Loss of roof escape route - any suggestions?

[Guest]

I am advising on a building which has lost its alternative escape route via the roof and through a neighbouring property. The building is a single staircase building and the height to the floor of the highest storey is 13m. The building is provided with a Category L1 afd system and there is a lobby approach on all floors to the staircase.There are 4 floors above ground and two below. The lowest level is plant only. Below ground levels are separated by fr doors from ground and above. As it stands, I believe the top floor requires an alternative escape route, however this is just not going to be possible. Are there any solutions that anyone can suggest?
Any help/advice will be gratefully received.

[Guest]

Whilst not wishing to appear a cynic, (what me?), this is exactly there sort of situation where the all-singing goal based, risk assessed process comes into play.
The roof top escape through another property was always going to be a very dodgy proposition anyway.
Leaving aside the basement, the fact that the top floor would, in the past require a seperate M o E is no longer really relevant. If you can drive down the risk within the premises to a point where the chance of a fire occurring or the risk of any fire that does start developing, then you can argue, quite reasonably that you have done all that is reasonably necessary. The L1 AFD gives you early warning and lobby protection looks after people when the get in the stairway. Good training of staff and managers re: keeping doors to stairway shut and the combustibles to a minimum. If the premises are an office or similar low risk I wouldn't lose any sleep over this arrangement. If they are a nursing home for severly disabled people I would be very worried.

A half decent RA and no enforcing authority would win in court!

[Guest]

You need to give more info eg travel distances within premise, use, number of staff, number of public, type of constuction etc......

I totally agree with the comment re risk assessment however " no enforcing authority would win in court" misses the point.

This is not about an adverserial fight between lawyers in court but to secure and enhance the safety of employees and others who may put at risk from fire within "premises". If this is achieved the enforcing authority will be satisfied, if not, it would be totally appropriate for the enforcing authority to issue guidance and, if necessary, an enforcement notice. The last resort for any side would be to go "to court", the only winners are the lawyers.[/quote]

[Guest]

Thanks Bob, I have been involved in many of these cases and I sometimes do not explain myself fully.
An enforcing authority shouldn't, and legally mustn't, issue any enforcement action unless it totally believes that the notice will stand up in court. (Goodwill advice must be clearly stated as such). I am no fan of the adverserial approach but the fact remains that there is case law that proves that enforcing authorities can not use 'bluff and persuasion' any more.
If the duty holder can demonstrate a reasonable methodology in carrying out a risk reduction programme and then records this in the significant findings of a risk assessment they then take on this risk. It becomes, in the circumstances described above, very difficult for an enforcing authority to present a 'justifiable objection' to that process.
At both ends of the risk spectrum, it is relatively straight forward but for the middle ground premises it is really up to the dutyholder/responsible person to make that judgement.

[AnthonyB]

You don't say why the roof exit is lost, is it because of lack or withdrawl of right of access by the leaseholder/freeholder of the adjoining property?

Such cases involving other properties can be difficult. I'm dealing with one where an escape requires an adjoining premises roof, for which one premises has no formal permission & one a MoE license that can be terminated with 6 months notice.
If the lease holder of the building with the roof exercised their rights the upper floors of the 2 adjoining buildings would be unlettable.
The only solution was to offer a deal where the leases were altered permanently in favour of the adjoining premises having MoE in return for building the leaseholder some features they wanted in the goods bay. At the same time the route will be improved by building a barriered escape pathway arcoss the roof & a new external stairway

[Guest]

Thanks for your replies. I had thought that it would be sensible to base my solution on a risk assessment very much in line with what has been suggested. I just had a niggling doubt that some fire safety officer wearing hob nail boots would come along and start quoting ADB (it seems some think it is still prescriptive). Juts for your info max travel distance is about 8m give or take a few centimetres, it is an office in central London - low risk activity and a very well managed building. The route across the roof has been lost due to machinery completely obstructing the route as well as no access being granted by the neighbouring property.

[colin todd]

Fire safety officers with hob nail boots are a dying breed happily. Many have either retired,  now sailing barges on canals or working on the other side of the fire safety fence (in which case suddenly everyhting that was wrong is now ok), or they have become chief officers.

[Guest]

Loss of roof escape route?

Yes, top floor can provide an alternative escape route. Have anyone thought that evac-shute at roof can offer "last chance" to escape in the event of a disaster.

It is an alternative escape route via the roof to ground if the single staircase building is not passable becos of smoke, fllame, heat