Posted By Rob Randall
I am about to have a debate with a local authority fire brigade about whether an HMO should be compelled to comply with guidance on sleeping accommodation that says that 30-minute fire doors should be fitted to all bedrooms.

The HMO in question is single storey building with a central corridor with two exits, one of which is an emergency exit. The emergency exit has a protected lobby and the travel distances are well within suggested guidance. The HMO complies in all other respects, i.e. regular electrical testing of both portables and fixed system, space heating is a gas fired wet system that is serviced annually by a CORGI registered engineer, all occupants are able bodied, the building has an L2 automatic alarm system with detectors in each room and in the circulation spaces, all of the bedroom doors are close fitting, there are no cooking appliances in any of the bedrooms and the whole building is non-smoking.

In addition to all of the above safeguards the residents are voluntarily undergoing a life recovery programme after a history of substance abuse and have signed up to a strict regime that includes no smoking and no alcohol or other substance use. they are also closely supervised and the Centre is managed by professional carers.

I am of the opinion that the recently published guidance is just that, guidance and that the local authority cannot compel the fitting of fire doors if the risk assessment does not identify them as being necessary.

It begs the question "Can the Fire Authority compel a business to adopt the latest building standards unless they are of the opinion that there is a serious risk to life"

I would be grateful for responses to this question because I believe it involves an important principle.

Posted By Adrian Watson
Rob,

The simple answer to your question "Can the Fire Authority compel a business to adopt the latest building standards unless they are of the opinion that there is a serious risk to life" is no, because the building regulations are not retrospective.

Therefore unless there is a risk to the safety of persons from fire an alterations, enforcement or prohibitions notice cannot be served on the responsible person requiring the upgrading of fire precautions.

However, the onus is on you to prove that the measures that are in place are practical or are reasonably practical, as is necessary!

Regards Adrian

Posted By pluto
Rob,

On the face of it, taking a risk based approach, (single storey, presumably windows from rooms, good though not FR doors, early warning, etc), the premises would seem to be pretty safe.
However, Adrian's argument that the building regs are not retrospective is missing the point because the Fire Safety Order most certainly is retrospective, subject to the finding of your risk assessment. (Many older hotels are finding that their 1070's fire warning system cannot meet the new legislative approach).
The sleeping guide is just that...a guide and although it should form the benchmark in most situations, it's advice can be modified in certain circumstances.

I wouldn't be too worried about your premises if the existing standards are as you say. One word of caution though, some of the residents may, because of their particular needs, be on some pretty strong (legal) medication. Can you be certain they would all respond to an alarm before the fire broke through the door to the room of origin? Normal 30mins FR doors don't actually guarantee 30 mins.

Posted By Granville Jenkins
I can't believe your attitude to such a serious situation... 1/2hour fire doors have been the minimum standard for sleeping accomodation for years - I would suggest that either the architect or perhaps the building contractor skipped over the issue to save costs and put in inferior doors, now it has been picked up by the fire authority and your client is left to pick up the bill.

You cannot rely solely upon the fire alarm system the last line of defence for anyone trapped in one of the rooms is the door.

Regards
Granville

Posted By shaun mckeever
Rob it is always difficult to comment on a building that I have not see but it would be very unusual to to have sleeping accomodation of the type you describe without having fr doors. If we play devil's advocate and assume that one of your residents has a fire in his bedroom and he has left his bedroom door open what is in place to protect the other residents and firefighters who will be entering the building?

Posted By shaun mckeever
Rob, what is the statistical basis for you assuming that the only potential ignition sources are the electrical equipment. I don't know the residents as well as you do but I would also be considering the potential for smoking, candles, cooking and arson. In effect you are saying there is zero risk from these other ignition sources. I must admit I would be a little sceptical about this. I would say that the fire service would be doubtful too. You would have to demonstrate to them that what you are saying can be backed up.

Risk assessment is about frequency x consequences. Although you say the frequency of ignition is low, the consequences if a fire does occur must be taken into account. You say that detection will provide the necessary protection. I must tell you Rob you are absolutely wrong on this score. For the detection to operate you must have a fire. Do you know how long it can take for a detector to operate? Do you kow how long it takes for a fire to reach flashover in a small compartment such as a bedroom? Do you know what forces are exerted by a fire reaching flashover in a compartment? Do you know how long it takes some people to rouse from their sleep and be aware that the noise that awoke them is the fire alarm? Do you know how long it will take them to react e.g. deciding that actually the alarm is for real? Do you know what people will do when they open their bedroom door and see a corridor with smoke in it? There are a lot of questions. The consequences of getting this wrong are fatalities, possibly multiple fatalities.

