Dan100

Anthony, Firstly, thank you for the reply. I have a reasonable degree of experience with the business of fire but I am certainly not an FS expert as I know many here are. I am just trying to help the current owners who want to do the right thing & run a safe home but who are now seriously concerned about the viability of the building they have bought. Many issues raised by the FRS officer can & will be easily addressed with remedial works but the single staircase is a fait accomplis. The building is a conversion with later additions. I will have a conversation with the fire officer to see if there are workable options which could be introduced to compensate for the single staircase & alleviate his concerns. I was wondering if the single staircase in & of itself precludes it from consideration ? if it does, the rest is probably academic.

A proposal to establish a residential care faciity within an existing bulding has thrown up a few issues. The building (more or less in it's current form) was previously used as a care home facility but closed several months ago. Some cosmetic & remedial works have been carried out to the fabric of the building with further work to follow before any proposed re-opening. The local FRS visited recently & have made comment on the suitability of the building particularly with regards to the fact that the 1st & 2nd floors are served by a single staircase with, self evidently, a single direction of travel to that staircase. It is proposed to have 6 rooms on the 2nd floor and 8 on the 1st. Travel distances from any room to the single staircase are not excesssive. I have yet to speak to them myself but the single staircase alone does not seem to me to preclude use for residential care. It would be possible to install an additional fire door between the bedrooms & the staircase enclosure to further sub-compartmentalise the areas. The FRS have also stated that the staircase is non compliant in terms of width. This also strikes me as odd as the building was operating as a care home until reasonably recently. Any thoughts on this from the commnity ?

Thought that was coming :) . Thanks as always. Dan.

Tom, A fire originating in any of these rooms would not immediately have an adverse affect on the primary MoE (which is via the main internal staircase) . It could, however, have an effect on that external escape route from the rear garden. The FRA directs them to use the external fire escapes only as a last resort (if the primary MoE are untenable) as they themselves pose a hazard to the vulnerable residents that live there. Particularly at night or in adverse weather conditions. Fire separation & compartmentation is reasonable & there is an L1 system in place.

This is an old topic but as I have just come across a related issue I thought I'd throw one into the mix. An external escape route outside a building (rear garden area of a residential care home) which passes several windows which are clearly not fire rated. As it is a fairly narrow passageway it is not possible to move away from the windows any reasonable distance. This, in my opinion, makes that escape route untenable if the status quo remains regarding the glazing. This route is the only way to leave the garden area unless you re-enter the building on the ground floor which would then allow you to exit by an alternative route. The external fire escapes which lead to this garden area would only be used as a last resort as from the FRA the normal method would be down the internal staircase to the internal assembly point. Upgrading the glazing makes the problem go away but, of course, has a significant cost attached. It seems counter-intuitive to advise people who do use the external fire escape to re-enter the building on the ground floor in order to avoid passing the 'suspect' glazing ? Any thoughts ? Dan.

Brilliant, comprehensive reply as always Tom. Many thanks.

Hi All, I wonder if anyone can point me to useful up to date guidance regarding evacuation strategies for nursing homes. This is where the majority of residents would require significant physical assistance. Also any relevant guidance re: defend in place strategies. As always, the thoughts & views of the FS community are most welcome. Dan.

Well I know some stuff Tom but a long way from all. Which is why I pick the brains of wiser men here. I try to keep whims to a minimum and appearing before the beak even less. Thanks for your input. Dan.

Good points Tom. I too worked when it was much more prescriptive. What was written had to be done. With it now being open to interpretation does make it more difficult with grey areas. Sensible yes, until something goes wrong and then the 'guidance' is pointed out.

Hi Tom, I take your point about ' should ' & not ' must ' but the ADB (page 41 sec 3.48) also states : Every bedroom should be enclosed in fire resisting construction with fire resisting doors and every corridor serving bedrooms should be a protected corridor. Again, the use of the term ' should ' but I can't believe those stipulations are not absolute. Interested in your opinion. Dan.

