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.