BB100 schools guide

[Owen66]

If the exemplar designs published by DfES are representative of the current thinking on school design are we perhaps becoming overly reliant on a fire engineered solution for life safety and conveniently ignoring the statistics with regard to property protection.

Whilst there is little doubt that design teams want to be associated with flagship buildings are they, in part at least, just reacting to the Governments edict to create "innovative, stimulating, inclusive and sustainable schools". Boring, boxy compartmented buildings may well be safer than something representing a beehive or space station pod but the effect is less dramatic.

Perhaps it will be the acoustic criteria that eventually puts a limit on the excesses of the architectural vision.

Just a thought.

Owen

[Chris Houston]

Just a thought.

I could not agree more.  Architects used to building offices are now doing schools.  You can tell this when you see plasterboard walls that last about a week in a school, office type bathroom fittings that last about a day, a total lack of apreciation that in a school, 1000 rowdy pupils move about 10 times a day all at the same time.

So much time seems to have been put into unique design features and so little into durability, sustainability, safety or property protection.  Designing schools should not be about having a building that enables prompt avacuation only, the pupils need to have a school to go back to after the fire and one that can survive 1000 happy pupils.

[kurnal]

Iremember one design and build project for a comprehensive school funded by selling off an old site for housing. This was about 5 years ago and the contractor had never built a school before. The approved Inspector hadn't either.
Neither were aware of the additional requirements that were current at the time, supplementing the approved documents, now incorporated into ADB. Or the building bulletin.
We ended up with a building full of problems and whilst the means of escape was resolved after fire service intervention by bridging across to a bank behind the school (sloping site) , due to the narrow corridors and staircases the thing logjammed totally every lesson change. The result is a one way system in place where at lesson change if you need to just move one classroom along on the same floor it may entail a long walk to the end of the corridor, up the up staircase, along the corridor above, down the down staircase and back along the corridor.

Still it looks super.

[Owen66]

Mmm - Form before function as it were !

Regards

Owen

[Jon Barrett]

Sorry to raise this thread to life again!

But, the issue relating to whether sprinklers in schools can provide for design flexibility goes against the current ADB guidance i.e. you can only have more design flexibility (increased compartment size, escape distances etc.) if the sprinkler system fully complies with the 'life safety' requirements of the LPC sprinkler rules.

However, to my knowledge sprinklers in schools do not need to meet this requirement (from the documents that I have seen) yet people are advocating that the cost of the sprinklers can be offset by providing flexibility in the design.

This to me sounds like the sprinkler industry compromising the normal stance on life safety requirements so that the system does not become too expensive to lose its appeal to designers.

I wholeheartedly support the installation of sprinklers in UK mainland schools on the basis of property protection. But the reduction of other measures because sprinklers (non-life safety) are installed seems to be a dangerous practice to me.

Any further insight into this issue would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Jon

[Ken Taylor]

Does anyone have any information as to when the final printed version of BB100 will be available from the DfES - and what the final text will be?

[p.b.morgan]

Have incorporated the comments received from the consultation and this redraft is with DfES; it will then go to BRAC and we hope to see it published in the autumn.

[Ken Taylor]

Thanks, Penny.

[Ashley Wood]

Jon, I agree in principle with what you are saying regarding the proposed sprinkler systems, however is it not better to have some level of sprinkler system than non at all? In an ideal world the education authorities would be awash with cash and therefore all fire protection measures would be strictly to the codes and there would be no need for compromise on designs, etc. The problem I see is this, if we (consultants) insist on sprinkler system designs being to full standards this will cost more to implement. The education authorities will then not put anything in at all. At least they are now doing something positive, lets work on that and perhaps build on things for the future.

[Big A]

Can anyone tell me the latest position regarding this document, please?

[jayjay]

I have been asking the same question due to the current increase in new school building due to the various financing schemes. I came across the following which I copied from Hansard which seems to clarify the current poisition.

Unless some one out there can say otherwise,

Quote =
23 Oct 2006 : Column WA220

the Risk of Fire in Schools. This sets out how to achieve a satisfactory standard of life safety, and therefore how to meet the requirements of the Building Regulations, and suggests ways of improving property protection. BB 100 is still in draft form and is being revised following public consultation.

One of the messages that came back from that exercise was the need for the Department to issue more detailed guidance on the use of sprinklers in schools, over and above what was already in BB 100. Consequently we commissioned further studies to be carried out. Work on these is nearing completion and additional guidance on sprinklers will be incorporated in the final version of BB 100. We expect to publish this early in 2007.
End Quote.

[val]

Makes the FSO guidance docs seem speedy by comparison. lol

[Ken Taylor]

And we were asked to comment on the draft revised Approved Document B - which referred to the application of BB100 in schools (which was expected to have been published by that time) - and how long ago was the closing date?

[potter 2]

One problem I have regulary at the sharp end is PFI.They and the Approved BCO stated directly "The school are not the customer" the builder  xxx builds it for company  yyyy who rent it to the education.They state they will consult with me on B1 when they are happy compliance has been achieved  (quite right) Then when items are suggested to help on arson ,building safetyetc.I find total disregard, (profit first) they point out that they dont actually have to take any notice of the fire officer and as the  education are not the client "i-we" cannot even talk to them.
It is  treated basically as an office (as Kurnal mentioned)with no danger of arson or any meaning ful project assessment on the fire side
,Sprinklers are an additional expense out of the PFI profit .
Insurance discount,,no no no the Education Auth, tend to have block insurance bookings  and no reductions apply for a small amount of buildings having sprinklers.As "messy" said earlier,there sems to be a competition on the most unusual design.    The building regs are used to satisfy the absolute" minimum" requirements for saftey without any risk assessment of the use and risks ,    oh sorry things in B1 that dont fit with the unusual design are "risk assessed "out purely a mental function not by any recognised assessment method.
Will BB100 be  a design code or will it have the same standing as the RRO education guide or Build regs or will I still be told "they are only guides" to be read and ignored and we will be having fires exactly as we have now only with possibly less safe structures.
Has anyone  had the oppurtunity to RRO assess a brand new scool with unusual design and found the need to recommend any upgrading of standards.   Lifts were mentioned earlier --normally out of bounds for the kids due to vandalism any way.
I would be interested if other FRS services are finding this as well as myself.

[val]

I know that this is not directly about BB100 or schools but one large met FRS I am familiar with is starting to say, in certain cases, that, even if the premises are "compliant" with ADB, (or any other guide/code) they believe they may not be able to fulfil the requirements of the Fire Safety Order. Just to concentrate the minds of the developer! Making one or two cages rattle.
They will, if they serve a notice on occupation, end up in Court of course but that may be no bad thing.