Fire doors in a "domestic" Bungalow??????

[William 29]

Tricky one this and I am hoping that someone out there has had experience of it and I don’t get a load of prescriptive answers!!

We have completed and FRA on a bungalow for 6 service users that have learning difficulties.  24/7 staffing is provided and numbers  vary during the day or night, at least one supported living "carer" is provided at night that maintains a WAKING watch (no sleeping provision for staff is provided).

A BS 5839 PART 1 detection system is installed including call points and AFD to all rooms including bedrooms.

The windows from the bedrooms would be acceptable under ADB as escape windows.

All white goods supplied by the landlord (our client) are PAT tested.

The doors on to the bedrooms are domestic type doors and are of nominal fire resistance and of solid construction (not the egg box type).

The local fire officer is insisting (likely to serve an enforcement notice) on FD30s doors to every door on to the "protected corridor" including self-closing devices.
Given the provisions and staffing levels above we feel this is an over provision and onerous for the client.  We agree the RRO applies given it is a work place.  However there is no single guidance document that could be applied to this case in my view, it is not a care home, the premises and service users have been assessed for suitability for assisted/supported living.

My point is that the risk is no greater (and could even be argued less than) that of a COMPARIBLE domestic bungalow.  I am at a loss as to why the fire authority are even inspecting and making such an issue over such premises??
Any sensible views please??

[kurnal]

Is HTM88 relevant?

[Golden]

Hi William, a couple of other questions. Are the 'nominal FR' doors all self closing, is there a shared kitchen and lounge facility and what is the protection for these? You mention a 'protected corridor' - do all habitable rooms lead off this room and are the bedrooms nearer the exit than any kitchen? Lastly when was the premises built and was it a single family dwelling before you took it over. I am assuming all tenants have the nous to escape on their own and don't need assistance, smoking is not permitted and they have no other issues such as drink/drugs problems?

[William 29]

Hi Kurnal, yes I would think so as I think the original use would have been by the NHS  hence the over provision of an L2 detection system to 5839 part 1.  It is now occupied by a private care provider and service users with my client being the Landlord.

[William 29]

Hi William, a couple of other questions. Are the 'nominal FR' doors all self closing, is there a shared kitchen and lounge facility and what is the protection for these? You mention a 'protected corridor' - do all habitable rooms lead off this room and are the bedrooms nearer the exit than any kitchen? Lastly when was the premises built and was it a single family dwelling before you took it over. I am assuming all tenants have the nous to escape on their own and don't need assistance, smoking is not permitted and they have no other issues such as drink/drugs problems?

The doors are not self closing and don’t need to be in my view (you would just trap the service users in their own home)  the care provider has a door closing procedure at night similar that that in a domestic house at night time!

The layout is of a normal domestic type bungalow with a kitchen and lounge (shared) and bedrooms off the one corridor.  There are 3 ways to exit the premises, via the front door, lounge patio doors or bedroom windows.
No smoking by staff or service users.  All cooking is supervised by the carers.  FSO states that the service users require assistance to evacuate (I question this) and the FD30s doors are required to give the carer more time.  We see no additional benefit to providing the FD30s doors over the current ones??  Early warning is provided by comprehensive AFD coverage/type over and above any guidance document e.g. LACoRS etc.

Staement from the FRA below:

The care that takes place in these private homes often referred to as Care in the Community or ‘Community Care’ came about following the introduction of a government policy of deinstitutionalization. This led to the introduction of treatment and caring for physically and mentally disabled people in their homes rather than in an institution.
The provisions for care within the community needs to provide accommodation for carers within a domestic dwelling environment without implementing measures which would in effect institutionalise an individual’s home but still maintain a safe working environment.  It is for this reason that there is no specific guidance for this type of property. It is therefore reasonable to adopt a risk assessment approach incorporating measures which would normally be expected to be found within a single private dwelling if it were built to today’s standards whilst having regard for the mobility of those people who may be subject to the requirements of the Regulatory Reform (Fire) Safety Order.