Thanks for the reply Tom. I found this is on page 24 of the National Minimum Standards you referred to : 23.6 Where rooms are shared, they are occupied by no more than two service users who have made a positive choice to share with each other. 23.7 When a shared place becomes vacant, the remaining service user has the opportunity to choose not to share, by moving into a different room if necessary. 23.8 Rooms which are currently shared have at least 16sq metres of usable floor space (excluding en-suite facilities). ADB & National Minimum Standards contradicting themselves ? I'm confused :-) Any other pointers welcomed.

Hi, I have recently visited a couple of residential care homes where there was the odd bedroom containing more than 1 bed. I didn't think this was permissable under current guidance. Approved Doc B Page 41 3.49 seems to back that up. Have I got it wrong or perhaps there is alternative guidance which does allow more than 1 bed per room ? Any advice greatly received. Dan.

Tom, just to recap, this block is Gnd with 3 over. 2 flats per floor with single staircase where the flat doors open directly onto that staircase. Gnd floor lobby has no openable windows : 1st & 2nd floors have manually openable windows which have been painted shut (easily remedied I guess) the 3rd (top) floor staircase lobby has no openable windows. Doesn't seem right to me. What do you think ?

Tom, I can't see reference to AOV within the 2 guides in relation to a building similar to which I described. Have I missed something obvious ?

Tom, I am aware of both guides but have not studied them in depth. With regards to the block in question I do not think there is any AOV system at the head of the staircase but I will need to check that to make sure. Many thanks. Dan.

I recently visited a purpose built small block of flats (Ground & 3 over). Block was built around the early part of the 20th century, maybe 1920's. Consists of a main front door from the street leading to a small open lobby and 1 central staircase serving all floors. The doors to individual flats open directly onto that staircase with no additional fire separation. They appeared to be quality constructed doors but, for various reasons, I was unable to verify if they were fitted with intumescent strips & cold smoke seals. The block as a whole is fitted with automatic fire detection in the the communal areas and within each flat. A coupe of questions : 1/ Given the age of the block, is the lack of a protected staircase acceptable bearing in mind that it is the only egress from the upper floors ? 2/When I had a look at the back of the block there was clear evidence that at some point in the past an external metal fire escape had given additional egress from each flat by way of their balconies. The external fire escape had been removed possibly through deterioration but I cannot be sure. Should it have been replaced ? Should they have consulted the local fire & rescue authority ?

I should have read the question more thoroughly Tom :) .

Hi, I thought there was a regulation around windows / glazing that is within 1.8 metres horizontally from any external fire escape. Meaning that such glazing must be 30 minutes FR. Am I mistaken ? You've got me thinking now guys.

Understood Tom, so it's not a legal requirement but we will make you into toast if you don't comply with the ' advice ' ....lol

Tom and Iain, thanks for all your help with this. It amazes me that people are so generous with their time and willing to share their knowledge and experience. I don't believe that the lift lobbys pose any meaningful additional risk to the building or the people in it (the lack of roof void detection does however). After speaking to the owner, what he has decided to do is : Install the additional roof void detection (plus a couple of other areas) as recommended by me in the fire risk assessment. leave the lift lobbys as they currently are but... next year go back and either fit additional detection here or relocate the existing detectors to meet the 1.5m distance criteria. (in effect delaying the extra capital outlay for a few months) I will ask the alarm company if they would then be willing to certify the entire system as fully meeting L1 standard. If I get the annual visit from the local FRS Fire Safety officer in the meantime I will have to convince him/her that any perceived additional risk really is minimal and that we are working towards a total solution. What I still don't know is whether the L1 standard is actually a legal requirement for this care home or not. All I can find in the guidance are terms like " a system meeting L1 standard is probably appropriate " . It doesn't say you must have one and be able to produce a certificate to prove it and it doesn't say you mustn't ! . Call me old fashioned but I like to know where I stand and exactly what is and isn't a mandatory requirement. Either way I'll let you know if there are any other twists and turns with this one. Once again, thanks for all your help. Dan.

