Access for fire fighters-

[Drew]

Hi All,

Can anyone confirm that as part of a FRA the provision for access for the fire service attending an incident must be included within the document. I ask this because after visiting a development of two 9 storey blocks of flats where one was built in 2007 and has a fire control access box and the other completed in July 2008 does not. The question arose as to why this was. My thoughts are that as both buildings would have to be compliant with ADB section B5 access to buildings for fire fighting personnel    and the 2007 block clearly is, how would you know whether the 2008 building which has no visible contol entry box would conform? Also is it actually required under the RR(fs)0 to record these details?

I welcome your replies!

Drew

[nearlythere]

Hi All,

Can anyone confirm that as part of a FRA the provision for access for the fire service attending an incident must be included within the document. I ask this because after visiting a development of two 9 storey blocks of flats where one was built in 2007 and has a fire control access box and the other completed in July 2008 does not. The question arose as to why this was. My thoughts are that as both buildings would have to be compliant with ADB section B5 access to buildings for fire fighting personnel    and the 2007 block clearly is, how would you know whether the 2008 building which has no visible contol entry box would conform? Also is it actually required under the RR(fs)0 to record these details?

I welcome your replies!

Drew

Whether legally required or not I always look at this matter and make recommendations.

Could be considered a means provided for the protection of firefighters as the sooner firefighting and evacuation/rescues can take place the safer it would be inside the building. IMHO of course.

[Drew]

Thanks nearlythere,

I guess it comes back to the duty of care for persons using the building, I expect this is often overlooked.

[kurnal]

Yes in an ideal world an access control facility for the fire service should be provided. For the other 99.9%  of premises ( ) how about a clause such as the following in the tenants/ occupiers information pack?

"It is important that Fire Service access roads to houses and flats are kept clear and unobstructed, to allow access by the Fire Service and other emergency vehicles at all times.  It is the responsibility of all occupiers  to ensure that they do not park their cars in these roads or allow their visitors to do so, and if they see any vehicles parked there, to report it.  As the car park entrance and access to the building are both secure, in an emergency it will be necessary for the occupiers of the flat involved or those discovering and reporting an emergency to meet the Emergency Service at the gate and give them the necessary access to the car park and the building."

[CivvyFSO]

Regarding the legalities of recording access details as part of a risk assessment: The maintenance of measures under article 38 points very much towards the access and facilities such as what is supplied under B5, including turning circles etc.  The significant findings (if they need recording) should record measures taken persuant to the order, so the actual maintenance of those measures (or lack of maintenance) should appear in the risk assessment.

However, back in the real world, maybe 5% of risk assessments will cover this detail. (Hats of to Nearlythere and any others like him)

[Drew]

Thanks for your posts Kurnal/Civvy FSO,

The blocks in question are both social housing projects and the dry riser inlet is in the car park which is enclosed by a remote controlled gate (each tenant is given a fob for entry) The IOs concerns were mainly how do we gain access to the car park to connect to the rising main and then how do we gain access to the properties?
I reckon the managing agents should fit fire contol boxes to both blocks and the gate thus giving full access to the emergency services.
Bit of a grey area it seems, but I feel it's worth addressing and Kurnals point of inserting a clause is one I will put to the company.

[CivvyFSO]

That is less of a grey area. As part of the design, access will have been required to within 18m of the riser inlet. Sticking a gate accross the entry road that an appliance cannot pass has failed to maintain this facility and the FRS are quite within their right to enforce a reasonable method of giving them access, and it is article 38 that should be used. ("Guidance Note No.1  Enforcement" is quite clear what is required regarding article 38)

Regarding access to the properties, if the FRS are stuck at the front door to the property then (again) the suitable access supplied under B5 has not been maintained, and it could be enforced to ensure that they do have access, but providing that their cutting/prising/smashing equipment can deal with the doors, then they WILL get access.

What could muddy the waters here is if all these details, such as the gate and the security on the main doors, were in the Building Regs application, and these details were sent to the FRS as part of the consultation procedure and the FRS involved failed to comment. This would then possibly be seen as the 'B5 package' that has been accepted under Building Regs, and we could then only ask for the maintenance of what is already there.

[JC100]

This is slightly relevent here if you are involved with a company who develop buildings.

Communities and local government have a document 'Buiilding regulations and fire safety procedural guidance' which basically covers that there needs to be interaction between the building regulations and other statutory fire safety requirements during planning stages.