[kurnal]

From what you say the building may have originally been designed in accordance with HTM88, a bit quirky in some ways but still a relevant document specifically written for this type of occupancy. If it was originally to this standard the bedroom doors are likely to be half hour doors - if I recall rising butts were permitted. So you may have half hour doors.

I think you are on a sticky wicket arguing making the comparison with domestic premises.  I would compare what you have with benchmark guidance specific to the scenario- HTM88 is most relevant, followed by the CLG guidance and ADB. These set out generic standards but do not necessarily require the level of staffing or alarm that you have. Put together a SWOT analysis.

I dont think you can  blame the FSO for simply trying to apply the CLG guidance, you have to demonstrate that taken holisitcally your package of risk control measures provides an equal or better standard of  protection to the relevant persons compared to the one size fits all benchmark. It will be necessary to produce a written emergency plan to back this up.  Set out your solution and plan clearly in writing and ask for a second opinion.

If you are confident that have such a solution discuss the options with your client. If the client has the appetite,  call the fire officer's bluff.  The Fire Authority will either accept your solution or will then have to issue an enforcement notice.

[William 29]

Kurnal, I understand what you are saying with HTM 88 and that is probably the right bench mark if it were an NHS premises as we both know that is where this guidance would have been used but has never had any legal force.  The current provisions in terms of fire alarm would exceed HTM 88 but the guide does state that risk rooms should be protected by 30 min doors which include bedrooms.


I was thinking of going the determination route but both sides need to agree on the issues and essentially we don’t as the FA will state under article 14 that the premises in their current state can not be safety and effectively evacuated as quickly as possible.  As a compromise I was thinking of suggesting fitting smoke seals to the existing doors but I have a feeling the FSO will not accept anything less than FD30s doors.
I know cost should never be an overriding factor but in this case the care provider has stated if the FA get their way they want the same standard doors in another 10 properties meaning a substantial outlay for the client.

I just can’t see what additional benefit the FD30s doors would provide over over the existing ones in this case?  It’s not that long ago since I was an FSO and fire safety manager and I just wouldn’t have even thought about enforcing this?
Many thanks for your input.

[jokar]

and here lies the basic problem with the risk assesed approach to fire safety.  Many FSO's will not acept risk assessment and insist on a prescriptive approach.  If it is written down then you must have it, common sense and dogma do not go well together.  Surely most people could see that in a single storey building the risk is minimal for escape purposes, probaby in this instance much lower than an ordinary domestic premises.

It seems that fire authorities are trying to get prescription into the law by another means and not allowing risk assessment to take place.  For instance it seems that much more enforcement is undertaken for premises that have had an assessment done than those that have not bothered and have left it to the FRS to come and assit them.

[bungle]

William, What is the travel distance from the furthest bed to the front door? You could try and argue that ,if is is not too far , the AFD covers the outer rooms and as there is an awake menmber of staff to assist then  you have safe premises that way. Perhaps an offer of S/C on all bedroom doors would help so even if someone fled in panic leaving their door open it would self close ?
Also , even if the FRS issue an EN you can always appeal through the courts.

[jayjay]

There is a guide " Fire Safety In Adult Placements" issued by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister which is aimed at this type of care.

A quick look at the guide shows that FR doors would not be required in a bungalow and only a part 6 fire alarm.

If you have any trouble finding a copy send me your email address.

[Colin Newman]

Let me attempt to help clarify the issue of the FD30S door recommendations in HTM 88, since I lead the team at DoH that produced the HTM.  It was considered appropriate at the time for premises providing supported living since the it was felt that the care organisation (the NHS or Local Authority Social Services) owed a duty of care to the "clients" living in such premises.  Many of the "clients" that were being provided with supported living at that time had been diagnosed with learning difficulties and/or mental illness and their understanding of the potential fire risks that their activities may give rise to was generally considered to be limited.  As a result the potential scenarios that were considered were of a "client" inadvertently or deliberately setting fire in their room (which was considered to be their own private space, so little staff supervision) and without protection to the corridor could prevent escape of other occupants.

