In July 2008, “Housing – Fire Safety: Guidance on fire safety provisions for certain
types of existing housing” was published by LACORS in partnership with the
Chartered Institute of Environmental Health and the Chief Fire Officers Association.
In December 2008, the housing fire safety steering group met to discuss feedback
on the new guidance. The steering group agreed that the guidance had been well
received and was providing valuable assistance to landlords, property managers,
local councils and fire and rescue authorities. All parties agreed that the guidance
should remain fundamentally unchanged. However, the group also agreed that
written clarification should be issued on a few specific points. This paper aims to
provide that clarification and to assist all parties in adopting an appropriate risk
based approach to fire safety.
1. Defining risk
Prescriptive definitions of “low” and “high” risk properties are not included in the
guidance. This is because risk is a relative concept and something that will be
influenced by a wide range of factors. Generally, factors influencing the level of risk
include the size, layout and condition of the property, construction standards, the level of
existing fire precautions, the number and type of occupants, standard of property
management, etc. Some examples are given in the guidance to help with assessment of
specific cases.
In general terms the guidance recognises that the risk level will often be lower in single
family properties and some shared houses (see item 2 below).
More prescriptive definitions of low risk and high risk are not possible under current
legislation. Where fire precautions are being required by a local council or fire and
rescue authority, the works must be necessary and appropriate and based an
assessment of the risk presented. It is important that enforcement officers understand
the range of factors that will influence the level of risk and apply fire safety precautions
accordingly. We believe the new national guidance provides a useful framework to
assist both landlords and enforcement officers in this respect.
2. Shared Houses
Some discussion has occurred around the inclusion of the term “shared house” in the
guidance. Shared houses, as described in paragraph 35.2 of the guidance, fall squarely
within the Housing Act 2004 definition of House in Multiple Occupation (HMO). The
guidance recognises this. However, when considering risk it is clear that certain types of
shared house HMOs can present a lower risk than say, a bedsit type HMO. Consider
two examples:
1. A two storey house occupied by a small group of friends, work colleagues, etc, who
occupy the property on a single tenancy, who exhibit no unusual high risk factors
(see section 1 above) and who live together very much like a family. This property
would be defined as an HMO under the Housing Act 2004. However this
arrangement may present no significantly higher risk than an adjacent similar single
family house which is not an HMO.
2. A two storey house which has been divided into bedsit rooms occupied by
unconnected individuals who live completely separate lives with no knowledge of
who is around them in the house. The bedsit rooms each have individual cooking
facilities, a lack of storage space and an inadequate numbers of electric sockets
leading to overloading and trailing leads.
The shared house HMO in example 1 will almost certainly present a lower risk than the
bedsit HMO in example 2. It would not therefore be appropriate to apply the same fire
precautions to both, as the level of risk is entirely different.
Conversely, some shared houses may present a higher risk even when they are let on a
single tenancy. For example, shared houses with high occupancy levels, those let to
groups with drug or alcohol dependency, with unusual or highly complex layouts, or with
other high risk factors present.
In short, the issue is no longer about what does and does not constitute an HMO
(Sheffield v Barnes), it is about assessing the level of fire risk having regard to the mode
of occupation. Some shared houses may be considered high risk for a variety of reasons
and may require more extensive fire precautions. The exact arrangements will vary from
house to house and so each case needs to be considered on its merits.
3. Protected routes
General
The guidance acknowledges that a 30 minute protected route is the ideal standard in all
multiple occupied accommodation. The question is whether a council can always insist
on a 30 minute protected route under Part 1 Housing Act 2004 (HHSRS). Sound
conventional construction and good standard, sound, traditional doors will provide some
level of fire separation and although it will not meet the ideal standard, it may be
considered adequate in a small, low risk property.
Paragraph 9.7 of the guidance sets down circumstances in which it may be appropriate
to accept sound, conventional construction throughout the escape route and close-fitting
doors of conventional construction (excluding light-weight doors and doors with very thin
panels) to risk rooms. It is envisaged this relaxed standard would apply to single
household properties and lower risk 2 storey shared houses (subject to Part D, Case
study D5, note 8 – see below). It would not apply to bedsit-type accommodation or to
larger, higher risk shared houses. This relaxed standard would not be conditional on the
installation of escape windows.
