Way Leave

[nearlythere]

This from a forum member who can't get reconnect to the red site.

"In a shared business occupancy building the two occupying businesses
require assistance from each other with respect to a way leave agreement so
that they can use their upper floors for reasons of acceptable travel
distance.  In such a mutually desirable agreement and where the building is
owned by a single property company does the way leave agreement need to be
legally drawn up; i.e. by a solicitor, or can a few suitable words be put
together whereupon each party signs up to it.  Does anyone have an example?"

[Midland Retty]

Clearly both occupiers have a duty to co-operate and co-ordinate with one another under Article 22 of the Fire Safety Order (presuming you chum is talking about premises in England& Wales).

IMO however that in itself may not be enough to ensure that access between both occupiers is always going to sufficient and appropriate.

The reason is this: If one occupier changes their mind at some point in the future and doesnt want the other occupier accessing their parts of the building then in theory all they need to do is inform the affected occupier "Sorry you cant use this route any longer as its no longer practicable due to x, y and z . Ive informed you, its now your problem"  and that may be sufficient to demonstrate compliance under Article 22.

Remember that Article 22 doesn't say each party must conceed to each others requests, it is purely designed to make the two parties talk to one another, so that each know the level of risk imposed by one another's actions and where reasonably practicable adjustments can be made they are done so to accomodate one another.

It isn't a case of "Occupier A" saying  "I need a fire exit which goes through your part of the premises therefore you must provide me with one"  because the actions of providing that may not be practicable for Occupier B.

So as a result I would strongly recommend that a formal wayleave agreement is drawn up between both parties regardless of the duties imposed under the RRO. That would give both occupiers greater control and say over any shared access and the Wayleave can specifiy penalties if one of the occupiers forfeits the agreement.

[nearlythere]

Thanks MR.
The poster understands the need for an agreement between both parties. The point was whether it should be a proper legal agreement involving solicitors?
I would suggest that this should be the case but the main issue is who can draw up a "Way Leave"? Is it something only a legal eagle can do?

[Midland Retty]

Would need to be done by solicitors NT old chap.

[Mike Buckley]

I agree, get the legal eagles involved. The problem is not only if one of the occupiers changes their mind but also if one of the occupiers departs and another occupier takes their place.

[Phoenix]

Don't forget that "way-leave" agreements are seriously frowned upon in the fire safety world.  Routes through neighbouring premises are fraught with problems - unfamiliar routes, routes secured shut, inadequate lighting, inadequate signage, obstructed routes, routes never walked during training sessions.  

If at all possible it would be advantageous to try to establish safe routes that do not rely upon the neighbours, extended travel distances or not.  Frankly, the extended travel distances are likely to be more acceptable than the routes through the neighbour's premises.

I do understand, though, that sometimes there is no alternative to the way-leave agreement.  The best way to secure their availability to each tenant is to have the agreement included in the terms of the tenancy, the lease.  By this means it is also possible to include terms that will secure the availability of the route at all material times.  A solicitor may be able to draw it up but is unlikely to understand the terms that should be included in order to ensure that the route can always be safely used - I would suggest that a competent fire risk assessor can offer the best advice as to what precautionary terms should be included.

Even with the way-leave agreement in place the route is no good if staff are not periodically familiarised with the route.  It is the place of the FRA to check that the correct training takes place.  

Stu

[Clevelandfire 3]

Since when have wayleave agreements been frowned upon. News to me.

[AnthonyB]

Indeed - you'd have to prohibit a large chunk of London and parts of central Manchester, Birmingham & Liverpool if you didn't have inter-building escape.

The problem with way leaves is they are an administrative nightmare, both trying to track them down, to establish them if not in place and maintain their tenability on both sides (especially final exit in single stairs out of hours of the building being exited into), but they are a necessary evil as the types of buildings they are present in are exactly the type where retro fitting alternative solutions is either cost prohibitive or more often simply impossible.

[Hi Tower]

Finally I am back on line having tried every single conitation of every single password I ever had - perserverance won in the end.

Nearlythere - thank you for posting this string for me.

In reply to Clevelandfire 3 my experience with the FRS is that they don't particularly like such arrangements for the reasons AnthonyB states; and if an alternative can be considered then in all  probability they will push to have that alternative implemented in preference; however, as stated a way leave is often the only remaining solution available.

I believe the following should be considered when drafting such an agreement - do you agree or have I ommissions or otherwise in my list:

Each party must

•   Keep their respective escape route(s) accessible and unobstructed at all times.  This may require locks and other security devices to be revised;
•   Adequately provide fire fighting equipment as necessary throughout the route(s) in accordance with BS5306-8;
•   Adequately provide conventional and emergency lighting throughout the route(s).  The provision of emergency lighting is to be in accordance with BS5266-1;
•   Suitably display emergency route signage throughout its length in accordance with ‘The Health and Safety (Safety Signs and Signals) Regulations 1996’;
•   Allow predetermined requests by either party for access for the purpose of staff training and auditing;
•   Both parties to have predetermined check lists that ensure the above requirements are suitably inspected, maintained and serviced as necessary;
•   Penalties for non-adherence.

[kurnal]

Yes HT thats about got it in one. Security is usually the biggest problem especially where one of the parties operates during different hours to the other. However many of these wayleave arrangements can actually betreated as seperate compartments for evacuation- having passed through the pass door people are in a place of relative safety so there is much less urgency to escape to the street. However if there are security locks to overcome and a burglar alarm wailing then persons may be unable to make their presence known - even to the extent of calling the fire brigade. So mutual sharing of burglar alarm details would help with communications.

Also many of these pass doors are flimsy - doors between buildings should be at least to a one hour standard.

[Steven N]

In reply to Clevelandfire 3 my experience with the FRS is that they don't particularly like such arrangements for the reasons AnthonyB states; and if an alternative can be considered then in all  probability they will push to have that alternative implemented in preference; however, as stated a way leave is often the only remaining solution available.

Spot on Hi Tower, frowned upon is not the same as banned Clevey!!

[Clevelandfire 3]

Never said it was the same. Still dont see where you get fire brigades frowning upon wayleaves.

[Hi Tower]

Also many of these pass doors are flimsy - doors between buildings should be at least to a one hour standard.

Kurnal - If compartmentation of the rest of the building is less than 1 hour then why do I need a 1 hour fire door between the buildings.  Surely 30 minutes would be ok?  I know separation between different users should be 1 hour but sticking in a door to that standard without upgrading everything else seems pointless?  Am I missing something?

[kurnal]

No you are right- But if it is not a compartment wall - and it damn well should be else we will have a repeat of 1666- then you cannot stop counting the travel distance once you have passed into the neighbouring building and must ensure that the means of escape allows easy and unrestricted egress to a place of ultimate safety- ie the street. This can create issues with security because generally insurers would like doors deadlocked when the premises are not in use.

[Phoenix]

Never said it was the same. Still dont see where you get fire brigades frowning upon wayleaves.

Clevelandfire3,

1) Have you not been listening to what others have said? and

2) In your experience, are they welcomed?

Either you like them or you don't like them. 

Most people don't like them.  That's why ADB has specifically recommended against them for many years.

As others have demonstrated above, there can be conditions under which they are acceptable for existing buildings but they seldom offer a robust solution for the long term.

Stu