Removal of Self Closers from Fire Doors in Domestic Premises

[ian gough]

The ODPM are suggesting that whilst 3 storey houses and loft conversions should have half-hour fire protected staircases, you shouldn't have to fit self closing devices. What's everyone's thoughts on this?

[colin todd]

Mixed. Half of me says that I would not want to live in a house with self closers and that, in practice, people take them off. So, what is the point of basing fire precautions on a counsel of perfection that will not be achieved; should we not base them on an assumption that the doors are not self closing.
The other half says that even a domestic 10 minute door does a great job in holding back fires as all operational firefighters know. It is even more of a counsel of prefection to believe that people will shut all doors before going to bed, even in these days of CFS. If they do take the s/c devices off that is their problem, but should we not provide people with a standard that, if they do not compromise it, can make a major contributuion to life safety. One wonders how many rescues have been avoided by the humble self closers.

[ian gough]

Thanks Colin. Your views are not too disimilar to my own.
However, for new build I do favor either the existing standard in AD 'B' (although I really do not have much faith in rising butt hinges) - which includes the option we already have for 'loft conversion' type scenario - or residential fire sprinklers with good smoke detection. If it were my house, I know what we would prefer as my wife hates having all the doors shut.
I really don't think ODPM are too sure themselves on this.

[colin todd]

Rising butt hinges are an old chestnut too. I hate them , but one of my colleagues feels that they are less liely to be removed than an overhead self closer, so there is a chance that they will remain. One does wonder if they are a good compromise.

[Brian Catton]

The new Perko concealed closer is quite good. However,why should the State force people to keep their doors closed in their own premises. They will be disabled or wedged.
My feelings are that self closers should only be required where a door left open would compromise the means of escape of another of the buildings occupiers. IE common escape routes in flats or HIMOS.
ADB shoiuld be concentrating on detection and alarm with domestic sprinklers in new properties.

[colin todd]

Brian, The state requires people to have smoke alarms and the consequent inconvenience of false alarms, quite simply because they save lives. I have a horrible feeling the same may be true of self closing devices.

[Brian Catton]

Colin
There is evidence that alarms save lives. Do you know of any evidence to support self-closing devices in domestic premises.
HTM 81 does not require S/C on bedroom fire doors. Over the years I have been involved with several bedroom fires in mental health premises none of which caused damage outside the room of origin as the staff closed the door.
I remember a fire in Humberside hotel where a self closer actually caused a death.
It was in an hotel room that had two occupants that were drunk. The first occupant threw the door back against the wall on escaping, embedding the arm of the self closer in the wall. The second occupant was found behind the door as if he was trying to open the door, which of course was already open. No other occupants of the hotel were affected. Yes OK I know it is a one off.

[Guest49]

In my humble opinion as an operational firefighter and MSc qualified fire engineer (well I have a piece of paper to say that but we know the true value of that without experience!!) is that there is no doubt that this piece of equipment functions well in allowing additional time to escape in the presence of suitable & sufficient detection, restricts the growth of the fire by limiting the flow of oxygen, allows rapid intervention by the calvary in the red trucks and increases the efficiency of any suppression system such as domestic sprinklers. The point of the discussion comes to choice of the occupiers in that does the state dictate their fire safety or does the occupier who may not have any great concern or awareness of fire make that choice.

I think on reflection that we always let the occupier chose but assist them in their choice by positive action within the construction of the premise. Therefore a positive choice of improving their fire safety is easy with the closers already being fitted. As mentioned the fitting of hard wired smoke alarms with resultant nuisance false alarms has on the whole been accepted over a period of time by the occupiers as being the norm. Over a period of time and with continual education, these closers whilst not being fool proof will inevitably create a positive impact in the event of a negative event such as a fire.

[wee brian]

There is no doubt that having a closed door between your escape route and the fire improves you chances of escape leaps and bounds.

The question here is do we think that the provision of a door closer on a domestic door will have any influence on it being closed. My view is that it won't. The only way you can get a domestic door closed is if the occupant chooses to close it.

[colin todd]

The problem is Brian you are suggesting taking away the safety afforded to Mr Compliant just because Mr Non-Compliant may not comply.

[ian gough]

I believe that there are really two types of fire:slow/smouldering and fast growing/flaming.

I'm confident that for a slow/smouldering fire my smoke alarm will wake and alert me and i'll be OK; however, for a fast growing domestic fire, I'm certainly not so confident that a non fire resisting door will save my life - even when I'm woken up (I've seen a lot of fires go through both FR doors and floors like a hot knife through butter and floors currently leave a lot to be desired). And, as I don't like self-closing fire doors, that's why I believe a residential fire sprinkler is the better alternative.

But perhaps we should have more choice as 'Guest' alludes to (although he didn't mention sprinklers)?

Thanks for the comments. It will be interesting to see what happens here.

[wee brian]

Colin.

Surely Mr Compliant, if he exists, Will shut the door at night if I ask him to.

Ian.

I understand where youre coming from but lets not get dragged into the sprinkler debate on this thread.

[Brian Downes]

Ian,
BCO's in my area have accepted LD2 or LD2, plus all rooms adjoining escape routes, Grade D or E'ish, alarm system, in lieu of self closers, in houses of three floors. or two floors and loft,  with a staircase enclosure.
They generally consult with fire service, and we agree.
The reasons being:-
1. Evidence from BCO's and FSO's that SC devices are removed after completion in dwellings, or the doors are wedged (I took the perko of the door to my own garage)
2. The assumption that probably occupiers will close doors to higher risk rooms at night
3. The additional detection will give earlier warning enabling folks to instigate their carefully prepared evacuation plan!!
Seems a better idea than folks dangling out of their loft conversion awaiting rescue by ladder, or waiting for the detectors in the staircase to go off.
Hey ho!
All the best,
Brian

[ian gough]

Thanks Brian.

[colin todd]

Only if you drop round in person, Brian.