still have your smoke detectors and programme the suit to back off then alarm after an agreed sensible period.
That removes your heats and the surrounding arguments.
The problem is too real when I have stayed in numerous establishments that basically have a pile of old tot ,and are clearly not suitable to do the job , ergo you are now back into a debate.