FireNet Community
FIRE SAFETY => Fire Risk Assessments => Topic started by: Flash Hood on July 30, 2011, 10:41:45 PM
-
I have just conducted a fire risk assessment of a modern office building in North West London from which the final exit from one of two staircases discharges into a neighbouring private residential development. From looking into the residential development from an upper floor of the office building it appears that the escape route from the residential development itself is via a secure pedestrian gate. The neighbouring residents are preventing the escape route from being used for evacuation drills. My customer has in the past sort advice from a solicitor who has confirmed that conditions were placed on the planning consent for the office building stating that access through the private residential development was prohibited unless it was for a genuine building evacuation and not a drill.
Its fair to say that due to the route not being used for evacuation drills no one knows for certain if the pedestrian gate seen from the window is actually available as it appears to be secured with an electronic lock (with no manual release device present), be inward opening, and not signed as a fire exit.
Having read the RRO it seems to me that article 22 wouldn't apply as the wording of article 22 seems to relate to premises within the same building. I would welcome ideas especially from persons who have resolved similar situations.
-
At least there is an easement to allow emergency use if nothing else! That's normally the first issue.
Final exit from the adjoining building is always a difficult one & requires co-operation and co-ordination. The residential should have a common area FRA which should have accounted for this use by the office as they are relevant persons who may be resorting to the area. I would gave thought it would have flagged up the need for a green break glass override regardless of the fact another building uses it, all the residential I've visited have them.
It's a complex one and if there is no C&C, bring LFB in to sort it out.
-
Flash Hood. Tell them to burn some toast, and then legitimately evacuate down there. :D
-
I'm not an expert in this field but is Article 5 not relevant?
Namely,
"(3) Any duty imposed by articles 8 to 22 or by regulations made under article 24 on the responsible person in respect of premises shall also be imposed on every person, other than the responsible person referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2), who has, to any extent, control of those
premises so far as the requirements relate to matters within his control.
"(4) Where a person has, by virtue of any contract or tenancy, an obligation of any extent in relation to—
(a) the maintenance or repair of any premises, including anything in or on premises; or
(b) the safety of any premises,
that person is to be treated, for the purposes of paragraph (3), as being a person who has control
of the premises to the extent that his obligation so extends."
Stu
-
Be carefull.....
It is not uncommon in London for developers to gain planning permission where the consent requires an alternative means of escape via the adjoining premises. but do not consult or establish a legally binding rights of access with the neighbour.
If access through the neighbouring premises is specified contractually and, or, within the deeds. As the Fire Risk Assessor they must allow you, with reasonable notice, access to confirm the suitability and condition of those arrangements.
If you identify remedial works are required to secure your means of escape, you are entitled to carry out those works at your cost, and the neighbour is entitled to appoint a surveyor, at your cost, to ensure his interest are maintained. But they cannot stop you.
regardless if you have planning consent that enables your design to be approved, if you don't have legal rights of access established. your neighbour can refuse you any access. In This instance your means of escape are compromised and likely do not comply.