Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 28 May 2004 12:23:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert S Woods What is the maximum distance between the guard rails of a fire escape and should there be a toe board? I was auditing an old mill that has been turned into a retail premises. There is a 450 - 500mm gap betweenthe first rail and the landing of the escape,(plenty of room for a child to fall through). The director of the company said if the fire brigade hadn't picked up on it then there wasn't a problem. Any help would be appreciated.
Admin  
#2 Posted : 28 May 2004 12:42:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By peter gotch Robert The BS for eg bridge parapet railings indicates maximum 100mm gap but ACOP supporting the Workplace (HSW) Regs much less clear indicating minimum of 2 rails, and in effect advocating a risk assessed decision. Regards, Peter
Admin  
#3 Posted : 28 May 2004 14:54:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Stephen J W Clegg. If the realisation of a hazard and the means to correct it are known/possible in terms of availability of parts and cost. In the event of a person having an accident i.e. falling through the gap… I fear you AND your manager would find it difficult to convince the relevant authorities that the measures you had taken to protect the health and safety of people affected by your acts/omissions and/or your undertakings were Reasonably Practicable. As in the case of Edwards ‘V’ NCB (Yes, yes, I know this is a well used case, but it is still relevant). Incidentally, I seem to remember the case of a child falling through the gap between some rails at a well-known shopping centre near Trafford... I think that area had also been passed as ‘safe’ by the Fire Service. Hope this helps.
Admin  
#4 Posted : 31 May 2004 20:37:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Stephen Lambert I suggest that you look at Approved Document K of the Building Regulations - specifically Section K2 (ironically enough, "Protection from Falling"). But even this is modified by by the specific assessment. Have fun. Steve Lambert H-and-S
Admin  
#5 Posted : 01 June 2004 10:53:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ken Taylor BS5395 Part 3 'Stairs Ladders and Walkways' (which is only a code of practice) says that the open sides of platforms, walkways and landings should be protected by an upstand or toe-plate not less than 100mm high above floor level and that any gap between the floor and the upstand should be no greater than 15mm. K1 of the Building Regs (which are not retospective) states that, where buildings are likely to be used by children under 5 years, the construction of stairs should be such that a 100mm sphere cannot pass through any openings in the guarding and that children will not readily be able to climb the guarding. I would want to take these into consideration in the risk assessment process.
Admin  
#6 Posted : 01 June 2004 22:22:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By David Edward Partington Robert. I suppose you to be the "competant person" and not the Fire Brigade. Why on earth would this employer think that people trained (for the most part) in putting out fires would pick up on such a HS issue is beyond me, though I have heard similar,I.E the fire brigade fall off their wagon do a tour and this becomes gospel.. Even Fire Safety (who I have a great deal of time for - in the most part) have only two weeks Fire Safety training. It would not cross my mind to seek out Fire Safety to take a view on such a subject as yours. Can I suggest that you politely point out that you are the "competent" person and this is why they are paying you. Explain that you are a reasonable chap and you only ask for things to be done because they need to be done. I had a similar experience a few years ago with a more positive outcome. In the Elephant and Castle (South London) I have a hostel that deals with alchoholics and drug addicts. The hostel is four stories high and the windows opened inwards with a 1 foot parapetet. It struck me that people taking these substances might not be entirerly sound on their feet and with these windows open in summer (in part to let out the smell) that they might fall out. We simply installed a safety bar on the outside wall to prevent people from falling. This seems very similar to your instance. And really if it is reasonably forseeable to you they children might fall then you should insist that works are conducted. Regards David. PS if I can be of further help then please let me know. David.Partington@Southwark.Gov.uk
Admin  
#7 Posted : 02 June 2004 01:01:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Stephen Lambert I wish to respond to the entertaining comments made by Mr Partington. Initially, I would like to know from where he obtains his apparently encyclopaedic (but sadly erroneous) information as to the training of Fire Safety Officers. It would seem that, even now, local government has not stopped pummelling the Fire Services! As to the competence issue, Mr Partington is almost correct if he restricts his myopia to the Fire Precautions Act 1971; however, as most people interested in or informed of the subject will already know, this legislation, as well as many other laws, will be succeeded by a Regulatory Reform Order based, surprisingly, on the principles of risk assessment. If I may answer Mr Partington's question as to the presumptuousness of mere firefighters to enter such an august arena as that of "the Health and Safety Professional" with the words "means of escape", it will now become clear that Fire Service personnel will not only be relevant to, but will enforce, such issues. If I may add my own small experience in this field: I have undergone the training of which Mr Partington is so disparaging; I have also taken other short (2 weeks each) training on the subjects of smoke control, ventilation, workplace fire safety, building regulations and risk assessment - small beer, I agree. But then, I also have gained my PGDip in OS&H and am preparing my dissertation on the subject of human behaviour in response to fire alarms. So, to recap, we have the requirement for legislative involvement in the field of health and safety, the training to be recognised in that field and the academic qualifications to justify that recognition. Perhaps Mr Partington might like to reassess his condescending attitude to those "trained... in putting out fires" and, in future, might seek advice of competent and capable fire safety officers employed by fire authorities before he is forced into displaying his own ignorance and prejudices.
