NFCC guidance common alarms and wakeful watch (flats)

[William 29]

https://www.nationalfirechiefs.org.uk/write/MediaUploads/NFCC%20Guidance%20publications/NFCC_Guidance_-_Waking_watch_and_Common_Fire_Alarm..pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/666190/111217_Advice_note_-_Non-ACM_advice.pdf

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/dec/11/fresh-post-grenfell-safety-warning-issued-over-high-rise-blocks

Anyone read these?
Anyone understand them?

NFCC seems to now be saying paras 19.6 and 19.7 of the LGG flats guide are no longer reliable advice? Basically, that instead of assuming the compartmentation in purpose built flats is ok for stay put unless there is good reason or evidence to confirm otherwise, they suggest the opposite. You assume the building has defects and may not support stay put unless this can be confirmed/proved by invasive/intrusive inspections?

If you read the first link above, this has massive implications for Responsible Persons. It seems to be saying that even where a block has no cladding that the defects in compartmentation alone (depending on severity) may not be able to rely on a stay put policy and the interim measures until works are completed is a temporary full evacuation fire alarm system.  Complete with staff to manage the evac and also any PEEPs. Once the work is done, the alarm can be removed as stay put in the long term is the most appropriate strategy.

So we tell residents stay put is ok, it's been around since the 60's and is part of current building regs today. Then it's not ok and you have to evacuate when you hear the alarm until we fix the breaches in the building. Then we take the alarm away and tell them stay put is ok again? (easy!?)

Then when we put this temporary alarm in some residents say, "but I can't get out of my flat, or if I can I can't use the stairs". So we solve one problem and create another. Staff are required to be on site or respond to the alarm to manage the evacuation to the assembly point, outside the building. So we now need staff trained in manual handling and evacuation principles.

We then have different housing groups and fire services placing their own interpretations and "enforcement" of the NFCC guidance.
This really is a mess and is getting harder to advise clients by the day. It is crying out for some Body to take this by the horns and sort this mess out as money and time is just being wasted unnecessarily. The DCLG and NFCC even seem to contradict their own guidance notes and emails?

Everyone is running scared in the current blame climate and will spend what it takes to make it go away. Assessors are writing FRAs with caveat after caveat to cover themselves. As a result the pool for competent assessors is getting smaller and smaller as "it's just not worth the risk". The demand for high quality FRAs is increasing each month and has no sign of reducing.

Frameworks for FRAs, sprinklers, passive fire and resulting works have been issued, lot after lot, after lot, ranging from FRAs to inspecting cladding by drone or abseiling. (no joke). The split between quality and price is flawed (50/50) considering the current climate and the content of these Frameworks are poorly worded with a lack of understanding of the FRA process and fire risk management cycle.

High rise task force action groups have been set up. Housing providers and fire officers attend, debate, discuss common issues etc but there is no representation from the consultants that are carrying out the FRAs?  We then get told our FRAs are not suitable and sufficient? This makes no sense?

FRAs are being written, then re written and reviewed months later (sometimes weeks later) following the latest "advice" or audit by a fire officer.

Clients are being told or even "enforced" to complete Type 4 FRAs on a whole tower block, with no thought or guidance as to what areas to focus on?

Confusion and hearsay around what can be enforced within a flat and what can't. "The cladding is a common area as it involves external spread from one or more flats". "Common vents between kitchen and bathrooms are common areas". Why not get a legal determination on this that ALL Fire Authorities can use and implement? Why have a Primary Authority Partnership and not use it?

I could go on but rant over for now.  

[Dinnertime Dave]

I received an email today from a county council commissioning service telling me that following receipt of advice from their county fire service, that we should expect that "stay-put fire safety legislation" - Their words not mine is expected to change.

Part of me wants to reply to the email asking for more information and what the implications are. 