The lobby detectors as they stand at present are part of the existing system. The reason this issue arose in the first place was my advice to the owner that an L1 was probably the correct category for his premises (borne out by your last submission)...I assumed that by installing the additional detectors in the roof voids which, during the RA I had found were uncovered, would prove to be enough for the system to be rated L1 as there would then be detection in every part of the building. The owner posed the question to his alarm company expecting to be told ' yes 'and to be issued with a certificate at a nominal cost perhaps ? The alarm company did a survey (I wasn't present) and subsequently sent the owner a quotation saying that they could not certify the premises as up to L1 standard even if they installed additional void detectors due to the lift lobby detectors being outside the 1.5m distance. So here we are with him being told that he needs the additional void detectors proposed by myself and additional detectors in the lift lobby to fall within 1.5m and then he would get his certificate but of course cost is an issue for everyone in this day and age especially if it appears OTT. I'm all about safety but also for reasonableness. I am assuming from your last piece that you believe an L1 is indeed mandatory and the enforcing authority would ask to see this certificate ? Maybe he is stumped and will have to bite the bullet and install even more detectors to fall within 1.5m of the lifts. It all seems like code hugging to me....with possibly a little bit of extra profit for the alarm company....what an old cynic I am :-) . any other thoughts CWEENG ?

Thanks once again. As a retired senior fire officer I like to think that I do have a reasonable bit of experience in the business of ' fire ' . Unfortunately I never majored in Fire safety but was always Operational so the intricacies of the dark art of FS legislation were not my forte :-) . I did carry out the Fire Risk Assessment on behalf of the responsible person and I would recommend a Cat L1 (meaning to me, detection in all parts of the building) . This system is not new and was commissioned before the current owner took control but it is regularly serviced etc and appears to me in good order and it has just undergone a 6 monthly inspection. As part of the RA I advised the owner to install some additional detection in areas where previously there was none (hence my belief that it was now a defacto L1) ... the alarm servicing company beg to differ re the 1.5m issue and the fact they won't issue an L1 certificate without this upgrade. As said previously, I don't actually know if an L1 is a mandatory requirement that any enforcing authority (local FRS or CQC ) would insist on or whether it a decision for the responsible person ? As a residential care home there are no significant additional fire hazards or dangerous processes. It's basically a very large domestic premises with the same things you would find in anyones home albeit on a larger scale. The risk factor is with the residents in terms of mobility and mental capacity and evacuation, but I believe I have covered that with the emergency fire plan and staff training.

Thanks again Tom & CWEENG. I suppose I will have to have another chat with them but I think they will be adamant about the 1.5m and stick rigidly to what is in BS5839. I don't actually know 100% whether I even need an L1 certificate ? or whether the L1 speicification is simply guidance and best practice ? as far as I can see the L1 category calls for smoke detection in all areas including roof voids....(I never knew about the 1.5m etc) so I have always assumed that I had a defacto L1 system ? Maybe I have missed something and do have to be in possession of a certificate ? any thoughts ?

The building is a converted, large, Victorian house in use as a residential care home with 26 rooms. There are 4 floors, basement, G, 1 & 2. There is only 1 lift shaft serving G, 1st & 2nd floors. The lift lobbys on all floors are, as far as I am aware of the codes, well within the dimensions that could be covered by a single detector (10.6 x 10.6m ?). The existing detectors are approximately 2 to 2.25m from the area immediately above the lift openings. There are no protruding obstructions from the ceilings between the existing detectors and the lift so I would assume that detection of any smoke from the lift shaft would be delayed by a very marginal amount of time.

Tom, many thanks for the reply. At least that makes me feel that I am not being unreasonable in questioning the need to have 2 detectors within a metre of each other. However, my alarm company are saying that it is a mandatory requirement or they cannot certify the system as L1. any thoughts on this or on the likely position of the enforcing authority (local FRS obviously) regarding this matter. I would have thought a degree of common sense would prevail ?