The guidance is just that as you said, but if you do no want to comply with the guidance then you are required to demonstrate equivalency or better in some other way.What you have described does not sound like equivalency to me. I can tell you that the fire service will accept alternative solutions but you have to demonstrate to them that what you are proposing meets the requirements of the RRO.

Now you say that the fire service did not object before so what has changed now. HMO's are where several multiple fatality fires occur, probably more so than any other type of building. Of particular note was the Rose Park nursing home fire. This has influenced a lot of decision making with respect to fire.

You have not persuaded me that there is no risk to life and this is what is the driving compulsion behind the fire service. Demonstrate to them that your standards are equivalent or better than the published guidance and they will not compel you to fit the doors.

One last note. You say that the residents have signed up to non abuse of substances. Even with the best will in the world we all know that some people will find it difficult and may lapse occasionally. It is a difficult road they have embarked upon but I do think this increases the risk.

I'm sorry if this sounds harsh Rob, but I think the fire service are looking at this from a life safety point of view and they rightly can compel you to take action. What they should not do is be prescriptive about what you have to do, but they can give guidance.

Posted By Rob Randall
I accept all of what you say about the potential for slower than normal evacuation in the event of fire and the need to take this into consideration.

I perhaps should have said that this is more like a religious community than an HMO. It is a centre run by evangelical protestant ministers for the express purpose of helping former, and I stress the word former, addicts to return to a normal life in the community at large. The residents are all quite clear from the outset that this will involve a rural lifestyle away from temptation with no access to alcohol, tobacco etc. and the management regime is strict.

On the point of ignition sources I must reiterate that there is no possibility of cooking appliances because meals are taken communally and cooking appliances are not permitted in rooms. As already indicated there is no smoking and candles would certainly not be either permissible or even obtainable.

I do accept that FR doors is the norm in this situation and that they are desirable but I still say that the other factors must mitigate the need for prescriptive controls. If they are not to be considered and we are to always assume the worst case scenario then what is the point in a risk assessment?

I will be on holiday for a week and will respond to any replies when I return.

Regards,

Rob

Posted By Robert K Lewis
Rob

You have probably answered your own question with regards to the recent refurbishment, this almost certainly gave the Fire Service the opportunity to ensure that the doors are now brought up to standard. 1/2 hour doors to escape routes are a standard requirement now days and I personally think the Fire service have been relaxed on the previous visits waiting for a work to be undertaken.

This should have been picked up during the recent refurbishment - was this an external designer? If it was you need to have a discussion with them concerning the omission and their assessment for the lack of change to the doors.

Bob

Posted By Ken Taylor
Life seems to contain a mixture of both prescriptive measures and hazards requiring assessment and control. Prescriptive measures are generally intended to address risk and have been introduced down the ages where unacceptable risks have been inadequately controlled.

Risk assessments need to be suitable and sufficient and it's when the representative of the enforcing authority feels that this is not the case and a hazard is not being adequately controlled that associated intervention is taken - often by reference to published standards or guidance. This can be a little subjective and lead to different conclusions by individuals - particularly within the realms of fire safety. Hopefully the guidance documents under the RR(FS)Order, guidance issued to enforcing authorities and recent revisions to Approved Documents will contribute to less divergence of opinion in future.

Posted By Ken Taylor
I think there is a bit of feeling among the FRS that risk assessment (and the consequences of getting it wrong) used to be more of the duty-holder's lookout but that it's now down to them to make sure it's OK when they visit in case it comes back to bite them if things go badly wrong. Standards of acceptability do change with the course of time and there has been quite a bit of extra training around following the RRO guidance documents. However, I must say that there have always been complaints of inconsistent advice and enforcement between different brigades and inspecting officers - but then H&S people haven't always come to the same conclusions either.

Posted By Rob Randall
Hi Shaun,

I believe that I have provided satisfactory alternative solutions in the management regime at this location that gives rise to a low or very low likelihood of fire starting. BS 7974 deals with engineered solutions to fire safety mostly to prevent the rapid sread of fire and smoke after a fire has started. As I have already mentioned I believe the likelihood of ignition to be an important part of the equation and one that cannot simply be swept aside by a demand for prescriptive measures.

