Raising Call-point Heights out of Reach of Children

[Bumper8]

Hi,

We are having issues with malicious activations at a couple of schools where the pupils have additional support needs.

Constant activations have led to serious disruption on a regular basis.

One of the Head Teachers has reached out to Fire & Rescue and the local Watch Commander has given the go-ahead to raise the height of the call-points out of the children's reach.

My concern is that doing this would contravene BS5839.

Any thoughts on this issue would be appreciated!

[AnthonyB]

Have you tried hinged covers or alarmed covers yet?

Unless the Watch Commander is actually from the fire safety department and not just a local station their go ahead is meaningless - I was chatting with a client about  situation where non enforcement officers had given the OK to a situation that was actually dangerous and against all guidance and when the client challenged this with the actual specially trained enforcement officers whose remit fire safety is they agreed it was completely unacceptable and reversed the OK.

As the fire service no longer have a role in specifying fire safety requirements under current legislation your own fire risk assessment should detail what is needed and why  it's legal - fire officers come and go and saying 'x said it was OK' is no defence against future action. If they made the wrong decision they have no liability - it's your organisation that would still carry the can.

If the covers don't work there are several other options available. What height were they thinking of moving them to? As it won't readily work as I've seen CCTV of children using chairs or each other to get to fire safety equipment supposedly 'out of reach'

[Bumper8]

Thanks for your reply @AnthonyB

I have the same reservations about making physical alterations solely based on a Watch Commander's say-so.

Hinge covers/alarms have all been tried; these actually make things worse as these pupils are intent on causing havoc and it makes it more attractive to them.

No specific height has been stipulated, but it would be so that it was only within reach of an adult.

I am unaware of anything within legislation that permits putting call-points higher up; hence my reluctance to go along with it.

[AnthonyB]

Is this a PRU/ELC type environment? Does it have automatic fire detection throughout and/or sprinklers?

It's possible within the bounds of BS5839 & your risk assessment (unlike raising call points which isn't) to do the following:
- Omit call points entirely from public circulation areas (only have them in staff areas and high risk areas); or

- Move to a two stage alarm, the first being a silent staff alarm (you could programme the system to operate selected sounders and all your visual warning devices rather than relying on just the panel buzzer to alert staff to investigate) operated by call points and the second being an audible evacuate signal operated by detector, sprinkler flow switch, manual 'evacuate' call point (you'd need to fit one of these) or by the stage 1 investigation period timing out)

I've carried out fire risk assessments and fire safety design consultation for a number of schools including PRU/ELC's and can help further off forum if required.

[Bumper8]

Thanks again @AnthonyB

Its a modern primary school with a separate wing for pupils with additional support needs (ASN)

It is the ASN pupils who are causing the activations.

The building has detection and sprinklers throughout.

We have considering taking selected call-points off of the system and I will recommend that as a way forward.

Many thanks again for your advice!

[Phil Gardner]

There are MCP,s which can only be activated through the use of a key. This may be a more suitable option for your needs. 

[AnthonyB]

There are, but the reference for their use that I could swear used to be in BS5839-1 I can't find in the current edition,  meaning it would need to be a variation. Not impossible, but it's not a prison (although it might have some DOLs powers) where such a thing might be routine. Doesn't rule it out fully though.