Author Topic: Fire Risk Assessment - Drawings (Read 36686 times)

PhilB · « **Reply #30 on:** September 24, 2005, 09:38:26 AM »

Luckily Colin not all agree with you. I have been told by people even more important than you Mr Todd, that they agree the guidance is defective and said it would be amended before publication to align definition of significant findings(Sfs) with ACOP. I will, however, believe that when I see it in print.

Now if that happens and SFs include a record of the preventitive and protective measures, the only effective way of recording these in all but very simple buidings, is by use of a plan.

If significant findings are defined as proposed RRO guidance and CFOA appear to suggest as defects only I agree, no plan would be required. A responsible person may even be able to say I have carried out my risk assessment and there are no significant findings....i.e there are no defects.

CFOAs guidance says that the responsible person should record the SFs and the action taken to deal with them!

ian gough · « **Reply #31 on:** September 24, 2005, 10:08:44 AM »

I still do not see PhilB how you can insist upon a plan. Plans are for the convenience of inspectors - which is not something covered for in legislation. Having seriously looked at providing plans in my FRAs I can tell you it is not at all easy - and certainly expensive!

colin todd · « **Reply #32 on:** September 24, 2005, 01:26:44 PM »

Luckily Phillip, not all agree with you, including Mr Gough, who is more important than you and actually practices not preaches (assuming anyone still goes to Moreton to be preached to).

ian gough · « **Reply #33 on:** September 24, 2005, 02:53:10 PM »

I'll never get invited there again now Colin!

colin todd · « **Reply #34 on:** September 24, 2005, 03:59:08 PM »

You are missing nothing, Ian, and if you were you would be lonely, particularly as you are very bright and forward thinking.

PhilB · « **Reply #35 on:** September 25, 2005, 05:39:05 PM »

Not insist Ian, I just ask how can you effectively record the SFs without a plan.(I know that may be expensive sorry!!!!! and it was never supposed to be easy...although many incompetent assessors think it is and are making a lot of money....hope they have good insurance policies!!!!!).

I repeat it depends on which definition of SFs you chose to accept. A plan is not for the convenience of inspectors!!!!....its a means whereby the responsible person can show due dilligence.

If you can do so without a plan you're home and dry. However I have seen a lot of assessments carried out by so called competent persons and consultants that are a long way from suitable & sufficient.

I look forward to the decisions that can ultimately only be made by a court of law.

Colin I do not preach at anyone, and I can and do practice; and I would dispute the importance of Mr Gough; and as usual you miss the point! Still no doubt you will reply to this so that you may have the last word.

And Mr Todd I can assure you that some very bright and forward thinking people attend and work at Moreton. Unfortunately for you thay do not all agree with your views.

Perhaps you and Mr Gough should read the ACOP, just in case they make those amendments!!!

ian gough · « **Reply #36 on:** September 25, 2005, 07:04:30 PM »

PhilB: your third paragraph - first sentence - says it all. That'll do for me. I'll now duck out of this and let you two carry on!

wee brian · « **Reply #37 on:** September 25, 2005, 07:38:58 PM »

This is the kind of pointless argument that I'm on about. Just concentrate on managing the risk effectively. Unless your plans and fire rpoof they are no use to anybody.

PhilB · « **Reply #38 on:** September 25, 2005, 09:41:03 PM »

Brian
I'm sorry you find the arguement pointless. We are about to see the greatest change in fire safety legislation & it's enforcement since the 70s. Fundamental to that is surely fire risk assessment...and....to assist compliance & enforcement, everyone must agree on what is required to be recorded.

I have never said plans should be a statutory requirement....but how can you effectively record the SFs without one? Mr Todd advocates a glorified checklist....in my humble opinion that is not suitable & sufficient. I think Mr Goughs last post suggested he was happy for the Courts to decide...so am I.

But 'pointless arguement' I think not!

colin todd · « **Reply #39 on:** September 25, 2005, 11:58:04 PM »

You have missed Wee B's point. Try to listen Phillip. I know you never listen to me as a point of principle, but even so try listening to wee b. His point is that no one has ever been saved from a fire by a drawing. Even those lovely fire cert drawings that the poor I/Os drew, which were not to save life but make life simple for later inspecting officers.

colin todd · « **Reply #40 on:** September 25, 2005, 11:59:41 PM »

PS Mr Gough is quite important. He gave us case law on the meaning of the FP Act, plus a shed load of entertainment in the process. Also, he is a rather likeable chap.

PhilB · « **Reply #41 on:** September 26, 2005, 09:04:14 AM »

I do not miss Brians point Collin. I know plans do not save lives but this debate is about effective enforcement that will hopefully maintain standards and save lives. Therefore both enforcers and responsible persons need clear guidance on what should be recorded following a risk assessment. The proposed RRO guidance conflicts with ACOP Collin.

I believe plans are the easiest way Collin, in complex buidings, to record the preventitive & protective measures. As I have said previously Collin, if you can do that without a plan ok.

Collin, I'm sure Ian is a likeable chap and his contribution to this debate has been worthwile, unlike yours Collin as your main aim appears to be throwing insults at a certain training establishment.

Incidently Collin, isn't it anoying when someone constantly refers to you by name but uses too many L's in it???

wee brian · « **Reply #42 on:** September 26, 2005, 09:35:37 AM »

Coomon guys, keep it pollite now.

What I am saying is that I think Inspecting Officers should focus their attentions on what they see when they visit a building.

If their are problems with the building as he finds it then he can ask to see improvements. The responsible person may well produce his FRA and use it to argue that nothing needs doing. This is the time when boring and pedantic arguments about what constitutes an adequate FRA should arise.

If the building looks OK and the responsible person is on the case then leave them alone and move on to the next building. (Leave them a leaflet about FRAs)

By following this approach more buildings will get seen and the world becomes a safer place. Alternatively you can spend all your resources arguing about the paperwork on an otherwise perfectly acceptable building.

PhilB · « **Reply #43 on:** September 26, 2005, 10:07:39 AM »

I agree totally Brian. The risk assessment is the responsible persons tool for complying with the regulations. Enforcing authorities should only need to refer to it if they find a problem.

But surely the guidance for enforcers and responsible persons should be consistent. It worries me that different individuals have different opinions of what constitutes a suitable and sufficient assessment. There will be times when that arguement crops up.

I would have hoped that any guidance issued for RRO would allign with guidance for risk assessment issued by HSE but proposed guidance does not. Hopefully it will be amended.

wee brian · « **Reply #44 on:** September 26, 2005, 11:52:18 AM »

If it changes, it may well be to align HSE with ODPM!.

HSE are concerned that the CDM regs and other stuff they have done in the last couple of years has created a lot of paperwork with very little improvement in safety.

News:

Author Topic: Fire Risk Assessment - Drawings (Read 36686 times)