Rank: Forum user
|
During an inspection of a property I came across a fire door that had two additional locks fitted to it (simple latches on the inside of the door) my first thought was that these should be removed, the door has a push bar on it but then someone would have to then release the latches to open the door. Am I correct in saying that these locks should be removed?
Thanks
Martin
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
MaxPayne wrote: 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.
the door is an exit door and the locks (similar to the types used on a garden gate) don't have locks which require a key to be opened or locked. I'll have a look at Part B of the Building Regs Thanks Martin
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
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
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Additional security locks can be acceptable, provided they are 'easily openable'
i.e. dont' need security code numbers, searching for keys etc
Often a simple instruction is provided by a sign e.g. 'turn to the right' etc for a rotary lock.
All down to risk assessment, numbers of people using the door, fire risks in the area, time of escape etc.
As others have stated Building regs give some guidance
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
JJ Prendergast wrote:Additional security locks can be acceptable, provided they are 'easily openable'
i.e. dont' need security code numbers, searching for keys etc
Often a simple instruction is provided by a sign e.g. 'turn to the right' etc for a rotary lock.
All down to risk assessment, numbers of people using the door, fire risks in the area, time of escape etc.
As others have stated Building regs give some guidance 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.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
A push bar (panic bolt) is fitted to allow for easy opening of the door when "leaned on".
Additional devices are not acceptable during times when the premises are occupied.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Additional devices are not acceptable during times when the premises are occupied.
Totally disagree, additional locks can be ok, provided they meet the criteria given in my first post. I was 'trained' by a former Fire Service Station Fire Officer/Fire Investigator etc - he was of the opinon they were. Also pretty sure such advice is also given on the West Yorkshire Fire Service website
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
JJ Prendergast wrote:Additional security locks can be acceptable, provided they are 'easily openable'
i.e. dont' need security code numbers, searching for keys etc
Often a simple instruction is provided by a sign e.g. 'turn to the right' etc for a rotary lock.
All down to risk assessment, numbers of people using the door, fire risks in the area, time of escape etc.
As others have stated Building regs give some guidance A rotary lock with a simple instructonmay be OK on its own but how many different locks with their own instructions would you like people to read while escaping from a fire?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Just the one type. WOuldn't accept more than one.
As you say, they are typically rotary locks with an additional information sign
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I am with Firesafety 101 on this one.
I have always been told by any fire safety experts I have come across that whilst a building is occupied, the final means of exit must only have one single means of operation to open the door; therefore if there is a push-bar, then only this can be used.
At any other times you can have as many additional locks as you want providing that you have a robust system in place to make sure that they are all unlocked first thing.
Zyggy
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
zyggy wrote:I am with Firesafety 101 on this one.
I have always been told by any fire safety experts I have come across that whilst a building is occupied, the final means of exit must only have one single means of operation to open the door; therefore if there is a push-bar, then only this can be used.
At any other times you can have as many additional locks as you want providing that you have a robust system in place to make sure that they are all unlocked first thing.
Zyggy 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???
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
When I used to work on another leisure site the fire exit doors in the swimming pool had additional 'Break Glass' dead bolts that would release after the glass tube was broken by the attached hammer. Then just push the bar to open.
I don't want to go into the broken glass and pool users feet debate thanks - been there already!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
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
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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.