Pub with living accommodation above

[Tadees]

Question: No problem with pub.  Has AFD throughout with sounder linked to the first floor.  However, the problem is in the living accommodation.  There are 5 bedrooms.  The proposal is to let the rooms to individual unrelated tenants.  All rooms discharge in to the lounge and off the lounge is a kitchen.  Once in the lounge you can either go through the kitchen and down an external staircase (not ideal) or down a set of stairs which take you through the pub's protected corridor and out through a push bar exit (not ideal either)

I know how to solve the problem of coming in to a lounge but what I am unsure about is the following:

(1) Do all the bedrooms have to have fire doors
(2) Would this be classed as a HMO and, if so, what are the implications?
(3) What alarm system would be recommended?

[CivvyFSO]

I would recommend an alarm system that squirts water on any fire in the living room.

[Midland Retty]

Hi Tadees

This would be classed as a HMO. It wouldnt automatically be a licensable HMO, but a Local Authority can license any HMO at their discretion for specific reasons.

The problem you have got is that residents would have to go make their escape through the lounge, and if the lounge is on fire they would most likely become trapped. Even by sticking in a fire alarm system (normally to BS5839 part6 LD2 Grade D standard which would include for detection in the lounge) I doubt the local authority and fire authority would accept this layout and allow it to be used as a HMO

Is there window escape (as defined in Lacors guidance) available from each bedroom?  If so this MAY be an acceptable solution to get round the issue of escaping through the lounge.

Some authorities may accept the installation of sprinkler system to protect the lounge, but that may not only be an expensive option, it very much depends on whether the local authority would accept it anyway.

Without seeing the property in question it is hard to give a definitive and accurate answer - I have to make the disclaimer that my comments are based on similar scenarios Ive dealt with in the past. Because of the complexities of these particular premises you would be wise to contact your local fire safety and housing standards department in advance to get their advice on the layout.

[CivvyFSO]

Some authorities may accept the installation of sprinkler system to protect the lounge, but that may not only be an expensive option, it very much depends on whether the local authority would accept it anyway.

NHBC have done some work on this, and they seem to prove that the sprinklered lounge offers better protection than the standard FD20 door with an LD3 system in the protected entrance hall approach.

On the other hand, there have been Building Regs determinations regarding inner-room bedrooms that were knocked back even with sprinklers.

[Phoenix]

Hi,  

Bit late I know.  

That NHBC report is poor.  It holds up for a limited and carefully selected range of scenarios [I say 'carefully selected' but, frankly, I'm not sure that much real objective thought went into it] but it falls a million miles short of demonstrating a safe solution for inner bedrooms in general.  And there's a good reason for that, there is no general safe solution.  It does contain some good and valid points but you have to search for them and they are not reflected wholly in the recommendations.

I don't much like the idea of people having to jump out of windows but Midland Fire's solution of escape windows often provides the acceptable solution in such scenarios - thousands of holiday homes round the country rely on this.

Points about the NHBC report:

• Standards of fire safety in the USA in flats are lower than in the UK, why should we aspire to their lower standards?
• Case 1a is supposed to be an ADB compliant layout which, if you read 2.13.b in ADB (+ diagram 3), you will see it is not.  Travel distance exceeds 9m and kitchen prejudices escape.
• Case 2a is also suppose to be ADB compliant but is not, same reference, same reasons.
• These fundamental errors undermine all subsequent findings
• (by the way, ignore the arrows in the ADB figures; they are misleading as the distance referred to is the 'travel distance' not the diagonal and direct distance across the room)
• Case 3a has to have a protected internal corridor, and I've no doubt that they worked to this spec, but they do not make this clear and this is part of the tactics of the document, the obfuscation of the material facts.
• Figure 11 is just plonked into the document with no explanation of what it represents - understand this, the ploy is to present data that purports to support the conclusions of the document so that readers are impressed by the presented data but readers are expected not to notice that the data are not presented in a rational, coherent and meaningful way.

• It states, "In the current edition of AD B, self-closing devices are no longer necessary on fire-resisting doors located within a dwelling.
  Some engineers have argued that it can be assumed that these doors will be left in the open condition for the purposes of comparative studies and effectively the dwelling will be open plan."  
  Just because 'some engineers' have argued that, does not make it a valid argument.  The recommendation was dropped from ADB partly on the understanding that FRSs were committing resources to community fire safety, part of which would be telling people to shut their doors at night.  Perhaps more efforts should be directed in this direction...

I'm only up to page 29 (out of 87), I could go on and on and on and...........

If these rooms do not have acceptable escape windows I would forget about the possibility of letting them out.

