SNP and joined-up thinking?

[DonPeffers]

21 oct 2020  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-54621068

 

"Scottish government delay smoke alarm legislation until 2022".

 

"New laws which requires all homes in Scotland to have interlinked smoke alarms will be delayed until 2022.

The moves, which also include new rules on carbon monoxide alarms, follow criticism over the lack of public awareness from charity Age Scotland.

The new measures, which would cost an estimated £220 for an average three-bedroom home, were due to come into force in February 2021.

The Scottish government said MSPs would be asked to approve a 12-month delay".

 

No announcement from Holyrood and the alteration was merely put on the Scot gov website apparently.

It says this is a reaction to the June 2017 Grenfell fire disaster. Law delayed for 12 months re. covid.

 

The Grenfell conflagration was caused by unfit external cladding.

 

Despite buildings in Scotland and elsewhere still having exterior cladding and seemingly no recompense, so householders having to pay thousands to correct defect and pay for fire-marshalls while property still unsafe.

 

Under the new legislation all home owners and landlords must ensure they have a ceiling-mounted smoke alarms in their living room, hallways and landings, kitchens must have a heat alarm:  a carbon monoxide alarm must be fitted where there is a fuel burning appliance or a flue, and crucially, the system must be interlinked, either through fixed wiring or a wireless system.

 

I suppose MSPs must be seen to be doing something.

[Rab (bombero) Reid]

Are you suggesting that the new mandatory standard of detection is a bad thing...?

[GaryD1971]

The cost of fitting a whole interlinked system to a new build would be negligible. Retrofitting on the other hand... Its the same with sprinkler systems. 

I wouldn't fancy loads of plastic conduit stuck all over my ceiling which only really leaves the option of WiFi detector heads. These are really good technology but far from cheap. It's not a vote winner bringing in legislation that costs every homeowner a shed load of money, but it is easier and cheaper than the government paying to remove combustible cladding from the sides of buildings (which is the direction we should be heading in). 

 

[Rab (bombero) Reid]

If you think the cost of your life and that of your family aren't worth it, then don't fit the detectors. Unsure on the point of conduits everywhere as detectors will be fitted in the ceiling void, as the room lighting, unless that's been fitted in a conduit!

 

Of course, I'm not actually suggesting that anyone would put a price on their family's lives, but I hope it makes the point. Fatalities in the home dropped dramatically at the introduction of smoke detectors but then started to steadily increase again. Fire statistics are showing that fires predominantly start in the kitchen, lounge (and bedrooms but they haven't been included as yet). Early detection (and alarm) is a lifesaver and this point has no argument. 

 

No-one is going to check and it'll only become apparent when you either renew your home/contents insurance or when you come to sell your house (as it'll be a requirement of the Home Report).

 

The issue of external cladding is a separate matter and it only applies to high rise (buildings generally >18m) and many buildings aren't the responsibility of the government ie private owners. The replacement of external clashing has already begun in many buildings but aren't evidently reported by the media .. I wonder why! 

[GaryD1971]

Your preaching to the converted here @Rab (bombero) Reid! I'm a big believer of smoke detection in all premises both commercial and domestic! The problem is not everyone will be able to afford the cost of a retrofit interlinked system if it becomes legislation, unless there is a clause that the interlinked systems only apply to new builds, and all existing properties MUST have stand alone battery detectors (with a 10 year battery) in all risk rooms. That would be an ideal solution to the vast majority I would imagine. As it is, my house is currently over specced with detectors but having seen first hand the damage that fire and smoke can do, it was never an option to skip detection. As you said, early detection is key to aid escape for the whole family. 

[DonPeffers]

For scotgov to say this is a reaction to Grenfell is nonsense as nowt to do with it. Nobody inside a flaming towering roman candle needed a smoke alarm alert.

 

Rab, please provide your data on foam cladding replacement in Scotland as I am interested in the figures and , as you say, very little news coverage.