A building built to the building regulations sometimes isn't enough suitable for compliance with the RR(FS)O which can sometimes lead to the building owners and the developers having numerous discussions on who's responsibility it is to change items after the job is completed. The owner expecting the building to be suitable and fit for use and the developer saying it complies with the building regs - you could argue that both are right.

As Civvy says, adB says fire fighting vehicles have to be able to be within 18m of the riser inlet - it makes no mention of gates etc restricting this (although common sense maybe should apply). Under the RR(FS)O this could rightly be seen as unsuitable. 

This amended version is available http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/133220.pdf which gives an idea. The latest edition was released in July 2007 (4th edition).

[Phoenix]

Civvy, above, divides this issue up into two possible cases, one where the access has been altered since building completion and one where the access has always been as it is now.  The first case is adequately catered for as he describes, but see also my last paragraph below. 

The second case is quite complex.  The procedural guidance referred to by smokescreen makes it clear that the purpose of the consultation with the fire service by the building control body is to give the fire service an opportunity to comment on fire safety issues that are beyond the remit of the Building Regulations.  The fire service, procedural guidance states, may comment on matters from B1 to B5 if it wants to but it doesn't have to because that is the job of the building control body.  The process is not about duplication of work, the building control body are charging a fee for their work and the fire service shouldn't do their job for them for free. 

Now, the access measures at issue here, if they were present when the building was built, fall under B5 and were the responsibility of the building control body to get right.  The fire service need accept no culpability if the plans were sent to them showing the deficient access facilities and if they failed to comment on them.  They can quite legitimately state that they assumed that the building control body were going to execute their role correctly and ensure that adequate access facilities were put in place.

So where does that leave us.  Unfortunately, it doesn't give the FRS a lot to work with under the RR(FS)O.  Responsibility lies with the building control body who oversaw the construction.

A lot depends on how involved you want to get with this and on what angle you're coming from.  If this was how the building was initially built then the building control body should definitely be approached so that they can either explain why the situation satisfies the requirements of B5 OR so that they can accept responsibility for the shortcomings and be instrumental in resolving them.

If the access facilities have become inadequate because of works subsequent to the completion of the buildings then it is likely that those works have materially altered matters that fall under the Building Regulations and should have been subject of a Building Regs application.  If they were not, then the local authority building control body are able to take the appropriate enforcement action.

Stu

[mr angry]

If the access facilities have become inadequate because of works subsequent to the completion of the buildings then it is likely that those works have materially altered matters that fall under the Building Regulations and should have been subject of a Building Regs application.  If they were not, then the local authority building control body are able to take the appropriate enforcement action.

Stu


[/quote]

I am presently dealing with such an issue in a high rise flatted development in Glasgow that has no access for fire service vehicles and initially building control were not terribly interested, however they are now acting on it and we are near a resolution.

[Drew]

I have spoken to the RP today and put the points raised by all to him, it seems that communication between building developers and the fire service is something that needs to be encouraged. Had this been the case then these issues would have been dealt with at the planning stage or before the building was handed over.

Many thanks to all for your posts.

Drew   

[Phoenix]

The situation you present, Drew, is a classic one, where developers (or building end users) and fire service do not get directly together until after the building control body has issued a completion notice and the building becomes occupied. 

The developers/building end users usually want, amongst other things, a building that the fire service are happy with (i.e one that meets B1 to B5 as well as being capable of offering a safe environment under the RR(FS)O - one that will not require further work after completion!) 

But the people in the middle (the designers, approved inspectors and fire engineers) often appear to have a slightly different agenda, one that will push the limits of fire safety.  This means that there is often a situation at design/construction phase where the fire service are not happy with the design but where the building is being being built anyway - and the developers/building end users are blissfully unaware that the building may run into problems when the building is occupied and responsibility for enforcing fire safety in the building passes to the fire service.

There have been a number of cases around the country where the fire service have issued a prohibition notice the day the brand new building has been occupied.

I always encourage FRS fire safety officers to try to ensure that any concerns they have reach the developers/building end users, but this is not always easy.  The building control body are advised that they should pass on all FRS comments but this does not always happen.

I have to balance my comments above by saying, quite truthfully, that there are good designers, fire engineers and, yes, even AIs out there who manage very successfully to combine innovative design with good safety levels, through a policy of open-ness, clarity and good communications.

Good luck with your cause,

Stu

[Drew]

Stu,

Looks like i'm not the only one to kick over the hornets nest! Communication seems to break down or is  non existant from the design stage to the handover. My client has now introduced a policy for informing the relevant authority and to also  carry out a fire strategy assessment before handover.  The access arrangements for the FRS will be included into each FRA.

You never stop learning!