Three storey shared houses
The guidance recognises that the ideal solution for a 3 storey shared house is a 30
minute protected route with FD30 fire doors throughout. However, in a low risk 3 storey
shared house where there is sound conventional construction and doors opening onto
the escape route which are of sound, solid construction, close fitting and self closing
then 20 minutes fire resistance can often be achieved. Subject to the absence of any
high risk factors and the inclusion of all other relevant fire safety precautions
recommended in the guidance this arrangement may be accepted. This is explained in
Part D, Case Study D5, Note 8.
The alternative of stripping out all the partitions, ceilings and doors and replacing them
throughout cannot usually be justified on a risk assessment basis in such situations.
However, where full refurbishment of such a property is planned then it may be
appropriate to provide the full 30 minute protection.
4. Escape windows
Escape windows do not provide an ideal solution and in practice, even when available,
they will only be used if occupants find that the main escape route (down the stairs) is
blocked. Building Regulations permit the installation of escape windows in new build
properties and so their use must be considered. In practice, an escape window may
provide the only available option for some inner rooms (see section 12 of the guidance).
Escape windows should only be permitted if they meet all the criteria listed in section 14
of the guidance including in particular, that the occupiers are able bodied individuals
who can reasonably be expected to exit via the window unaided. Where they are
accepted, an escape window from each habitable room would be the preferred solution.
Any exceptions to this rule would need to be considered on a risk assessment basis. For
example, there must be unrestricted access to the room containing the escape window
via an unlocked door and a protected route may be required to enable occupants to
reach the room without the communal areas becoming blocked by smoke. An
appropriate fire detection and warning system will always be required (see section 22 of
the guidance). In practice, an internal escape route may often provide a more
appropriate and practical solution.
If escape windows are provided in full compliance with the guidance and with direct
access from each habitable room then there will be no need to require additional
protection to the internal escape route.
5. Bedsit-type HMO and Shared House descriptions
There are no legal definitions for these types of occupation – they are all HMOs under
the Housing Act 2004 definition. For the purpose of the guidance and in order to
differentiate risk, the term shared house has been described in paragraph 35.2 and the
term Bedsit HMO has been described in the Glossary. Where properties deviate from
these descriptions, the inspecting officer would need to decide what impact this may
have on the level of risk.
6. Fire extinguishers
The positioning of portable fire extinguishers in the communal areas is deemed
appropriate in order to help occupiers deal with small scale fires in their early stages and
to aid their escape from the building. Their location in communal areas will also assist
with regular maintenance inspections. The guidance does not define ‘simple multipurpose
extinguisher’ and we do not propose to do so. Councils and fire and rescue
authorities could develop local guidance on this point. The suitability of existing
extinguishers would need careful consideration before taking enforcement action to
require the installation of a different type of extinguisher.
7. Case studies
It is important to view the guidance as a whole and to appreciate that the guidance does
not set down any prescriptive requirements. Part C explores the general principles of fire
risk reduction whereas Part D contains example case studies as to how these principles
might be applied to different property types, based on various assumptions. It is
important to refer to the Part D Introduction (see section 33 of the guidance) which helps
to put the case studies in context and to read the case studies in close connection with
the principles in Part C as there may be alternative solutions. In practice, when carrying
out an HHSRS assessment under Part 1 of the Housing Act 2004, the inspecting officer
must have regard to all relevant factors before deciding what, if any remedial works may
be required.
8. Single family houses
Concern has been expressed that some councils are using the case studies in Part D as
prescriptive standards that must be enforced, rather than simply examples of what might
provide adequate fire precautions based on certain assumptions outlined in the
introduction to Part D.
For example, Case study D1 is a two storey single family house and suggests that a
Grade D, LD3 alarm system is appropriate. This is the ideal solution and where no
detection currently exists within such a house this would be the appropriate standard to
install. From an HHSRS enforcement perspective though, if the property already has
operational battery smoke detectors in the escape route and no particular high risk
factors, it is unlikely the property would have a category 1 or high level category 2 fire
hazard. As such, it is unlikely that any enforcement action would be appropriate at this
time. However, when the landlord schedules major renovation or improvement works
he/she should be advised to install a Grade D LD3 system as part of those works.
Conclusion
This briefing note is not intended to over-rule or contradict anything contained in the
national fire safety guidance. It simply provides additional clarification on a few specific
issues.
Any comments or enquiries should be addressed to LACORS at
housing@lacors.gov.uk. Please note that LACORS is unable to respond to queries from
individual landlords and managing agents. Landlords with fire safety queries should
contact their local council, fire and rescue authority or their trade association.
Published March 2009
