By law the final exit fire door should open outwards rather than inwards. Can someone please point me to a guidance which provides conditions/criteria that are exempt from this requirement please.

Thanks for your anticipated responses.

I'm guessing you are referring to section 14-2(d) of the RRFSO:

'Emergency routes and exits
14.—(2) The following requirements must be complied with in respect of premises where necessary
(whether due to the features of the premises, the activity carried on there, any hazard present or
any other relevant circumstances) in order to safeguard the safety of relevant persons—

(d) emergency doors must open in the direction of escape'

Bit of a grey area for me this one, and note the use of the word 'where necessary'. I've risk assessed one of our final exit doors which opens inwards but opens into a narrow corridor which is part of the fire escape route, I have left the door opening inwards as I believe it creates a greater hazard in blocking the corridor fully if it opens outwards, plus the obvious risk of injury to anyone evacuating via the corridor if the door is opened into them.

My interpretation (and always happy to be proved wrong) is that it comes down to the risk assessment

Alan

dennish has provided the answer


To approach from a different angle the building regulations will stipulate final exit design - The approved documents provide information (they are an AcOP to the regulations and so there may be a better way of complying with the regulations in your situation)

http://www.planningporta...br/BR_PDF_AD_B2_2010.pdf

Note: this applies to new buildings or refurbishment work but can be used as best practice...

by corridor I was describing a narrow external passageway which leads directly to the muster point, hence final exit door :)

I must deduce from the postings above that there are some "dodgy" or ill informed advisors still operating.

Poor parliamentary or regulatory (civil servants) drafting is common; a good safety bod should be able to cut through drafting ambiguity and deliver a confident reasoned solution.

Identify the hazard (if any) and assess the risk of harm, injury or damage arising from the hazard.

Jon

Good job i've never claimed to be any good then :)

Hey all,

I have a scenario for you, We currently have 4 temporary office blocks, 2 on top of 2 which we are due to move into. We have only one stair case leading from the right hand side of one of them, as the top 2 are connected via a doorway do we require a set of stairs for a fire exit on the other side?? (there is a door) if so can you highlight the relevant legislation.

Obviously I need these buildings to be as safe as possible and any information you can provide will be a great help


Thanks

Thanks very much for the quick reply all sorted

Thanks

Ryan

As stated by Teh-boy
The risk assessment must be “suitable and sufficient” and to be so must be completed with someone competent to do so (level of competence to take into account the level of risk present, so someone competent to perform a fire risk assessment in a simple single room office may not also be competent to perform a fire risk assessment on an offshore oil platform or in a chemical processing plant).

Taking you scenario into account, then could someone be in the upstairs temporary block without the set of stairs, with the door to the one with the stairs closed? If so and a fire started in the upstairs temporary block with the stairs leading from it, then how quickly would they be alerted to the fact that a fire had started. i.e. do they all have fire detection installed connected to a fire alarm system, or at least linked smoke detection/sounders installed?

So as you can see matters such as the determining of the number of escape routes, exits and means of protection/detection etc. all come from the fire risk assessment process, which as stated should be “suitable and sufficient” .

So if you have one in place that was not performed by yourself and are not happy with it then please raise issue with it; if on the other hand, it’s been performed by yourself then with the greatest of respect you would not be asking the question unless your competence to perform the assessment was in doubt, in which case get an expert in.

HTH
smitch

Just to add. We should remember that the exit door that open outwards should be manufactured to meet the required safety standard. It should open fully in such a way that it comes to rest on the wall and is fixed by a hook if necessary to the wall or is a sliding door and therefore will not present an obstacle to those rushing out or "cloud anyone on the pavement".
With regard to the scenario,an international experience may help: S. 46-50 and Table 4 of Third Schedule of the Botswana Building regulations use occupant capacity of the building to determine the number of exits required. Hence 1-60 persons = 1 exit; 61-600 persons= 2 exits; 601-1000 persons= 3 exits, etc. Hence I agree with the advice that you'll need to rely on the likely numbers in the building to determine your exits.

Sanyi

Thank you for various insightful posts on final exits and direction of opening, it's really given me a bird's eye view.
Picking up from the last post here by messyshaw 'Examples or where necessary include: where there are > 50 people likely to use the route,...'