Admin  
#8 Posted : 02 June 2004 19:38:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Laurie Sorry Stephen, but with the greatest respect to your own personal expertise I have also come across cases where, for instance, the fire safety officer was happy with a situation, only to have it rejected by the building inspector. I have also carried out a fire inspection on a new building, immediately after having been passed as fit for occupation and use by the fire brigade, and found missing fire extinguishers, text only fire signs (how can architects/builders get away with supplying such items?), obstructed passages and a totally disconnected, or rather not yet connected, alarm system. This was in addition to such things groin high parapets and two feet between balustrades etc. Make no mistake, if I wanted advice on any fire related aspect I would approach my local brigade in the first instance, and I have suggested this course of action on this forum, but they are no more infallible than we are, and in many cases simply cannot afford the same sort of time that we can Laurie
Admin  
#9 Posted : 03 June 2004 01:17:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Stephen Lambert Laurie, Not a problem here but let's be honest, Fire Safety Officers and Building Controllers work to different rules and different scales of discretion. FSOs are drilled into taking the ACoPs and Approved Documents as guides (which is how they are referred to in the introductions) and into taking a risk-based approach by another name; in my experience, some BCOs take the guides as being gospel (even down to dividing corridors every 12m) - perhaps on the basis that if you follow the guides rigidly, consistency will follow. Obviously, differences will occur when this discrepancy of approach or levels of interpretation are introduced. Furthermore, FSOs do not necessarily have direct influence on new builds; however, they are consulted to one extent or another. The building phase and the subsequent occupation are 2 distinct entities and while a building may be deemed adequate in planning and construction, the imposition of differing human factors may render the structural safety inadequate or, conversely, "over-the-top". Your point about alarms is well-taken but again the FSO has no direct responsibility here - the designer, installer and commissioner of a BS 5839:Part 1:2002 system are entirely responsibile for its state and, once signed for, it becomes the occupier's duty to maintain. The BS does not stipulate measures of competence and the signature(s) is/are deemed to be certification enough. It is a distinct weakness in the system but the FSO only has direct power over the occupier/employer/owner of a premises - who then gets it in the neck! To introduce a choral metaphor, FSOs and BCOs sing tenor and bass: individually, quite different but when used together producing a satisfying result. Perhaps it is this aspect that we should be concentrating on - the coordination of the various regulatory interests....or wasn't that the point of the Enforcement Concordat?
Admin  
#10 Posted : 03 June 2004 09:51:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert S Woods Thanks all, especially for the cat fight. I must admit my experiance of dealing with the Fire brigade has been somewhat hit and miss. The Brigade in Keighley are brilliant and very supportive, others in the area are not quite so good. I'm going to see the client in question this morning I'll let you know how I get on. Bob
Admin  
#11 Posted : 03 June 2004 14:56:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert S Woods The client has agreed to fix 10mm mesh to the height of the first rail 500mm approx. No sharp edges etc. No hesitation or arguments this time. I think he'd had time to muse on the outcome of not acting on the advice given in the event of an accident. Thanks to all who contributed to bring about the successful outcome
Admin  
#12 Posted : 04 June 2004 00:10:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Stephen Lambert Ironically enough, today I had a similar solution agreed to without question by a seeker after advice. So much easier without the argument! All the best Steve
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.