 

I already have smoke alarms in lounge and hall plus a co detector but not electrically interlinked, which used to be for work places only.

I have 2 fire extinguishers.

 

With 45 fatal fire casualties in 2018-19 in Scotland (each one a tragedy) out of about 2.5 million dwellings it might seem a sledge hammer to crack a nut.

I am confident there will be no vested interests at play.

 

Care needed by homeowners regarding insurance as either not fitting likely to increase premium or if legal requirement not met then claim rejection becomes very likely in the event of a fire.

[Nick Algar - Competition Secretary]

4 hours ago, GaryD1971 said:

Your preaching to the converted here @Rab (bombero) Reid! I'm a big believer of smoke detection in all premises both commercial and domestic! The problem is not everyone will be able to afford the cost of a retrofit interlinked system if it becomes legislation, unless there is a clause that the interlinked systems only apply to new builds, and all existing properties MUST have stand alone battery detectors (with a 10 year battery) in all risk rooms. That would be an ideal solution to the vast majority I would imagine. As it is, my house is currently over specced with detectors but having seen first hand the damage that fire and smoke can do, it was never an option to skip detection. As you said, early detection is key to aid escape for the whole family. 

 

I'm with you Gary and had the linked mains powered systems fitted to the house 8 years ago when we were doing some other building work. Also seen the devestation Fire can cause and it's no-brainer.

 

Does anyone know if this is coming into effect in England / Wales & NI at all or is it just Scotland ?

[GaryD1971]

As far as I'm aware, it's not England, yet. At the moment, the Govt. are more concerned with high rise buildings. There was a raft of proposals in the draft of the new Fire Safety Bill, but the Tory Party voted them down recently as the proposals basically put the onus on the responsible person (landlord) to inform the local fire authority of all fire safety measures and any cladding composition on ANY building, not just high rise. Guess how many Tory MP's are also landlords! It makes my blood boil to be honest. The bill is currently being rewritten... 

[DonPeffers]

In  https://www.gov.scot/publications/fire-and-smoke-alarms-in-scottish-homes/  (Scotland Law only wef Feb 2022).

 

"Any costs will be the responsibility of home owners and landlords. The cost of the alarms will vary according to what you currently have in place and the alarms you choose to install

We estimate that the cost for an average three bedroom house which requires three smoke alarms, one heat alarm and one carbon monoxide detector will be around £220....based on the type of alarms that you can install yourself without the need for an electrician for installing a hard-wired alarm. Electrician cost maybe £130+ is my estimate and happy to be corrected.

 

You can install tamper proof long-life lithium battery alarms or mains-wired alarms. Mains-wired alarms are generally cheaper than the tamper proof long-life battery alarms. Mains-wired alarms will, however, require to be installed by an electrician which will be an additional cost to consider, and you may need a building warrant if you live in flat."

 

Tamper proof long-life battery smoke alarms (10 year) which are easy diy install as opposed to the electrically interlinked devices    https://www.cef.co.uk/catalogue/products/1856414-optical-smoke-alarm-interconnectable-c-w-9v-10-year-lithium-battery-powered

cost £18.72 per unit (other suppliers are available).

 

Edit.---- I've just seen a different long life 10 year Lithium battery smoke alarm at £123. Although both say wireless interlink possible I must be missing something any any electricians on the forum able to give accurate advice would be much appreciated.

 

 

Edited October 24, 2020 by DonPeffers
Edit---advice needed re wireless.

[Mark (smokey mow)]

5 hours ago, GaryD1971 said:

Your preaching to the converted here @Rab (bombero) Reid! I'm a big believer of smoke detection in all premises both commercial and domestic! The problem is not everyone will be able to afford the cost of a retrofit interlinked system if it becomes legislation, unless there is a clause that the interlinked systems only apply to new builds, and all existing properties MUST have stand alone battery detectors (with a 10 year battery) in all risk rooms. That would be an ideal solution to the vast majority I would imagine. As it is, my house is currently over specced with detectors but having seen first hand the damage that fire and smoke can do, it was never an option to skip detection. As you said, early detection is key to aid escape for the whole family. 

