Travel distances - retirement flats

Paul1979 · Post by **Paul1979** » Tue May 18, 2021 9:08 am

Hi All,

We have another residential FRA query - in particular, travel distances / compensatory features in a block of retirement flats which has onsite manager.

Firstly, I am assuming that the correct guidance is NFCC for specialised housing and BS991/ADB? The managers state that the building is 'independent living with support provided where needed' - so to us, this falls under the definition of specialised housing...?

The building in question was originally built 1980's. Ground and first floors only.

Stay put policy. Corridors protected with FD30s doors and L1 alarm.

The queries have arisen where:

Corridors on upper floor levels where 2x stairs are accessible exceed 12m (some 20m) with no cross passage smoke resisting doors;
Dead end corridors where access is only to 1x protected stairway are measured with travel distances of 15m between the flat entrance door and the protected stairway (we think guidance is only 7.5m as per ADB Vol 1?)[img]

Capture.JPG (18.53 KiB) Viewed 4029 times

The FRA has stated that smoke ventilation in the protected stairways will compensate for these extended travel distances - our query (which the FRA has not replied to) is, especially when occupants are elderly, is should the corridors not have smoke ventilation / extraction systems to address the extended travel distances, and not just the stairs?

And should all corridors (without smoke vents / extraction) longer than 12m have cross passage smoke doors?

Fully appreciate that this is just basic information so our queries are generic to try and understand what we should expect to find in such buildings where travel distances beyond those recommended in guidance are found? Our thinking is that the corridors should be sub-divided and have smoke vents / extraction to overcome extended travel distances?! But we are not assessors and appreciate that this is modern guidance perhaps?!

witsd · Post by **witsd** » Thu May 20, 2021 1:33 am

An FRA is based on a combination of the current guidance, the perceived reality of the situation and the experience of the assessor. A different assessor may look at the same situation and put more weight into guidance, deciding that doors and extraction are required – YMMV.

I'd obviously need a lot more information to write my own FRA, but given what you've said here (stay put, FD30s, just two floors high, no consistent mobility issues, smoke extraction in the stairs) I highly doubt that I would conclude that the risk to life would justify the addition / extension of an expensive extraction system. My thought process for what it's worth:

a) If someone is in a flat that is on fire, the corridors will be less affected by smoke than the flat. If they can leave the flat, they will probably be able to get through the corridor as well, providing their front door self-closes behind them as they leave.

b) If someone is in a neighbouring property, they should have no need to leave before the FRS arrive and extinguish the fire. If that isn't the case, you have far more issues than travel distances!

c) If someone is entering the building and happens upon smoke, they will simply turn around and leave, having minimal travel distance to the exit.

So considering the above, I'm struggling to see a realistic scenario where a person would need to evacuate from the furthest possible point, while the evacuation route is already filled with smoke. Unless maybe there's a lift (in a two storey building?!) that deposits them into the smoke-filled corridor with no prior warning?

What I did notice though was that you have a stay put policy and a common area alarm system? Is that audible from within the flats? This is one of my bugbears - as soon as you have an alarm in the corridors, every last one of your residents will be opening their front doors and potentially getting a blast of smoke just because they want to know what's happening. If they should be staying inside, why would you want to attract their attention into the corridors? Admittedly having on-site staff changes this somewhat, but I'd still be concerned about how it affects the residents' behaviour.

Paul1979 · Post by **Paul1979** » Thu May 20, 2021 4:37 pm

Hi witsd, thank you as always for taking the time to reply.

Good point re. Stay Put and common alarm system...so, the procedure we believe (as we have just inherited this property as part of a portfolio of business) is;

Part 6 systems (smoke and heat) in flats - not linked to common alarm. Residents told to stay put unless flat they are in is on fire;
Part 1 system in common areas - anyone in common areas such as shared lounge are told to evacuate immediately.

Residents are told to stay in flats if they hear common fire alarm actuation....my argument was, if resident hears an alarm, how do they know if its common alarm or in flat? Especially as the occupancy naturally includes elderly, maybe confused / frightened residents. The FRA does not explain this so I am a bit stuck...the alarms sound fairly similar anyway.

