Posted By shaun mckeever My suggestion is that you carry out a fire risk assessment at design stage. This will not only address the issue of disabled refuges but will also address other issues such as the insatllation of the fire alarm. You may not be aware that a new BS has just been released for the design of fire alarms which suggests that alarms should be installed based on the findings of a fire risk assessment. It is best to get these issues addressed at design stage rather than have to address things retrospectively. I remember as an enforcing officer for a fire authority having to tell someone to replace all his glass doors with fire resisting doors. If he had addressed the issue at design stage he would have saved himself a fortune.

Posted By Jim Sweetman Simon, Your query has a number of potential implications. I certainly agree with he responses so far in considering that the problem should be addressed at design. Legislation, i.e. CDM confirms this approach. CDM requires designers to design safely. As the client is specifying a number, they effectively come under the umbrella of the designer. You may get a positive reaction if you identify to the person making the decision to limit numbers, that they could be attracting personal liability. Present groundswell re Corporate killing/unlawful killing may influence things. A further approach from the design aspect is to ensure that fire does not break out. If the decision is to limit emergency arrangements, a reason for that may be that greater resources are being piled into fire prevention. That could be worth discussing with those responsible. Unfortunately, a fire risk assessment after things are completed is only going to highlight a problem rather than actively do anything to resolve it. As we know a considerable number of people, including clients, hold safety in such high esteem until they're asked to pay for it. Money tends to speak louder! However, this could be an advantage if you come outside of safety and consider Value Management. The analysis techniques used in that field may identify that the option of two refuges could be far more costly then eight refuges when Through Life Costings are considered. Good luck. Jim

Posted By Dave Wynn As safety profesionals we know the basic rules "safety by design" Intrinsic safety there are NO guarantees that as you say worse case scenario to many disabled people needing emergency evacuations with inadequate provision no way is ANY court in the land gonna side with your client but of course if it comes to prosecution then its too late!

Posted By Oliver Whitefield It may be worth noting that if the Client is specifying certain design requirements, then under CDM he will be classified as a Designer as well as the Client. In his designer role, he therefore has obligations to liaise with other designers such as yourselves, as well as fulfilling all the other duties of Designers, including ensuring his competentence to act as a designer, and also to carry out risk asessments of his designs etc. I would first make sure that his is aware of his duties under CDM as both a Client and as a Designer, and then if necessary advise him of the potential implications of failing to comply with these duties. Also what has the Planning Supervisor had to say about this? Hope this helps. Oliver