Stay Put

[Dinnertime Dave]

If there is a disagreement then the two sides can go to determination. However, this is unusual with only one case in PA history. This was not in fire safety and went the way of agreeing with the PA advice.

[colin todd]

Idol, there is no change to policy or the status of the guidance.  Following one FRS  claiming that the guidance had no status as it was not Article 50 guidance, DCLG, CFOA and the FSF all confirmed in writing that it takes precedence over the sleeping risks guide.  It was also confirmed for them that the guide has ministerial support.  However, in the people's republic of the FRS in question, where, in one case, they didnt even recognise a fire door as such, they think they are the law. For avoidance of doubt, following the Lakanal Inquest, LGA reviewed the guide and found no need for any change, and this was acknowledged by the Minister.

Civilianise fire safety enforcement , you know it makes sense.

Suppers, I am sure you look nothing like James Garner.

Wullie, does a conversation with LFB compute? Conversations, by definition, normally involve a two way flow of discussion, in which BOTH parties listen?

Yes, Big Al you are losing the plot. I am cross with you for upsetting Gazza the Coal, who I always liked.  I thought I made that clear.

[idlefire]

Cheers Colin, most helpful.

[Mar62]

I do FRA's in a clients flats each year. Mostly small 2 / 3 storey blocks, 1 staircase, all concrete and brick, no floor coverings. Old but substantial flat entrance doors. Originally they had battery smoke detectors in the common areas of which half didn't work anyway. We took them out. A while ago there was a fire in one flat. Occupants were out and had left the dishwasher on which caught alight. The fire was noticed by another resident who called FRS. The fire was contained in the flat of origin. The managing agent went down and discussed the issue with the officer. Another tenant commented about the smoke detectors being removed and the fire officer said "we want smoke detection everywhere in the common areas". So that called my decision into question and I had to show that it was acceptable etc etc. The argument between the agent and the tenant is still going on i believe. Thank you Colin for producing the flats guide!!

[wee brian]

Can't believe people are still going on about stay put. If it was considered a problem then it wouldn't be allowed for brand new buildings - it is!!!

[Mar62]

Totally agree!!

[Tom Sutton]

I agree the stay put evacuation concept is acceptable, if understood fully, it does not mean occupants should stay put at all costs it means they should stay put if they feel it is safe to do so. In most situations only a small number will need to evacuate and most can stay in their flats, unfortunately the terminology gives the impression that all must stay.

[wee brian]

Yes, its not compulsory. The beauty of the approach is that you dont really need to educate people in it.

If you want to leave the building you can. If you don't then dont and the compartmentation will keep you safe. Most people will not even now there is a fire.

Every now and then something goes wrong and you get the folk with 20 seconds of experience in this field telling us that we should change it.

[kml]

If the inspecting officer thinks that people are being put at risk of injury or death then this should warrant more than a minor deficiency letter.
The Lakanal inquest didnt find that the stay put policy was at fault , it highlighted an over-reliance on the policy- as Tom already said the terminology doesnt help. Also the residents were told to stay put and await rescue by the fire service

[Dinnertime Dave]

Can't believe people are still going on about stay put. If it was considered a problem then it wouldn't be allowed for brand new buildings - it is!!!

Now I'm not suggesting that stay put isn't acceptable, but we have seen a number of fires in timber framed blocks of flats, the evidence is mounting up. Another one here -

http://www.itv.com/news/meridian/story/2015-07-05/crews-tackle-large-fire-at-block-of-flats/

Built correctly they should be fine - so why aren't they?

[kurnal]

"Crews have worked very hard to get this fire under control in very challenging conditions - dealing with a four storey building that was well alight. The building is a timber framed construction and so the fire was able to spread very quickly among the frame voids. This meant it was a difficult fire to fight in the early stages. At its height we had ten engines in attendance. The fire broke through the roof and we used two height vehicles to get water directly at fourth floor level. We also put some new equipment to very good use which stopped the fire spreading through roof voids and between floors. Firefighters used Fog Spikes to punch holes into the roof and through walls in order to insert a fine water spray that created a fire break and stop further spread."


This was a quote from the Fire Service officer in charge on the ITN website. Why do Fire Officers at the scene of such fires keep giving such bland statements?  They are taking the lack of fire stopping and cavity barriers for granted. There should be NO unstopped voids even in timber framed construction that would allow the spread of fire in this way. Why dont the Fire Officers say words to the effect that  "Residents of the flats were placed at serious risk from the rapid fire spread that occurred in this case and we will be carrying out a criminal investigation to get to the bottom of this. If the reason for the rapid fire spread is found to be poor standards of construction then we shall seek to prosecute those responsible to the full extent of the Law"

[Owain]

"If the reason for the rapid fire spread is found to be poor standards of construction then we shall seek to prosecute those responsible to the full extent of the Law"

That might be a bit embarrassing to local council building control if it was they who signed off the design and construction.

[Dinnertime Dave]

Who says it was LABC?

[kurnal]

Owain I disagree. Those who are responsible should be held to account. Embarrassment doesn't come into it. They chuck the book at AIs (to the extent of their control - remember the recent case against JHAi  in Malton?). The bottom line is that its poor construction that causes most problems in these cases. In most such cases that I have seen the "as built"  plans show fire stopping etc but the building contractors cant be arsed to install it (sometimes the project plan means the plasterers are in before the fire stopping contractors) and in most cases the BCO never visits site to check.

Anyway local authority building control departments are not a shadow of once they once were. They don't have sufficient funds to carry out their core duties due to cuts and restructures etc  and yet a group of them manage to find time and resources to trade as LABC selling fire risk assessments.  The worlds gone mad I tell ee.  

[Golden]

Kurnal I remember a speaker at FIREX a few years ago from Building Control informing the audience that there was no longer any money in building control and that they would concentrate on FRAs as it was seen to be more lucrative!!

As for timber framed - its almost impossible once built to detect any issues - I wonder if the insurers have any input or if they will adjust their premiums on this type of construction?