Martin,

Lots of threads along similar lines on here before, but there is a difference between a fire exit door and a fire door which forms part of the fire compartmentation of a building.

Since you have mentioned a push bar, I'm making the assumption that we're talking about a fire exit door. These shouldn't be locked so that in an emergency users have to think about unlocking, finding keys etc, and they should generally open in the direction of travel if >60 persons. However, I think previous posts have talked about the need for businesses to secure their premises, particularly overnight etc, and it is permissible for locks and/or cages, grills, etc to be installed so long as there is a process for ensuring the fire exit is operational again whilst the premises are being used.

Part B of the Building Regulations should help you.

Martin,

I suppose the question is are they absolutely necessary to improve security of the premises and can the be taken out of use during the day?

Good luck

All of the above quote is acceptable, I would like to add that providing instruction and and training to your staff on what additional mechanisms there are and how to open them would be strongly advisable. If person could not get out in the event of a fire because they were not informed of how to open the door it will land you company in some very hot water.

Additional devices are not acceptable during times when the premises are occupied.

Just the one type. WOuldn't accept more than one.

As you say, they are typically rotary locks with an additional information sign

I agree that this is the norm, and probably necessary in this case. However, never say never as in certain circumstances some relaxation to the single door opening mechanism if it can be justified - For instance, when a fire safety inspecting officer, I have accepted such conditions for a low risk small basement office (occupancy - about 6 persons) which routinely handled jewels and cash in order to strike a sensible balance between security and fire safety.

However, a top clothes designer who had suffered numerous break-ins wasn't so fortunate with their appeal to be allowed a back door with 4 key operated Banham mortise locks and a lift out flat bar secured by 2 padlocks. After a brief 'debate', I asked them to demonstrate how long it would take them to get out. After about 8 minutes of watching half a dozen members of staff trying to find the right key for each of the 8 locks, the girls gave up in a fit of laughter. Job done - as my objection proved

Other areas where > 1 door mechanism may be considered would be premises caring for children & EMI (elderly mentally ill), where absconding is a far greater risk to life than fire.

There is an enormous amount of flexibility allowed in the FSO (and other UK fire legislation) compared to the rigidity of the former FP Act. Anyone can anxiously stick to guidance and benchmarks. If you are a professional, you must be able to supply a bespoke solution to each specific case. After all, isn't that where the fun is???

Thanks for the informed responses, but I have since had a quick look on the internet & Hampshire Fire & Rescue Service give the following advice:

2 Security Fastenings

2.2 In all cases a single fastening should be used. However, there may be a request to provide an additional security feature to prevent unauthorised door use, e.g., an easily broken strap, a door alarm or additional security fastenings for use when the premises are unoccupied. These may be acceptable and if necessary special conditions applied (e.g. a covering letter). On all occasions the approval of TFS Management must be sought.

2.3 ‘Security chains’ or similar devices should only be ‘activated’ when the premises are unoccupied. As soon as the premises become occupied again all such security fittings should be removed.

Zyggy

I have a photograph I took during a fire risk assessment last year in an occupied premises, open to members of the public.

The rear fire exit has a push bar for easy opening in case of fire escape however there was a chair in the push bar mechanism preventing unauthorised access from outside.

This would be acceptable if the premises were not occupied at all but should be removed as soon as the first person enters the premises.

The chair was easily removed, easier than a second locking device, however is not acceptable when occupied.

I'm sure Messey will know the dead easy method of opening a door that is secured just by a push bar device from the outside, from his time in the fire brigade. They do have their conflicts with security.