[nearlythere]

It would help if we clarified the definition of "Stay Put". It is understood that this means "no matter what - stay in your flat" and I have had someone say that to me.
It is more a delayed evacuation than staying put. The delay being that, if necessary, the FB will take you out despite guidance which states that any evacuation strategy must not be dependant on the arrival of the FB.
We all know how this "control of building" cock up happened in the first place, which was avoidable, but we must move on and fix. (Funny how BC are being very, very fussy at the minute).
I have been involved in two blocks of flats up to 8 years old each with ground floor commercial premises and access to each level of flats is by way of external balcony approach. The balconies are constructed of wood and glazed elements underneath at all levels is of safety glass. The balconies are the means of normal access/egress and the alternative from each is via a window - provided the FB arrives with aerial appliances - if there is anyone to man them.

[colin todd]

Not man them Almost, People them, people them,.

[Tom Sutton]

I agree NT the terminology is wrong, I have argued for a longtime it should be something like "Stay Put if it is safe to do so", I know it is a bit long winded but it makes it clearer to joe public what is expected of then and not only those in fire safety.

[William 29]

For me I have never had any problem with the wording "stay put". Although I can live with "stay safe".

The guidance is clear, it is stay put unless you feel your flat is threatened by fire and smoke or you are instructed to leave by the FRS.
Also that residents are under no obligation to stay put and can leave their flats if they wish. This has just been communicated badly or not at all to residents. Dare I say that some FRS are only just getting their heads around it.

My main point re the new guidance it that this is being interpreted differently up and down the County by RP's and fire safety officers. I have examples of fire alarm systems going into blocks that do not conform to the coverage and cause and effect of that recommended in the NFCC guidance. So we have a situation where some blocks are operating stay put, full evac or phased. So I assume that the FRS has developed or is developing an operational approach to each possible scenario? Also if you follow the guidance this is a temporary measure and once the cladding and or breaches in FR are sorted, the most appropriate strategy is to return to stay put.

[William 29]

I received an email today from a county council commissioning service telling me that following receipt of advice from their county fire service, that we should expect that "stay-put fire safety legislation" - Their words not mine is expected to change.

Part of me wants to reply to the email asking for more information and what the implications are. 

I really can't see and hope this doesn't happen. The alternative to stay put will involve some form of a fire alarm and a managed evacuation. I don't see in general needs how you can managed people that can't self evac their own flats or use the stairs. Residents needs and mobility can change on a weekly basis, how would you track this?

Also the fire alarms in my view can not be managed effectively in the long term. Who responds and resets? Can you gain access into the flats to maintain the detection twice or 4 times per year? If you can't are you then in breach of Article 17?

[Owain]

it makes it clearer to joe public what is expected of them

Unfortunately most of Joe Public are rather hard of thinking.

Owain

[Tom Sutton]

For me I have never had any problem with the wording "stay put".

I accept that, you are involved in FS, its joe public we have to get to understand. Owain maybe you are right but we have to find ways to get them to understand.

[nearlythere]

Not man them Almost, People them, people them,.

I stand corrected Dot. How did we peopleage in the past without this gender sensitivity nonsense?

[nearlythere]

It is unfortunate that Joe/Josephine Public doesn't appreciate the problems fire alarm systems can cause in this type of environment. A couple blocks of apartments I have been involved in has a common FA system (smoke detection) extending into each flat and these have been removed by the occupiers as they were getting fed up tramping down the stairs 6 times a day.

[colin todd]

Almost, we need to peopleufacture some new terminology.

[nearlythere]

Almost, we need to peopleufacture some new terminology.

Your sentence in full of male gender references Dot. Al, Ed, Men, well three anyway. You need modernised.

[colin todd]

Almost, you need kneecapped. Do you have any preference as to whether I should instruct those in East Belfast or West Belfast?

[nearlythere]

Almost, you need kneecapped. Do you have any preference as to whether I should instruct those in East Belfast or West Belfast?

Why discriminate? One each.