Posted By shaun mckeever I noticed my original post slipping down the list with no responses over the weekend. I know there are several good fire safety specialists out there and this issue has major implications if it is not resolved. I am also aware that there are several buildings similar to this, particlarly in crowded cities like London. So I am responding myself, partly to bring the subject to the top of the list again and also to encourage all you budding fire safety specialists to put your thinking caps on. Many thanks for your anticipated responses.

Posted By shaun mckeever Thanks for the advice. Talking to the fire brigade on an official basis will result in the building getting a prohibition notice served upon it. Also, from experience I find many fire officers will unlikely be able to identify a simple solution. In an example such as this the advice from the fire service would be to seek professional advice. The idea is to be able to approach the fire service and say yes I have a problem but I have a solution. In this way it is more likely that they will listen more sympathtically. Sadly this building had a fire risk assessment carried out by an RSP who did not identify the significance of the problem. I do find it concerning that some health and safety professionals are undertaking fire risk assessments where perhaps they should recognise their limitations. The prohibition notice would have been served on the basis that the threat to life from fire would have been so serious. I have identified a potential solution which involves upgrading the fire alarm to an L1, incoprating a water mist system in the accommodation spaces and ensuring that the doors are upgraded to provide 30 minutes fire resistance. Strict fire safety management of the building also forms part of the soluition. English Heritage were also consulted to ensure they were on board with the proposed solutions including the upgrading of the listed doors and the installation of the water mist system. Travel distances also had to be considered as the loss of the secondary means of escape effectively reduced the permitted travel distance. The Fire Authority have not yet been officially approached but off the record discussions have indicated the the solution is likely to be acceptable.

Posted By Aidan Toner Shaun Yes, you are probobly right, RSP's may be taking on assessment work beyond their capability and this must be of concern.I myself have taken on fire assessment work and then struggled to recognise my limitations.Thankfully I did. All that withstanding-I would hope you are even more vexed about the design personnel who have permitted this particular situation to arise.You hav'nt commented on how the design process ended up here and how you have sought to re-engage the 'past design team' in the solution process.(Good luck on that one by the way) A cynic might think that you are connected closely to the design profession and tailor your wrath too neatly. I do hope you find a solution to your DESIGN problem.

Posted By Frank Hallett Hi Shaun Do you want to discuss this directly? I've been in an essentially similar position not so long ago. Frank Hallett