Normal or High Risk

[JasonT]

Hello all

Just after some clarification. I recently completed a fire risk assessment to a residential property for disabled persons, the property is a three story building with an open staircase, dead end situation resulting in single direction of travel, L2 fire alarm in place with fire doors to all bedrooms. The travel distance to reach the final exit was measured at 23m from the top bedroom. I made a requirement for a sprinkler system to be installed to protect the bedrooms and escape route. Due to rural location the fire service have a response time of around 20 - 30 minutes.

Whilst I was happy with my assessment, I had a visit by the fire safety inspector from the local fire service and he stated that the building would be classed as normal risk in accordance with the CLG guide and that sprinklers in his opinion were not required as the 18m distance could be extended based on L2 fire alarm (would not put this in writing).

My opinion is that the building would be classed as high risk as the residents have some form of disability and require assistance during an evacuation and that single direction of travel was required.  I appreciate that you could justify the extended travel distance based on L2 fire alarm, fire doors but I based the travel distance on 9m I am now confused as to the classification of risk?

opinions would be a great help

JasonT

[JT]

Hi Jason

Have you used the CLG residential care guide to carry out your fra?
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/14885/fsra-residential-care.pdf

[Dinnertime Dave]

A number of additional questions spring to mind

How many residents?
What are the disabilities? Does everyone understand what to do in the event of a fire and are they able to self evacuate?
What is the evacuation strategy? Stay put or full evacuation
Number of staff?

The FSO audit will use a scoring system that already takes into account that residential accommodation is higher risk than say an office. However, is your senario high risk within the sector.

[JasonT]

Thanks for your response

There are 6 residents and 1 member of staff, the level of disability varies from downs syndrome to severe autism, all the residents are able bodied and can evacuate without physical assistance however some will panic and lock themselves in there rooms (although systems in place to gain access). in short their mental disability can create panic and confusion. PEEPS are in place.

There is no stay put policy due to an open staircase and lack of Compartmentation, plasterboard walls etc.  Due to the open lower floors, the staircase is not a protected route and there is a risk that smoke from fire could make the route impassable before the occupants have a chance to escape.  This situation did give me some concern, I did review the Residential CLG guide in particular page 67, but I felt that there are a number of factors that would move the risk from normal to high. Further confusion sets in when I look at page 76 as the table sets suggested travel distances for single direction of travel at 9m and below.

I based the travel distances on 9m because I have disabled people sleeping, single direction of travel and a 23m travel distance to reach final exit. I honestly thought sprinklers would be the correct way to go but as mentioned the fire inspector did not agree???

so thoughts much appreciated

[JT]

So you have an inner room situation for sleeping occupants. Sprinklers may cause panic/visibility issues and I would look at creating a separate moe if possible.
Can they subdivide the corridor and put in an external staircase?

[kurnal]

Do you know anything of the history of the conversion and the relationship between the service users and the carer? Prima facie it sounds like another case of stretching the old HTM88 to me (in very many respects! ) is it fully open plan at ground floor level or are there rooms with doors?
Some of these places are domestic premises, others care premises.
As for classification of risk and travel distance, in practical terms if someone fastens themselves in their room then these benchmarks become irrelevant.
Sprinklers would always make a huge contribution to risk reduction, but coverage needs to be comprehensive - I may have misunderstood your comment on covering the escape routes.

I would really dig into the fire emergency plan, the care staff level of training and service users understanding of it including drills.
But my advice is to follow your instincts, if unhappy with standards it's better to give your advice and walk away from the job if they don't like it. I always took the view that it is better to write off a fee than have a sleepless night

[Dinnertime Dave]

But my advice is to follow your instincts, if unhappy with standards it's better to give your advice and walk away from the job if they don't like it. I always took the view that it is better to write off a fee than have a sleepless night

Some of us might work for the company that owns the property so walking away isn't an option.

Don't like the sound of this property. The senario described isn't acceptable in any 3 storey house without the added complications of disabled occupants.

As already mention protecting the route to the final exit is the preferred option. If you look at ADB and it's recommendations on loft conversions and open plan ground floors it states that -

Alternatively, it may be possible to provide sprinkler protection to the open-plan area, in conjunction with a  re-resisting partition and door (E20), in order to separate the ground  floor from the upper storeys. This door should be so arranged to allow the occupants of the loft room to access an escape window at  first floor level (in accordance with paragraph 2. in the event of a  fire in the open-plan area. Cooking facilities should be separated from the open-plan area with  fire-resisting construction.

