Stay Put

[idlefire]

I recently undertook an FRA of a 3 storey sheltered housing complex of 30 rented flats for independant living, purpose built to Building Regs 2000 standards.

Given the level of compartmentation present I was quite satisfied that the Stay Put evacuation strategy in place there complied with current benchmark standards contained within the "Fire Safety in Purpose-Built Flats" guidance.

However, an inspection by the fire authority (Humberside) has resulted in a "minor deficiency" letter containing the following statement:

"Stay-put policies are not acceptable and have resulted in persons becoming trapped, injured or killed by smoke and fire.  Suitable alternatives may include a Progressive Phased Evacuation or a Delayed Evacuation. It is not the responsibility of the Fire & Rescue Service to evacuate persons from the premises, in the event of an emergency."

My initial thoughts are that the inspecting officer concerned is not fully conversant with the concept of "independant living" and/or the purpose-built flats guidance, unless of course there have been changes to benchmark standards that I am unaware of.

Any thoughts anyone?

[Phoenix]

"Stay-put policies are not acceptable"

I think they're over-generalising there.

" and have resulted in persons becoming trapped, injured or killed by smoke and fire."

Well, this much is true.  Maybe this statement points to what is motivating them.  Maybe they're being overcautious in light of one recent case.  A few phrases come to mind: Knee jerk, stable door, OTT, #!@$#~!, etc

[Owain]

However, an inspection by the fire authority (Humberside) has resulted in a "minor deficiency" letter containing the following statement:

"Stay-put policies are not acceptable and have resulted in persons becoming trapped, injured or killed by smoke and fire.  Suitable alternatives may include a Progressive Phased Evacuation or a Delayed Evacuation. It is not the responsibility of the Fire & Rescue Service to evacuate persons from the premises, in the event of an emergency."

Do Humberside council have any high-rise buildings with a stay-put policy? You could point out the inconsistency to them.

Owain

[William 29]

I really don't see how they can issue or indeed enforce such a statement if an FRA can justify and support a stay put policy??? Most odd? Would they have the same view on a new build?

[colin todd]

Civilianize fire safety enforcement. You know it makes sense.  Anyone want to buy the tee shirts with the slogan.

[idlefire]

Colin,

In recent years I have witnessed a decline in the standard of fire safety enforcement within a number of brigades.

However, in answer to the original post, can I take from your comment that the "Fire Safety in Purpose-Built Blocks of Flats" guide still provides current, nationally recognised, benchmark standards for such premises and that it's authors' continue to advocate a "Stay-Put" strategy where it is appropriate?

[William 29]

Colin,

In recent years I have witnessed a decline in the standard of fire safety enforcement within a number of brigades.

However, in answer to the original post, can I take from your comment that the "Fire Safety in Purpose-Built Blocks of Flats" guide still provides current, nationally recognised, benchmark standards for such premises and that it's authors' continue to advocate a "Stay-Put" strategy where it is appropriate?

Quote from page 3 of the flat's guide answers your question!

Enforcing authorities are often unfamiliar with the particular issues that can be found in existing blocks of flats. In addition many of those now giving advice to landlords and managing agents also have limited experience of these issues. Of particular concern is the resulting variation in the findings of fire risk assessments carried out by third parties on behalf of landlords and others responsible for fire safety in blocks of flats.
This guide is intended to meet the needs of housing providers and enforcing authorities for guidance tailored to purpose-built blocks of flats. These buildings are only a small part of the scope of other guidance documents. This document is intended to assist responsible persons to comply with the FSO and the Housing Act 2004. Accordingly, it is expected that enforcing authorities will have regard to this guide.

[Dinnertime Dave]

I am so out of touch with fellow enforcing officers when I accept stay put. Feel like a bit of a maverick.

[idlefire]

William,

Thanks for that but, given that CS Todd & Associates drafted this guide, I was trying to establish (from Mr CS Todd himself) if there had been any changes to national recognised benchmark standards (specifically "stay-put") of which I am unaware.

[kurnal]

Hi Dave. Perhaps your colleague are  demonstrating their  willingness to challenge ideas and apparently "proven" theories or results and their ability to stand against others?
In answer to idlefire ADB guidance has not changed so buildings are still being constructed based upon a stay put strategy

[Dinnertime Dave]

Hi Dave. Perhaps your colleague are  demonstrating their  willingness to challenge ideas and apparently "proven" theories or results and their ability to stand against others?

I'm not the author, just the messenger pointing out interesting opportunities.

[kurnal]

Sorry Dave never meant to suggest that you had anything to do with it and am grateful to you for posting details of the vacancy in what is all to often a diminishing role in the fire service.

Am I losing the plot? I have upset two regular contributors this  week but  Dotty hasn't been cross with me for a couple of months. That's a matter of concern.

[idlefire]

Thanks for that Kernal.

A further twist to the story is that the housing association which runs this sheltered housing complex is in a primary authority parnership with LFB, who I understand do accept "stay-put".

Where a local fire authority and a primary authority funamentally disagree like this, which authority has primacy of enforcement?

[Dinnertime Dave]

Sorry Dave never meant to suggest that you had anything to do with it and am grateful to you for posting details of the vacancy in what is all to often a diminishing role in the fire service.

Am I losing the plot? I have upset two regular contributors this  week but  Dotty hasn't been cross with me for a couple of months. That's a matter of concern.

Didn't mean to suggest I was upset. I took it in good humour. I have thicker skin than that.

[William 29]

Thanks for that Kernal.

A further twist to the story is that the housing association which runs this sheltered housing complex is in a primary authority parnership with LFB, who I understand do accept "stay-put".

Where a local fire authority and a primary authority funamentally disagree like this, which authority has primacy of enforcement?

In that case they shouldn't be able to issue any enforcement action (other than prohibition) without consulting LFB first, so may be an interesting conversation between the 2 FA's?