FireNet Community
THE REGULATORY REFORM (FIRE SAFETY) ORDER 2005 => Q & A => Topic started by: terry martin on October 16, 2006, 02:44:03 PM
-
not sure that what i am dealing with under the new RRO is 1 or 3 buildings.
The building externally appears to be one building but has vertical imperforate walls seperating it into 3 'premises' (all owned independently), but only for ground floor and above, they all share a basement car park which covers the footprint of the 3 premises(this is also owned seperatly by the freeholder).
The alarms are independant to the point that if the alarm goes of in one 'premises' it does not set the alarm of in any other, except if the alarm in the basement is activated then all 3 'premises' alarms are also.
I know that under the old FPA a building was defined by its impeforate walls, so under the old act i would probably of treated this as one building.
however, i am not sure if a 'building' requires a definition within the RRO.
there is an interpretation of the word 'premises' but no definition of a 'building'
taking into account these are multi occ and require a RA for the common parts
would any Auditors or Assessors treat this as 3 seperate common parts or one.
-
Simply put there are no buildings any more. Premises includes "Any Place" and therefore, depending on the occupancy you can have a premises with a number of premises contained within. Each premises will have to have a FRA and recorde if thye meet the specific criteria in th RR(FS)O. The definitions and Articles in Part 1 of the Order are the bits you need to look at.
-
I would look at it from the point of view of the escape routes and the place of safety. If it is possible to reach a place of safety without going through the common part then I would treat the common part seperately. If however to reach a place of safety it is necessary to go through the common part then I would expect the RA for each premise to include that in their RA.
In short I would give it a fairly definite maybe.
-
In relation to fire, I still think it is a relevent concept and a useful definition.
I would assume that a serious fire within a building is likely to affect the whole of that building.
There are large buildings that acheive a high level of internal compartmentation so that each compartment could be considered separately but this is not common. Even if the fire, heat and smoke did not directly affect other parts then we could consider the application of several tons of water.
-
We cant consider the Fire Safety Order in isolation. The building Regs would also say this is one building in my opinion.(under ADB)
And if we consider each part as a seperate building or completely seperate premises how can we ensure that all responsible persons co-operate with each other over the maintenance of the detection and alarm equipment?
-
taking the comments on board their are 2 view i could take on this.
Firstly, in order to look at the 'workplace' i must also look at their common parts which would also include the basement car park. With the view that if a fire occured in the basement it could potentially involve all 4 premises(4th being the independantly owned basement car park), it would be reasonable to assume that all 4 'premises' are inextricably linked and therefore i should arrange to meet all the 4 nominated responsible persons and audit the building as a whole to ensure that they have sufficiently liased with each other.
Secondly, just audit the 'workplace' and its common parts within that 'premises' and ensure they have sufficiently liased with the responsible person for the basement car park
personally i think the first is more appropriate. if i look at the first premises i should also look at the basement, which would also be under the other premises therefore i should also look at them.
any further views?
-
The FSO places a duty on resposible persons to enure the safety of 'relevant persons' with regard to general fire precautions. The definition of 'relevant persons' refers to those in the 'immediate vicinity who are at risk from a fire on the premises'. Therefore the resp. person wrt the carpark would have to take occupiers of the offices into consideration, even if the escape routes do not pass thru' the basement.
-
If you read the RR(FS)O then you will note that the FRA should include all areas that are covered and that the FRA should for any one premises include all areas that a person in employment would have access to for working or egress/ingress. Therefore an FRA for each individual premises would include the workplace + the shared areas including the car park. The person in control or owner would have to undertake an FRA of the areas under their control. In accordance with the Order each RP has to co-operate and co-ordinate with each other and if necessary appoint one person to lead.
Steve, I understand your reasoning for fire but there is no definition of a building in RR(FS)O and therefore yours and Kurnals point with regard to ADB become superfluous, without being rude, to the question being asked. The context of what anything is called is dependent on the legislation being used and for FRA then premises is the definition.
-
Hi Jokar I dont quite follow your point- but I may have misinterpreted the question?
I know the statutory bar is no more but surely in carrying out your risk assessment you would have regard to the original design strategy of the building as approved under the building regulations?
If nothing else these will be existing risk control measures to be taken into account and is probably why the alarms are linked together in the first place? Do the approved documents no longer provide a provide a benchmark standard that we may work from?
I dont think we will find all the answers we need in the RRO and will still need to look for other sources of evidence to inform our risk assessments. But I guess I may have missed your point on this one.
-
If you read the RR(FS)O then you will note that the FRA should include all areas that are covered and that the FRA should for any one premises include all areas that a person in employment would have access to for working or egress/ingress. Therefore an FRA for each individual premises would include the workplace + the shared areas including the car park. The person in control or owner would have to undertake an FRA of the areas under their control. In accordance with the Order each RP has to co-operate and co-ordinate with each other and if necessary appoint one person to lead.
Steve, I understand your reasoning for fire but there is no definition of a building in RR(FS)O and therefore yours and Kurnals point with regard to ADB become superfluous, without being rude, to the question being asked. The context of what anything is called is dependent on the legislation being used and for FRA then premises is the definition.
Jokar, I agree; there is no definition of a building in the FSO and that "premises" is the term used. The definition of "premises" is very wide ("anyplace" with a few exceptions).
When should RP co-operate and co-ordinate with each other?
If they are in separate buildings and have separate means of escape probably not. Sometimes two or more buildings share an alarm system or other facilities - there are no hard and fast rules. Generally though I think that it is reasonable to require the occupants of a building to co-operate and co-ordinate.