Posted By Rob Randall
Hi GT,

Firstly may I say that as a professional I am not "aggrieved" by the situation but simply trying to point out the incongruity of the FRS position.

Secondly I do fully understand the process of applying for an HMO licence. You say that the fire brigade have made their risk assessment and have applied the guidance which is based on experience and that is fair enough as far as it goes. What they however have not done is applied the spirit of the guidance which says,

"The provision of fire precautions in an HMO should be based on a risk assessment carried out by or on behalf of the applicant, and reviewed by the relevant officers inspecting the property. The following benchmark standards should not be seen as either a maximum or a minimum, but are intended to provide a reference point for an “average” HMO. They should be applied flexibly, taking into account the physical features of the property and the type of occupants in each case. Officers should always give consideration to alternative approaches, where these can provide an equivalent level of safety."

In actual fact the HMO guidance published by the Scottish Executive does not specify 30-munute FR doors on the escape route unless the property has a storey at a height of more than 4.5 metres and in those circumstances the common stair must be a 30-minute FR compartment.

We may well appeal but I am not interested in scoring points but in clarifying the situation for future reference.

Regards

Rob

Posted By shaun mckeever
Rob, I know BS 7974 gives engineering solutions. Use these:-

- to show the time for activation of your detection system;
- to show how long it will take to evacuate the building;
- to show how long it will take to reach flashover;
- to show your ASET and RSET.

Once you have these you may then produce a compelling argument for your case. Telling them that your management solution is the answer is insufficient.

Robert, we have to be careful about what is 'prescriptive' and what is not. Approved Document B is guidance on how to meet the requirements of the building regs. It is not prescriptive. The objectives of the building regs and the RRO are prescriptive i.e. 'provide a safe means of escape' - how you provide it is not set in stone.

Posted By shaun mckeever
Robert, I do agree with you. I am not advocating lowering standards. What I am saying is that if Rob wants to apply a different set of standards then he must show equivalency. If, for example, he wants to use an oxy-reduct system within the sleeping accomodation then he might use the argument that the oxygen levels are too low for a fire to begin (but sufficient enough to support life). If a fire cannot start then why does he need any doors at all? This might be an argument where the solution is better than the 'prescribed' standard.

I believe if he applies the logic of BS 7974 then I think he will find that he cannot meet the equivalency that is required.

By the way I am not saying that oxy-reduct could be used in this situation - it can't, but what I am saying is that we must not wear blinkers and think there is only one solution to a problem. One possible solution to Rob's problem might be to provide each bedroom with a door to the outside so that no-one has to enter the corridor - no need for fire doors then.

Posted By Rob Randall
Hi all,

it seems to me that what you are saying is that the current building standards must be applied in all situations regardless of other factors such as age of the building, cost and other existing controls. Surely this is not the intention of the RRFS Order or the Fire Safety Scotland Act?

Posted By Rob Randall
Hi Shaun,

why the quizzical "?" and what exactly is the question?

Regards

Posted By Robert K Lewis
Rob

If you refurbish or upgrade premises the current Building Regs have to be applied. The minute you refurbished the 30 minutes should have followed on logically. Something failed in the system that allowed these doors not to be upgraded. Without more details of the age of the building and the history of work on it one cannot be totally exact on the events. Somewhere somebody missed these doors when the LA issued its licence for the premise.

As Shaun states the assessment must equal or exceed the BR requirements if it is to stand a chance of acceptance. Am I right in thinking this was originally a domestic premise converted for the purpose in which case that is where the problem probably stems from as these do not have the 30 min door requirement. If built for purpose as a "commercial" premise then a designer or contractor has dropped the proverbial clanger.

Sorry to be the bearer of such good news.

Bob

Posted By Robert K Lewis
Rob

In view of your statement that these have always been sleeping accomodation the doors should always have been 30 minutes. The relevant regulations are long established and thus the non compliance started here. They simply failed to meet the BR requirements then in place. You had the baby when the problem was "discovered"

Bob

Posted By Robert K Lewis
The door from the bedroom/dwelling area into common areas/corridor has always, from my memory, had a 30 minute requirement. In fact they should, under the regs, have been installed in individual domestic houses of greater than 2 storeys since at least the 1980s. As these are/were commercial from construction there has been no change in the requirement to the best of my knowledge.

Bob

Posted By Crim
Try this link, it may help you decide.

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=130