When the guidance was written it was not common for supported living accommodation to be provided in single storey premises.  The majority of premises considered at the time the guidance was compiled were typical housing stock over two or three floors, the majority of which would be provided with a single staircase.  In my opinion there may be sufficient grounds to argue that FD30s to bedrooms are not required where suitable alternative means of escape exists.

[William 29]

Thanks for the last few comments guys.  Jokar, I'm of the same opinion in that many FSOs (not all) are essentially trying to enforce guidance and are very prescriptive in their approaches.

I am aware of the contents of fire safety in adult placements guide but since this pre dates the RRO and the guides is probably not appropriate to use.

The HTM 88 info is useful thanks.  Also if you look at ADB Vol 1 which in my view is the most relevant in this case and the most recent only requires FD20 doors in a domestic setting and we have an L2 part AFD system to compensate.  Travel distances are in accordance with ADB for a domestic bungalow which is good enough for me.  I understand what Kurnal means about comparing it to a domestic dwelling, but as we are assessing the risk as we should I still really can’t see what the fuss is about here??!!!  How does this fit with the FA's integrated risk management plan and a risk based inspection regime?  Jokar makes a good point about FA's seem to focus on RP's that have done an FRA rather than those that have not?

Self closers of any type in my view are not the way to go, I think this would seriously affect the way the service users move around their home.  I am aware of course that we can appeal any notice served but I can’t see a magistrate not agreeing with the FA.  What I do get a little upset about is that FSO's think that now I am a fire safety consultant and not in uniform I am somehow trying to make premises a death trap by producing an FRA that goes against what they are trying to enforce.  We are doing what we are paid to do by assessing RISK or else we may as well just reproduce what the guides say in to the FRA and not deviate from it.  In this case there is no definitive guide so you have to assess it on what there is and use experience AND common sense.

If you are interested further have a look at the ADB clauses below.  Sad but I think the final outcome will be that the client will have to install 6 FD30s doors on this premises and numerous other similar premises, which in my view is very wrong.

ADB Vol 1 Dwellings para 0.22 states that these sort of properties with up to 6 persons can be considered as an ordinary dwelling house. Para two of 0.22 states a property of one or two storeys for up to 6 residents (excludes support staff) it should be regarded as PG 1(c) if the means of escape are in accordance with HTM 88.

ADB Vol 1  Para 2.1  and  Para 2.2 in relation to providing an over provision of fire protection measures, in this case FD30s doors as suggested by the Fire Authority.

ADB Vol 1  Para 2.3 – These premises comply with points a) and b) of this clause. ADB Vol 1 Diagram 1a quotes para 2.3

[Speyside]

Have you explored any other compensatory measures? If you are looking at 6 doors and closers plus time cost for removing and fitting, you will be looking at a £1000 minimum I would have thought, possibly more depending on the spec.

What about a domestic sprinkler system in the common parts? I don't like partial systems but it may be acceptable to the FRS and could be a cheaper and quicker option, particularly if you are not worried about aesthetics.

[William 29]

Have you explored any other compensatory measures? If you are looking at 6 doors and closers plus time cost for removing and fitting, you will be looking at a £1000 minimum I would have thought, possibly more depending on the spec.

What about a domestic sprinkler system in the common parts? I don't like partial systems but it may be acceptable to the FRS and could be a cheaper and quicker option, particularly if you are not worried about aesthetics.

The FA did suggest a fire supression system to compensate for FD30s doors.  Again not needed in my view and way over the top.

[mr angry]

 I am aware of course that we can appeal any notice served but I can’t see a magistrate not agreeing with the FA.  

Not wanting to comment on premises i have never been in but if you are sure of your ground here then appeal.

Why are you so sure that a magistrate will decide in favour of the enforcing authority?