Hi everyone.
I must declare a vested interest since I presented a paper on this issue and demonstrated a solution at the Fire Service College last week. Nevertheless I think the proposal is dangerous for the public and firefighters alike.
I will try to explain why but it is hard without a picture.
My principal concern is in relation to new style three storey houses. From the stats I have collected and figures obtained from one national housebuilder, 85-90% of houses built today are of this type as builders and local authorities strive to meet quotas. This compares with around 10% of existing housing stock being 3 storey.
Therefore my first point is that whatever risk is associated with 3 storey properties, it is getting worse asthe propotion of these houses in the overall housing stock increases
In all the constructions I have seen, the sleeping accomodation is on the top floor, living spaces on the 2nd and the kitchen, utility room and garage entrance on the ground floor.
The stairs go up to the first floor, back on themselves in a gallery and then up to the third floor. All the doors to all the rooms open directoly onto the galleries i.e 3 feet from the stairs themselves. In accordance with current guidance, the smoke alarms are fitted in hallways.
Imagine a family sleeping on the top floor and a fire starts in one of the lower floor rooms. If the doors are open, the smoke alarms will trigger quickly but also the onlty means of escape will quickly become compromised. Even if we assume that someone wakes up, they will look down the stairwell and see smoke and possiblly light from flames as well.
Their reaction will be to wake the children, gather everyone in a bedroom and shut the door. Given that they are 3 storeys up, their chances of surviving a jump are slim. Their only chance is to hope that the Service gets to them before the fire or smoke do.
OPDM quoted a stat in their Fire Kills campaign that 41% of people who died in domestic fires were trapped in some way. As we know Protected stairways exist to give people time to get out safely. The follwing is a chilling qoute form Colin Meech, a senior fire researcher at the Fire Service College
QUOTE
“in a 3 storey house protected by smoke alarms but which is filling with smoke because doors have been left open, most people would die in their bed without ever never knowing their house was on fire.
Those who are awakened by the alarm only gain the opportunity to make peace with their maker before being lost.”
So my second point is that modern constructions increase the risk of people being trapped by fire.
For firefighters this means that as the proportion of 3 storey houses of this type increase, the number of fires that are in 3 storey houses will also increase. If I am corerect and this means a greater number of people are trapped by fire then it follows that an increased number of firefighters will put their lives on the line to rescue them.
My third point therefore is that given all of the above there is a greater risk of firefighers being killed or injured in such properties.
OK lets now look at closers and their use. I believe that all would agree that if these doors were properly used, lives would be saved (although I could really do with finding some evidence where people have died or survived because doors have been closed or left open - any help greatly appreciated)
The problem with closers is that people hate them because they are just impossible to live with. The issue is not that closers themsleves don't work, if they didn't, no doubt there would be advocates for removing them from commercial buildings too. Combine this with a "it will never happen to me" attitude and you get widespread non-compliance.
My view is that we need to tackle two issues here. The first is to make closers easy to live with. The second is to encourage compliance. The former has been something I have been working on and I believe I have a simple cheap and viable solution. If I can think of something surely ODPM with all its resources could come up with something better as opposed to junking a good safety measure?
Compliance is a tricky one -perhaps. Most people know that if they leave their back door unlocked and get burgled, they would expect a hard time getting their insurance to pay. How many people would say the same about wedging doors or removing closers and then claiming for a fire? Even the insurance companies are unclear on their policy. One that I contacted didn't even know that fire resisting doors were fitted in dwellings!
Perhaps if insurers were more clear on their policies about fire safty provisions and we had a workable solution to make closers easy to live with then we could save some of the 450 lives that are lost every year in domestic fires. It is these issues that are the thrust of my paper and my work.
As mentioned above any help I can get would be greatly appreciated.
My final point is that from what I have seen no-one can say that removing the requirement will save more lives. It might not cost any either but I would challenge anyone to say thay are 100% sure of that.
Sorry for the long email but its hard to make the position in a few words.
Regards, Mark