Whilst this may not be a loft conversion at at least gives you something to consider.

(Don't know why 2.8 changes to   ).

[kurnal]

http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sites3/Documents/254/HTM%2088.pdf

Might be of interest. If I recall the earlier version (1984?) was more laid back in respect of staircase enclosures at ground floor level, copies are still floating about on the web. My point is that whilst current fire safety guidance will always take precedence, you need to understand the original design strategy and measure the conversion against that before coming to your conclusion. You will find 11.9 interesting though.

[JasonT]

Hi everyone


Thanks for all your responses, it is not possible to put in an external means of escape. The management of the building is considering enclosing the staircase and creating protected lobbys but this cost is currently being reviewed against the costs of a sprinkler system to the bedrooms and on the staircase and the lobby.

Whilst a number of people have made reference to guidance documents, I would like to point out that when I met the fire safety inspector he asked what documents I have consulted, I told him Approved document B, NASHiCS guide, BS9999 etc however he told me not to look at any other documents apart from the relevant CLG guide and stick to it.

To be honest I am comfortable with the fire risk assessment but confused with the guidance from the fire safety inspector, I have spoken to two retired fire safety inspectors who both agree that the risk should be classed as High, travel distance should be 9m due to dead end situation and the fact that the staircase is open. Whilst I could justify an extended travel distance due to L2 alarm, fire doors etc I could not justify a 23m distance without additional measures.

So back to the original question, risk category, Low, Normal or High. The house is basically normal risk but due to disabled occupants does the risk move to High? - the fire safety inspector told me to always go off 18m even if it is a dead end situation???

Jason

[AnthonyB]

The DCLG Guides are not binding as alternative guidance that provides an equivalent level of safety is acceptable and prescriptive rules no longer exist, I think the inspector needs to come out of the dark ages!

Perhaps you should see if there is a senior officer to go to or consider going to determination if there is no middle ground?

[JasonT]

Thanks for all your help

I intend to carry on as normal, since my post I have spoken to a number of people with a fire safety background, put the scenario to them and they are happy with my outcome.  I also found out that the fire safety inspector is new in post moving from another role so might not be up to speed???

Thanks
Jason T

[nearlythere]

What do you mean by open plan stairway Jason? Do you mean that the approach to the stairway is not via a protected corridor that rooms open straight onto the stairway?
You make it sound like the stairway discharges into a room on the ground floor rather than being protected to a final exit.

[Fishy]

Good decision - I think I'm right in saying that you're completely at liberty to ignore what the local fire brigade say.  They have a statutory duty to advise (if asked) but it's your call - you're preparing the FRA, not them.  In risk assessment "right" or "wrong" is rarely clear-cut & it would be incredible if we all invariably came to the same conclusion in the same set of circumstances.

Of course, if they don't believe that the FRA is safe, they can take enforcement action, but that's clearly not what is being discussed here.  They can also potentially cause problems between you and your client (if that's the relationship you have with the RP) but that's just a fact of life and it shouldn't influence the safety decision.

[JasonT]

The stairwell is not on a protected route it is open plan that discharges into a lobby with a kitchen and dinning room that also discharge into the lobby, each floor has stair balustrades and yes some of the bedrooms lead directly onto the staircase. In short if a fire was to start at ground level the smoke / fire would filter up the stairs no problem and hamper an escape.

Because there is a dead end situation and extended travel distance 23m with disabled residents (sleeping) I was uncomfortable with the risk, therefore I advised a sprinkler system and since my last post the client has agreed and a specialist has been out to complete a design. I was uncomfortable with the advice from the fire service and made what I believe is the correct decision. (fire service are happy)

The area I am still confused with is travel distance, the fire service said the travel distance allowance would be 18m but I questioned this, whilst the risk is normal, I factored in the single direction of travel about 35m to reach the final exit, sleeping residents have some form of mental disability, although they are all able bodied reactions are all different, with that in mind I dropped the travel distance to 9m.

I would appreciate any feedback on travel distances

Jason T

[wee brian]

Sounds like you are being sensible to me. I wouldn't fuss too much about Travel Distance.

Ideally you'd have a protected stair. I can see why you suggested sprinklers.

Sure when they activate, the stair will probably already be smoke logged and anybody upstairs will find it difficult/impossible to escape.

But they are more likely to survive as the sprinks will either extinguish the fire or control it, leaving them relatively safe in their rooms.