Hi, I have looked at approved document B and it only seems to refer to the internal of a Building. Our insurers have advised we removed a part of the Building at the side that used to house an oil storage tank many years ago before we rented the property. 

The reason being is that approx 15 feet away from our final exit the external route becomes narrow to 559 milimetres to which I have on multiple occasions safely passed through. There are other fire exits to the front of the Building and would most likely only have a maximum of 1 person passing through in an event of emergency althought unlikely.

Can anyone advise if there is a rule on measurements on this please I am now under scrutiny from the Business.

Edited by user 15 August 2024 14:28:26(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Let's be clear, ADB only really applies to new builds or where significant changes to the building are proposed.

There are 1000s of buildings where ADB and BS999 guidance cannot be strictly applied- for example historic premises. The exit routes for your premises are down to you to establish via a (suitable & sufficient) fire risk assessment.

To be fair, ADB, BS999 and other guidance is really useful at setting benchmarks, but try applying it to a medieval church with a tiny arched entrance door or an overheight Victorian single staircase building in a city centre  ADB does state escape widths "May be reduced to 530mm for gangways between fixed storage racking, other than in public areas of ‘shop and commercial’ (purpose group 4) buildings."(Table 2.1 on page 19) Thats a useful benchmark which sets an absolute minimum escape width for minimal numbers of staff only. However to apply this to an external final exit would need to most careful consideration to justify and could only be done in exceptional circumstances (sse the last paragraph re Grandfather rights) Reducing down to less that 600mm would be hugely difficult to justify at any time and especially where: the public are present, if there are say more than 10 staff expected to use the route, if you could reasonably expect disabled persons to be in the premises, if you have conditions where a rapidly developing fire may occur or if you use anything less than a Cat L2 fire detection system to assist a simultaneous evacuation But the big advantage you have is grandfather rights.  If you have used this exit for many years and have documented evidence of successful fire drills and you havent made any significant changes to your business (other than not using oil!), that certainly helps your case ​​​​​​​Can I ask why are the insurance company getting involved? 

This is why a Fire Risk Assessment is called an FRA! Some FRAs are simply a compliance check against standards. When everything meets the standard, the job is easy. But the competence of the assessor comes into play when the current standards are not met, that's when the risk assessment bit of the title truly kicks in. The assessor has to consider all the factors, including additional mitigation controls that may 'compensate' for the shortfall against a standard. There are some recognised allowances that can be applied which are straightforward, but in many cases, professional judgement may need be used.

Questions I would ask include "Does this need to be an escape exit and why?"; "How many other escape routes are needed and/or available?"; "How many people does it need to be wide enough to handle?"; "Likely to be used by wheelchair users?'; etc.

Your FRA should have considered all these matters. If your FRA was undertaken by a competent assessor, it should have recognised the narrow exit and then commented on why they deemed it as acceptable (if they did of course). Having said that, insurance companies often require controls over and above basic legal compliance. It can be hard to argue with them :(. 

Hope it helps,

Tony.