I’m not over familiar with the Scottish regulations but certainly for England  and Wales interlinked detection in circulation areas has been a requirement for new build housing for at least the last 15 years and for extensions to existing dwellings since 2010.

[DonPeffers]

6 hours ago, Rab (bombero) Reid said:

Are you suggesting that the new mandatory standard of detection is a bad thing...?

Not my suggestion...... just observing legislation is NOT connected to Grenfell and not needed in my dwelling IMO.

[Steve (sdh2903)]

27 minutes ago, Mark (smokey mow) said:

I’m not over familiar with the Scottish regulations but certainly for England  and Wales interlinked detection in circulation areas has been a requirement for new build housing for at least the last 15 years and for extensions to existing dwellings since 2010.

 

Same up here. Our house is 22 this year and has interlinked detectors from build and was a requirement when we converted an integral garage into a bedroom (even though the downstairs one is 2 ft away from the bedroom door) 

[Nick Algar - Competition Secretary]

1 hour ago, Mark (smokey mow) said:

I’m not over familiar with the Scottish regulations but certainly for England  and Wales interlinked detection in circulation areas has been a requirement for new build housing for at least the last 15 years and for extensions to existing dwellings since 2010.

Thanks Mark, I put an extension on the house, which would explain why it was all on the plans, but I know I added some that weren't compulsory just to make me feel a bit safer 👍

Given the amount of extension works going on and that it's since 2010 best guess there is a good number already covered. Can see a lot of sense in this getting extended though to every house. 

[Blatman]

6 hours ago, GaryD1971 said:

but the Tory Party voted them down recently as the proposals basically put the onus on the responsible person (landlord) to inform the local fire authority of all fire safety measures and any cladding composition on ANY building, not just high rise. Guess how many Tory MP's are also landlords!

 

Interesting spin. What about, with so many Tory (and I bet a load of Labour too)  landlords they have a wealth of experience and may, collectively, know more about it that the civil servant tasked with drafting the legislation?

I have no evidence of this though. Do you have ANY evidence that this draft has failed because so many Tory MP's are landlords? If so please point me to it so that I can see for myself.

 

If Don's post quoting costs are in the ball park, why would a "fat-cat landlord" of any persuasion care about a £220 one off cost if it meant compliance? Any half decent businessman would likely see this as an irritation but not much more, and compliance is always an ongoing cost issue for ANY business as processes and procedures evolve, from small landlord to the largest of corporations. 

 

 

 

[GaryD1971]

The revised Bill has been put together by influential people from the fire safety industry for a start, not some civil servant. Groups such as The British Automatic Fire Sprinkler Association, Building Research Establishment, Fire Protection Association to name but a few have had input along with consultation from every fire and rescue service in the UK. Together, they know considerably more about this subject than the whole of the Tory party, who incidentally all voted this down. Every single one. There were a few independents in there too but not one Labour MP. That could be the fact that Labour tabled the motion to make this bill law in the first place. 

The bill wouldn't have forced the landlords to fit smoke detection, That's already legislation. And you would think with it being law, that it would all be in place. What we have found is quite the opposite. The majority of our work involves outraged and incomplete fire detection systems in residential buildings. Luckily, we have no jurisdiction beyond the front door of anyone's house. What the bill  would have done was force landlords to identify themselves as a responsible person to the Fire and Rescue authority and therefore become liable in the eyes of the law for any loss of life if a building they owned caught fire. That didn't sit comfortably with them and was the main sticking point in getting the bill passed. I have been privy to a list of MP/landlords but it's not for public consumption so I'm afraid you'll just have to take my word on that. It's not all of them, but it is a considerable number. If you have a trustworthy search engine, it will be available.