Sprinklers prompt 'about-face' on residential tower blocks27 July 2011
Have developers changed their tune about which purpose group to categorise high rise student accommodation since the requirement in Approved Document B for sprinklers in blocks of flats over 30m? Paul Clayton thinks they have. A recent article on info4fire.com discussed safety fears regarding a 90 metre high building that will be used as student accommodation in Portsmouth. The safety fears originate from the fire service and stem from the lack of a sprinkler system in this 33-storey building. One of the reasons that a sprinkler system was not considered at the design stage was due to the building being built according to the ‘residential (other)’ purpose group, as specified in Approved Document B. (ADB) However, not too long ago developers were doing their utmost to avoid such buildings being in this purpose group. By way of a quick explanation, ADB splits buildings into different purpose groups, and these groups have different fire safety solutions deemed to be appropriate to the particular risk the group proposes. The ‘residential (other)’ purpose group generally involves buildings such as hotels and hostels, and it specifically includes halls of residence. The alternative ‘residential (dwellings)’ group is aimed simply at normal domestic premises such as flats. The original argument regarding these types of premises was aimed at having the building classified as 'residential (dwelling)'. The main case put forward was that the students do actually live, eat and sleep there, and that each ‘cluster’ of (typically) five or six bedrooms and shared kitchen/dining room, all off a common corridor, has more in common with what would be a standard flat. Also, as any cynic may expect, there were various financially beneficial knock-on effects of moving to the ‘residential (dwellings)’ purpose group, specifically:
All of these were nice cost savings for any developer, and also for any future owner who might otherwise have a responsibility to maintain the more onerous provisions inherent in ADB regarding the ‘residential (other)’ purpose group. A court decision further confirmed that the apartments within such buildings are indeed dwellings. In 2009 West Midlands Fire Service failed in an attempt to enforce detection in the bedrooms, and seals added to the bedroom doors, of a building built in a similar fashion. The works described in the notice would have brought the building to a similar standard as would be found in the ‘residential (other)’ purpose group. The company on which the notice was served appealed the notice on the grounds that the clusters were ‘domestic’. A district judge agreed with the appellants that the entire apartment/flat was indeed domestic; therefore the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 did not apply. That being the case, West Midlands Fire Service effectively had no power to take any enforcement action. About-turn Regarding the building in Portsmouth, the pro-vice chancellor of Portsmouth University stated that stringent evacuation procedures will be in place. How can this be enforced? If I were a student who had got fed up of evacuating the building for no apparent reason, how are they going to ensure that I leave my room? There has been talk of fines for people not evacuating, but how would they know? Why not simply build the building in a manner which makes it safe for me to stay in my room? Why kick me out into a corridor or stair that might have smoke in it? The main question to be answered is ‘which purpose group is the best for this occupancy’? Both groups have their good points and bad points. One group (dwelling) has a sprinkler system and high levels of compartmentation, the alternative group (other) has more than one staircase and a superior alarm system. I think that the key lies in the decision of the district judge in the aforementioned case. If a district judge can define such premises as domestic, effectively negating any application of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 within the clusters, then surely they simply belong in the ‘dwellings’ group? It makes much more sense to design the buildings in the same fashion as flats, with a stay put policy, with each flat having its own fire alarm system under the control of the tenants. I would go a little further than the minimum of code-compliance with the fire alarm and would suggest that the detection be extended into the bedrooms. The potential cost savings found by virtue of utilising this group through the alarm systems, lower insurance premiums, lower standard of fire doors, coupled with more floor-space to let out over the lifetime of the building, would go a long way towards the provision of the necessary sprinkler system. However, while a sprinkler system is only considered to be a cost that can be eliminated at the design stage, we will always have developers trying to avoid putting them in. Looking forward, maybe approval bodies should be stating their own case regarding design freedoms that could be had alongside the provision of a sprinkler system, with some meaningful figures provided regarding immediate and future cost savings and potential future earnings. A nationally approved set of design freedoms would be a great step forward in securing sprinkler provision in such buildings. One final note: If there are any parents out there considering where their young ones might stay if they go to university, would you rather they were living in a 33 storey building with sprinklers, or one without? I think that the universities are missing a good potential selling point. Paul Clayton is senior fire safety inspector at West Yorkshire Fire & Rescue Service Footnotes 1 The worst case for this scenario would be where the developer could follow the guidance to the letter and would not have to supply detection in the bedrooms. 2 FD20 doors could be provided instead of FD30S doors.    |