The common alarm is also linked to mag holders on fire doors (not flat entrance doors) in common areas.

With regards to the travel distances side of things (sorry - this confuses the hell out of me) if guidance suggests single direction travel distance from flat entrance to stair is 7.5m (I think this is right anyway), why would someone agree travel distances of double that? I am not in anyway challenging your comments by the way as I am no fire safety expert, but if guidance is there for a reason, why (without any compensatory features such as smoke vents) would it be agreed to allow double that distance?! Hence, why I am no expert!

Thanks as always for your help and steer - would be interested especially with your thoughts on alarm...

Messy · Post by **Messy** » Thu May 20, 2021 6:54 pm

Why on earth would you have a part 1 alarm in the common parts?
What is the risk?
Fire doors on flats and a relatively low rise building sound fairly low risk (notwithstanding I havent seen it) , so controlling ignition sources and restricting combustibles is something I would consider before a common alarm

To have an emergency plan which tells residents to ignore a fire alarm sounds completely crazy. An effective emergency procedure should remove confusion, not create it!!

I may not have grasped this situation fully, but this does sound as if needs a bit more work

Paul1979 · Post by **Paul1979** » Thu May 20, 2021 8:10 pm

Oh god

I think my initial query re. travel distances may have opened up a can of worms!!

Okay, here is a bit more information...

Retirement flats - sorry it is ground, first and second floors (not just ground & first as first advised) - these each have Part 6 alarms

2x stairs & 1x lift

Corridors are 2x direction in parts, but some flats have dead-end corridors which are the ones which are 15m in places with no sub-division and why we cannot understand why these distances are allowed where only one direction of travel is permitted (original query

)

So the communal areas where the Part 1 (L1) alarm is found are:

Communal Lounge
Communal Kitchen
Communal Laundry
Mobility scooter storage/charging room
Guest bedroom

There is also:

Managers Office
Electrical meter and lift motor room
Boiler room which is accessed externally

Here are some floor plans we took photos of which may explain things better

So, in a 'general needs' block of flats, we understand why they would have no alarm in communal areas other than those linked to AFD; but in this example, surely the communal parts need an alarm system?!

Whilst it is independent living, it does have a number of shared areas. But I do appreciate that residents may be confused by hearing communal alarm and evacuate.

Messy · Post by **Messy** » Thu May 20, 2021 8:41 pm

Its always difficult to visualise a situation, but the communal facilities you have listed (laundry, kitchen and battery charging rooms!!!) do indeed make this a rather different risk that I had assumed in my earlier post

witsd · Post by **witsd** » Tue May 25, 2021 12:23 am

Regarding alarms, okay, communal parts, yes, sure, but I'd still have a concern about those in the corridors being audible within the flats and sounding similar enough that an elderly person could well confuse it with their own alarm, and walk out of the relative safety of their own flat into a dangerous situation. Is the common alarm linked to an ARC or does it just alert on-site staff?

Regarding the distances, I'm peering at the pics, and yeah, it does seem odd that there's a single long corridor (going up / down on the left side) that is not split, but, it does look as though there is very little in this corridor. The laundry has an access lobby which is nice... I can't quite see where the bin chute opens into on the first floor, which might change things.

And although I mentioned it earlier as a possible issue, the compartment with the lift does seem relatively small.

So, yes, it's technically an issue. But if the flat doors to 2,3,4,5 and 1,10,11,12,13,14 are all up to standards, then I'm still not that concerned. Maybe I'd recommend a doorset to split the corridor. Most likely I don't recommend an extraction system, although I might mention AOVs as a possible positive.

Paul1979 · Post by **Paul1979** » Tue May 25, 2021 2:03 am

The common alarm is linked to monitoring company plus the on-site Warden receives a notification too if one of the alarms inside flats is actuated for any reason to allow them to investigate/assist.

Thank you for your thoughts on the travel distances / splitting corridor.