Is there a guidance or ACOP that stipulates the number 50 and could you signpost me to that please. I'm asking to know this as I can then base my FRA and decision to allow the door to open inwards as opposed to opening in the direction of escape on this.

Again many thanks

Have you thought about creating a "lobby" and relocating the doors back a bit so they open into the "lobby" thus not obstruction anyone walking past and achieving the "open in direction of travel".

Not rocket science but has to be reasonably practical and cost effective.

The Brisith Standard 9999 refer to 'Final exit doors', doors that take you outside into the fresh air.

Messyshaw already made it quite clear that there's no absolute requirement for final exits doors to open outwards. For those of you saying there is, read article 14 again and note Messyshaw's emphasis on "where necessary".

For the OP. If you download the guidance for the relevant type of premises from the link you have been given and go to Section 4 "further guidance on escape routes" you'll find this "All doors on escape routes should open in the direction of escape and ideally be fitted with a safety vision panel. This is particularly important if more than 60 people use them or they provide an exit from an area of high fire risk."

Note it says "should" not "must" and again this comes down to your FRA. I wouldn't quibble about 50 or 60 to be honest in this case! If you Google "maximum occupancy" and look at some of the local authority guidance for licensed premises you will also find recommendations that rooms with inward opening doors be allowed no more than 60 persons.

Is it a case therefore that we all know that 'shall' in the HSE world means 'you will' and people are misinterpreting what 'should' means?
'Should' to me is only a narrower definition of 'Shall' and so I take 'should' as 'you better have very very very very good reason not to'.

'Should' to me is a higher duty than 'where necessary'.

I concur that 'Should' is not an absolute duty as 'Shall' but my interpretation is that its almost like an ACOP and if I could reasonably including spending some money, make it so (in this case door open in direction of travel) then I ought to.

Of course if my risk assessment pointed out that if doing so would cause a bigger problem then that would satisfy me of why I did not do it under 'should' and I would be happy to argue that point in court.

Heather in post #27 quotes "All doors on escape routes should open in the direction of escape and ideally be fitted with a safety vision panel"

Doors on or across an escape route are the doors in a corridor (for example) and nothing to do with final exit doors for use in an emergency.

Perhaps those that challenge the statement by Messyshaw on “where necessary” may find useful information in:

Collected Perceived Insights Into and Application of
The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005
For the Benefit of Enforcing Authorities- Guidance Document by CFOA (Chief Fire Officers Association)

A guidance document to provide enforcing authorities with a standard approach to the articles contained within the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. See article 14

Try part B of the Building regulations.

As with many topics discussed on this forum, it seems that some people want strict edicts which apply to each and every situation.

Surely final exit doors should be assessed and designed according to what is needed with regard to various factors including foreseeable usage, type of premises and location. My understanding is that fire doors and especially final exit doors should open in the direction of travel if they are likely to be used by a significant number of people. If a throng/surge of people could occur behind such doors it is foreseeable that this will prevent or unduly hinder the opening of the doors. For the same reason such doors should have push-bar opening devices so that they can be readily opened. By contrast, for premises or parts of premises with few occupants and visitors surely there is no problem with inward opening exit doors with turnbuckle handles or other keyless devices. (Though I know basic principles and practices regarding fire precautions I can't readily think of a suitable term for the crowd surge effect on inward opening doors. Is there one?)

Another aspect which needs to be considered is what is outside the final exit door. For example, emergency exit doors of premises in a town centre tend to be located within recesses so that they don't open onto pavements or other busy pedestrian areas. However, if the recesses are liable to be used as shelters by vagrants or have rubbish piled into them, the prompt openability of the doors could be compromised.

p.s. On a jocular note, the term "moody moo" in #34 is not bad for its alliterative (rhyming) nature but surely derogatory to cows as well as messyshaw. Apparently some cows are happy beasts: A dairy farmer I know reckons his cows enjoy listening to BBC Radio 2 in the milking parlour and tend to give better milk as a result. Better not tell the Performing Rights Society just in case they cover bovine audiences as well as human ones! :-)