-
thanks for everyone's views so far.
with regards to the access and egress issue. although they are imperforate walls within the definition they do have emergency routes between each premises on some upper floors (unused for daily activities and locked, but linked to the alarm to unlock in the event of an emergency) so there is a facility for a person in one premises to traverse to another premises if necessary
with regard to the basement there is emergency routes into each premise above
with this in mind, any further views
-
"taking into account these are multi occ and require a RA for the common parts
would any Auditors or Assessors treat this as 3 seperate common parts or one?"
Definately 3 common parts requiring co-operation, co-ordination and communcation between all 3 occupiers and whoever has control over the common parts including the car park.
-
Yes I agree with kurnal, the doors make the difference. I would think the same would apply to any premise where one of the escape routes is via another premise.
However on a purely theoretical basis, if the emergency routes were not there and MOE were satisfactory within each premise, how would it be treated?
-
Just in case anyone doesnt have the old building definition to hand:
HOME OFFICE
Fire Precautions Act 1971 - Circ. No.5
DEFINITION OF "BUILDING"
The definition of "building" has been interpreted variously by the courts for purposes of other legislation and is therefore subject to some uncertainty. However, to ensure uniformity in the administration of the Act, it is considered desirable that a building should generally be regarded as extending from its lowest level to roof-top and that the horizontal limits should be regarded as set by party/separating walls through which there is no internal communication with neighbouring buildings. Doors provided in party walls solely as fire exits should not be regarded as a means of internal communication. Nor is it considered that the effect of imperforate floors extending over the whole area of a building is to create two (or more) separate buildings, notwithstanding that there may be no internal means of communication between the parts.
-
Yes I agree with kurnal, the doors make the difference. I would think the same would apply to any premise where one of the escape routes is via another premise.
However on a purely theoretical basis, if the emergency routes were not there and MOE were satisfactory within each premise, how would it be treated?
I can think of some buildings that consist of shops on the ground floor that are imperforate to flats, a large office, or hotel that extends above them. There is usually at least an hour FR between the shops and the upper floors.
Is this a similar issue?
Not for escape but for property / firefighter protection I would probably recommend heat detectors in the shops linked to a system covering the large hotel / offices above. However do the shops need to know if there is an alarm in the building above? I think the answer is, "It depends ..."
-
Steve,
All the FPA Circulars were withdrawn on the 1 October, nice to have a definition but as regards RR(FS)O it perhaps doesn't help. Whilst it is easier to deal with buildings, the future is premises, and each of your examples above are premises and as such the RP has to deal with their own demise taking into account the egress and any other parts they or the staff, if this applies have access to. So a multi occupied premises with 10 tenants will have as a minimum 11 FRA, 1 for each tenant and one for the shared accommodation/common parts. Minimum of 10 as lease may create further and the owner may have to do one as well. Nothing simple as 1 for the building which would probably suit all concerned.
-
One for all can and does work in cases where the landlord is prepared to take the lead and organise the risk assessments on behalf of all occupiers, and to share the cost and the significant findings between them. I have done this in a number of shopping centres and industrial units in old mills.
So you end up with a (fire certificate!!NO) a risk assessment in which there is a schedule of occupiers and responsible persons and the significant findings are listed in a further schedule with the occupier reference against them as appropriate.
But you only need one to want to go their own way and you are snookered.
Then an annual audit of occupiers /RPs is carried out and the lndlord or agent co-ordinate the review with a simple checklist.
-
Lucky you (all that extra work)! In a perfect world the landlord in a multiocc would look after and recharge appropriately for almost everything fire safety related in a multiocc & in former BR buildings up until a year or two ago that continued.
But most will stick to their minimum responsibilities and only assess & maintain the common areas and send us into the tenants to coordinate and police them, with the tenant arranging their own FRA, EL & AFA testing, PFE etc......
Mind you, shopping centres take long enough just monitoring tenants without doing their FRA! But well done for getting your client to see the upside of taking the lead
-
thanks again for the comments.
with your views in mind and strictly looking at this from the point of view of the RRO, i should audit the 'workplace' and it's common parts and ensure they and the RP for the common parts for that 'premises' have sufficently liaised with all other RP's.
as long as the 'workplace' has liaised sufficiently and in doing so taken into account all relevant persons (including those in the other 'premises' i.e those who may have to enter their 'premises' as an alternative MoE) then i believe they have fulfilled their requirements under the RRO.
-
Steve,
All the FPA Circulars were withdrawn on the 1 October, nice to have a definition but as regards RR(FS)O it perhaps doesn't help. Whilst it is easier to deal with buildings, the future is premises, and each of your examples above are premises and as such the RP has to deal with their own demise taking into account the egress and any other parts they or the staff, if this applies have access to. So a multi occupied premises with 10 tenants will have as a minimum 11 FRA, 1 for each tenant and one for the shared accommodation/common parts. Minimum of 10 as lease may create further and the owner may have to do one as well. Nothing simple as 1 for the building which would probably suit all concerned.
Jokar, if the occupants of a building are imperforate to each other - do not share common parts - do they need to co-operate and comunicate with each other?
-
No, after all a multi storey multi occupied building is only a high street in the air and as such shops are often imperforate to each other. The need to co-operate is about multi use of an area and the need for egree and access to ensure evryone can leave or use.
-
Ok, well that is a change from pre-FSO.
I don't think that it is quite like a high street because fires still tend to burn upwards and collapse still tends to happen downwards. Premises above a fire will be an greater risk than those to the side.
However I would say that the communication and cooperation would be minimal with this arrangement. Perhaps just making arrangements to confirm that the FR construction was being maintained and how other occupants would know about a fire. What would be recommendation and what requirement would depend on the circumstances.