Stu

[CivvyFSO]

Stu

Since NHBC and various other bodies such as them, seem to like trying to design the open plan layouts and consistently include such designs in their applications, I saw it as a bit strange that they would be commissioned to do such work. They knew the answer they wanted before they even started. Why didn't BRE do it themselves?

One of your ex-colleagues did his BEng dissertation on inner-room bedrooms with sprinklers in the access room and I believe that he proved that even with sprinklers the access room would be untenable.

That is the beauty of (read: problem with) fire "engineering". You don't need to look at a scenario and calculate the outcome, you can decide what outcome you want and just plug in the figures and assumptions that give you that outcome.

[kurnal]

Well said Civvy. Got it in one.

[Midland Retty]

Thats a little bit sceptical Civvy.

I would say that people who say they understand fire engineering, but in reality don't, are the people who plug in the numbers to give a desired outcome.

When applied sensibly by a competent person, Fire Engineering can be used appropriately to encourage and evolve building design.

[kurnal]

To be fair I've seen it worked both ways. Of course when engineering is carried out in an appropriate manner for the right reasons (most of the time) it is not newsworthy and doesn't warrant comment,  but those occasions that it is abused- and I have seen a few- tend to grab your attention and nourish your cynicism.

[Mike Buckley]

The idea of deciding the outcome and then making the figures fit is not confined to fire engineering, just look at politicians and advertisers. Figures can be made to say anything if that is what you want.

Yes when fire engineering is carried out correctly it will work most of the time, the times when it fails in this area is when incorrect assumptions are made, ie you cannot have a serious fire in an open stand at a football ground. The problem with fire is that it is a very complex system which is not fully understood and to work with it it is necessary to simplify.

However the idea of deciding the outcome and then making the figures fit is bad engineering and bad science, and is asking for trouble.

[Phoenix]

I'm uplifted by the last batch of replies.  Sometimes you start to feel that it might just be you that has reservations about some of the proposals that are put forward, but I'm reassured by the above comments.  It's not me, it's them. 

Well, it might be me as well, but it's still them.

Professionally and formally, I call myself a 'fire engineer' but I'm reticent about doing so because I see so much crap come from the pens of fire engineers.  When I speak to people about my job, I specifically point out that I'm not really a 'fire engineer' because, frankly, I'm not sure what a fire engineer is.  A magician maybe, an expert at sleight of hand pen. 

That's not fair, of course.  I shouldn't paint everyone with the same brush and there are some very skilled, rigorous and perspicacious practitioners out there, some of whom, I expect, are reading this. Well done you. 

And then there are also those that may not have much knowledge of fire engineering techniques but who just have good sensible heads on their shoulders and possess the ability to recognise and to speak up when they see crap coming their way.  Well done you too.

Merry Christmas.

Stu

[CivvyFSO]

Fire Engineering can be used appropriately to encourage and evolve building design.

I fully agree. I think that it is a shame it is rarely used in such a way. The dazzling shopping centres and fancy atrium buildings are few and far between.

[Mike Buckley]

Unfortunately the dazzling shopping centres etc. cost more than the good old box, so all the fancy bits go including the fire engineering.

[Golden]

I'm also unsure what defines a fire engineer and I have a degree in the subject!

On this scenario I have to agree with Pheonix that there is no safe solution to this problem as the lounge cannot be considered a safe route no matter how a solution is engineered. My view on this is that this is a change of use and to reduce the risk to as low as reasonably practicable doesn't make sense as the residual risk remains too high and cannot be managed in this type of occupancy. Fire safety measures cannot be assured and the tenants safety relies on a very weak link in the chain; i.e. the lounge remaining passable. I'm sure we've all come across rooms being let above pubs (or even advised on landlords/tenants accommodation) and in my experience the shiny new fire precautions soon become old and tired.

I attended a fire recently with a similar layout albeit a first floor scenario but with an open plan kitchen onto the lounge - which incidentally was littered with beer cans and ashtrays - this had been passed as a single family dwelling but the rooms were now being individually let. One of the occupiers was rescued by the FB but was on life support last time I heard.

Personally I would struggle to see how this situation could be accepted.

[nearlythere]

Have the engineers carried out a study of the consequences of people jumping out of windows? That is if trapped people are able and fit enough to get on the sill in the first place.
I look at my granny and think would she be able to do it?
I look at Mrs NT with babe in arms (one time) and think would she be able to do it?

Is an escape window (thats why it's there) for occupants of unknown physical capabilities safer than a sprinklered access room?

I'm neither a scientist nor an engineer but I'm quite happy to look at both situations and make a competent judgement.