Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By PETER GANNAWAY
Opinion please. We manage blocks of flats and have had a visit from the local fire service. Points have been raised by them about the structural integrity of the building, ie we must provide evidence that a glass wall in a 1960's design building is adequately fire resistant, and that door closers, (working and tested) meet current BS standard. Point is that during all the years we had a fire certificate these matters weren't raised by the Fire Service. Fire requirements in bldg regs are largely not retrospective. It would appear that the RA process is being used to bring about wholesale changes to existing buildings. What happened to reasonable practicability?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By garyh
I would talk to someone in the fire service who has the capability to answer this question (the person asking you this question??)
You might write to them using the same argument you have put into the posting you have made.
Ask which bit of regulations they are basing this on, and on what precedents.
Do it politely and they will, I am sure, help out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By shaun mckeever
The Statutory Bar has been removed since the introduction of the new fire safety order so some fire safety requirements are retrospective. A good thing too. The Statutory Bar tied the fire services hands and it didn't matter if they didn't like something in the past, they couldn't do anything about it.
Of course there is an element of reasonable practicality. After all nobody expects you to go bankrupt to implement any fire precautions but at the same time you have to measure the risk. If the risk is unacceptable then you have to spend the money or do something to remove the risk.
Have you carried out a FRA of the area that the fire service are concerned about. If so what have you proposed as your way of managing the risk. There is more than one way to skin a cat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Phillip
Fire RA & Previous Fire Certification ?
My opinion is that the Fire Certification / inspection regime worked well for standard buildings - shops, offices, schools, hotels.
Fire RA is better for non standard applications.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By shaun mckeever
Phillip
I think it did not work well for schools. Schools were not certificated. School fires are and have been and continue to be a major type of fire. Although from a life safety point of view they do not figure highly in terms of deaths or injuries but from a property damage point of view the figures are not so good. I think on average one school per week suffers a major fire. Mainly due to arson. Old schools were badly built. Fire spreads rapidly through them. Heads did not, and in some of the ones I have been involved with, still don't see or understand the importance of fire safety. They are also not supported by their local authority whose knowledge often appears to be even worse. I dealt with one where the local authority approved an inner inner room for the headmasters office.
Sorry, don't mean to go off on a tangent to the orginal thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Phillip
Shaun,
Re schools - the classic case being 92 deaths in Our Lady of Angels with staff & pupils traped on on the first floor. Property protection aside, the reason I don't like FRA for schools is that many are done on as a tick box exercise given to a young teacher who has been on a 2 day course and may be worried that if his FRA created problems for his head teacher it won't help his career.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ashley Wood
firstly the original thread. One of the difficulties you will come across is the individual character of the enforcing officer. Some are very prescriptive some are realistic and adopt an 'holistic' approach to the fire hazards considering all facets of the passive and active levels of protection and the number of occupants etc. Unfortunately you may have got a prescriptive enforcer! Glass walls are always a problem on escape routes unless they are Georgian wired or BS rated and stamped 'pyroglass' or similar. If you feel you have a strong case to disagree with the fire officer then take it further and ask them for the reasoning. this would be a good time to ask the question about certificates v RR(FS)O.
Just a quick comment on schools. I have seen an assessment produced by a so called specialist company in H&S and Fire risk assessments here in Suffolk that had so many holes in it you could drive a tractor through it (note the agricultural terminology as we are rural Suffolk. It was accepted by the local authority as 'suitable and sufficient'. I have recently been advised of an alarming increase in day time arson attacks in schools. This was unheard of but now is a problem. If this continues it is then that we may see loss of life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By pluto
You don't say where the glass wall is. If it is in a risk critical area then it is absolutely right for the fire officer to make these enquiries. Indeed, he, or at least his Fire authority would be negligent in not doing so.
It is not about whether the individual officer is prescriptive or not, it is about whether the burden imposed by doing something about the wall, (if necessary), is grossly disproportionate to the gain.
Isn't that H & S law?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By shaun mckeever
Our Lady of Angels fire was ultimately responsible for 95 deaths. One reason for the fire being so serious was that the school did not have to retrospectively comply with new fire regulations. Fortunately there has never been a similar tragedy in UK schools.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Crim
Peter, Is this something you have overlooked in your FRA?
I would look at this from two sides:
1. Gyryh is right when suggesting you go back to the fire officer and request information regarding previous fire certification inspections and if the glass wall was never a problem then, ask advice as to why it has now become a problem and what advice can they give to help you address the problem, i.e. how does one test self closers?
2. Shaun is right in suggesting your FRA should have recommendations to deal with this problem, if it is at all a problem?
The bottom line however must be to correctly assess all risks and remove or reduce those risks by reasonably practicable means.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Darren Kirk
Peter
I can simpathise with both parties as i have represented the fire services and i am now a fire risk assessor. I would suggest that you ask the person whom carried out the fire risk assessment to discuss the issues that you have with the local enforcing brigade, remember the assessment needs to be suitable and sufficient and that can be very subjective depending how your read the law/regulations. You will also benefit from reading Approved document B which relates to fire safety in building design and construction. This document will help you understand whether or not the stair well should be a protected escape route. Unfortunatley i have seen the results when it all goes wrong and it isnt something that you would want to share.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Philip Beale
Just recently completed a fire risk assessmnet course so my question would be if it was found the glass was not suitable. what corrective actions would you put in place.
Everythings nice and easy in training but when it comes to the real world it's a different matter. The trainer i had always came back to argument are you confident that everyone can make it out of the building in 2.5 minutes. you should look at life preservation not building preservation (is this a simplistic view?)
Why should there be an issue with door closures so long as they close and latch the door why do they need to be BS approved. surely you don't completely rip out fixtures and fixings every time building standards move on. so long as they are suitable and sufficient and performing the task that is required surely that is what counts?
Phil
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By garyh
I am a bit dubious about the 2.5 minute thing. A few years ago when I was being trained in this we were told max 4 minutes.
Fine.
What about large complex buildings like office tower blocks? Without using lifts how could you get out of a skyscraper in this time?
Clearly, there can't be an absolute time requirement - the building would presumably have to have protected escape routes allowing sufficient time to evacuate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Philip Beale
Agree i think they refer to it as relative safety (protected stairwell) or ultimate safety (clear of the building).
They recently carried out a fire evacuation of Canary wharf, to evacuate 20,000 people took 28 minutes. very impressive i thought given some 70 odd floors.
i think from fire alarms first sounding to everyone to relative safety in my mind would be 5-10 minutes by the time they had a discussion whether it's the fire alarms or the coffee machine is ready.
then by the time you do a sweep of the building and one guy you cleared out has wondered back in again to get a coffee it takes longer than you think.
Phil
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.