Access for fire appliances

[ian gough]

You may be aware that the guidance to building regulations in England and Wales is currently under review, and so there is now an opportunity to see some improvements to certain standards.

For some time now I've been concerned that the problems of firefighter access into buildings has not been taken as seriously as it should - not even by the fire service itself, I'm ashamed to admit. And too often fire services simply accept what they are given by the developer and/or building inspector (neither of whom have this topic up their list of priorities).

A question I wish to pose here is:

are firefighters content to accept fire appliance access to only 50% of a building's perimeter - when the building may be anything from 8,000 square metres - 16,000 square metres - and of unlimited height?

For my part, I cannot see how one can safely and effectively fight a fire and/or attempt rescue in these circumstances - bearing in mind modern command and control and health & safety requirements.

So all you 'ops' types out there with experience and/or views on this, please give it some thought and perhaps even let me know. You never know, we might see some improvements made to our standards.

[Brian Catton]

Ian
Provided that a fire engineered approach is taken I do not see a problem with only having two building faces for access. Adequate compartmentation and presssurisation of staircases combined with protected lobbies should be adequate for firefighters. I do see where you are coming from but once you get over 45m in height access from the face of a building does become largely irrelevant. I think that these principles, combined with sprinklers, risers etc in high buildings and adequate fire mains would satisfy most circumstances. Onc the designers are restriced to putting access roads around the whole building it will somewhat limit the footprint layout as far as aesthetics, trees etc are concerned. One thing that does concern me though is where the planners put the fire access roads through a car park or do not build into the scheme measures to prevent access roads from being used for parking (particularly on large private sites. We have a three storey high risk hospital where the fire access to one of the sides (two side vehicularaccess) is regularly restricted by parked cars. I am not thinking about high reach access but access to the staircases.

[ian gough]

Thanks for that Brian - but, of course, many do not have a 'fire engineered approach'. If they did I agree with you.

[wee brian]

Ian - does this mean a blanket ban on terraced buildings?

[ian gough]

You tell me Wee Brian; after all, I'm asking for views.

[wee brian]

I always thought the percentage perimeter approach was rather unrealistic. Its just a convenient way of setting a standard that can easily be checked.

No doubt somebody could come up with a more elaborate method.

[ian gough]

I'm not sure I agree with all that Wee Brian; after all, the suggestion that you do not need 100% fire appliance access to buildings in excess of 8,000sqms for example, seems unrealistic to me - unless perhaps the building is long and thin like your terraced houses!
Also, not to have more than 50% access for  high reach appliances in buildings that could be 16,000sqms and unlimited height, also seems quite unrealistic.
With a max recommended travel distance for firefighters of 34m - I believe these old rules need re-visiting. But not many replies I notice!

[wee brian]

Ian

Do you really think that you could extinguish a 8,000sqm warehouse fire even with 100% - many warehouses do have this and they still burn to a soggy crisp.

Lots of building are terraced - like most of London and any other cirty 100% means that we need acces all the way around each building, there just isnt that much space in the UK.

[ian gough]

Wee Brian - maybe we (must get out of the habit.)... the fire service... can tackle such a fire! Your post assumes a fully developed and fully involved compartment fire, common I know, but not always the case. I've been to many buildings on fire where it did not develop quite as quickly as you make out - although of course some did.
My fear is a slow growing fire that might develop quickly - and after arrival of the fire service. 'Surrounding' the fire is always seen as the goal to achieve when fighting any fire, which I believe is extremely difficult for some of these buildings - even when complying with ADB.
Also, of course, you assume a warehouse but these rules apply to all buildings with a variety of internal subdivision, fire load, construction etc.

[wee brian]

I see where you are coming from (not all warehouse fires develop quickly - your honour...! must be anoth Ian G out there!!)

to be hinest I'm just keeping this going to see if any firefighters actually have a view on this -moaning after the event appears to be a speciality.

[ian gough]

Wee Brian - so am I. Where are they all?

[dave bev]

i think you'll find that the work that was suggested by bdag and hmi following the work of bdag was that the outdated post war building studies must be reviewed in light of current 'knowns' of fire service activities and response. likelihood of this happening now that hmi is being slowy dismantled - answers on a post card. perhaps the organisation that protray themselves as the professional voice of the fire service should be asked.

as for firefighters moaning 'after' the even, suffolk firefighters are on strike this afternoon to ensure that they keep an aerial appliance to tackle such blazes before they reach the footings!