FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: CivvyFSO on April 02, 2007, 12:42:35 PM
-
Opinions required:
There's a few buildings popping up here, 14 storeys upwards, with single staircases.
Different occupancies, i.e. Shops at ground, then residential, offices at top. All occupiers above ground sharing same staircase. We (Fire Service) have suggested sprinklers, but BC have deemed them acceptable without. Mainly due to good compartmentation between uses.
This is all well and good, nice sterile protected staircase, firefighting shaft or corridor, vents etc.
How about in 5 years time, when competition has brought the price of rent down, buildings are managed poorly, doors start getting into disrepair etc. Are we asking for trouble? Or is it ok because it is someone elses responsiblity?
Been to one recently and the 'punter' had installed a lockable door in the FF corridor, meaning that firefighters would go up in the nice ff lift, and be greeted with a nice quality locked door between them and the dry riser. And I have found out that the dry riser is not being maintained. The alarm in not monitored and they have no keyholder nominated. So if the alarm goes off when the concierge is not there (Mon - Fri 9-5) it keeps going off until she gets there on Monday. (So for all intents and purposes they are without a functioning fire alarm as it is being ignored)
It could be fortunate that this has been found, but as more of these buildings go up and the risk appropriate enforcing regime kicks in, would these businesses get visited? (This building is only about 1 year old and only got visited due to a small fire in a shop unit below.)
From my point of view, this is so new that I would expect to see exemplary management of the common areas i.e. 5588 pt 12, as a trade off for not putting sprinklers in, and as acknowledgement of the single stair condition.
I know building control only really deal with the building before it is occupied, but surely it should take into account that they cannot guarantee good management, and therefore err on the side of caution. i.e. Put the damn sprinklers in?
I would like to hear from you 'consultant types' ;) especially, with regards the standard you would expect if you had helped design such a building to be safe without sprinklers.
-
Have I read this right? Buildings of 14 floors and higher with a single staircase? In mixed use?
What happened to the 11m rule for single staircase under building regs approved document B / BS5588?
-
As an 'enforcer', I am becoming increasingly disillusioned (?) by the approach that a number of Building Conrol Bodies are taking, (both Local Authority and Approved). It seems that the 'threat' of the client going elsewhere is colouring their professional judgement. Either collectively we have been getting it very wrong all these years and over prescribing, or they are taking the 20 pieces of silver and looking the other way.
In respect of the case above;
Look at the security arrangements that the different occupancies will want?
Look at the impact on the single firefighting staircase with firefighters going up whilst occupants coming down?
Impact of firefighters setting up on the floor below the fire?
Fire warning strategy...all out or do we leave the domestic residents in their concrete fire proof cells?
Is the staircase suitably sized for full evac?
Tell the BCO or AI formally that you do not believe the client/eventual occupier will be able to comply with the RRO...they must pass this on to the client.
We'll end up in court when Chief Officers stop lining their pockets with massive pay rises and get a backbone to challenge this nonsense.
And I haven't had any claret yet!
-
Val you are absolutely right.
I asked a similar question on a different thread recently when I read that fire curtains were being used as part of the protection to a firefighting lobby in a building with extended travel distances and reduced compartmentation.
What happened to the requirement for a designer to demonstrate compliance with the functional requirement of the building Regs should he choose to adopt an engineered solution? Is it a complete free for all in the big cities?
I have a lot of faith in many approved inspectors, but by the same token have heard an approved inspector being told by a developer that if he did not approve something he would not get the next contract.
It really shows the importance of fire authorities being on the ball when reviewing consultations under building regulations and the need to follow up cases to ensure their recommendations have been incorporated once the building is occupied. If you guys cant do it nobody else can!
-
We are doing a refresher with the FPA and the opinion being given across was that AI's are letting stuff through to please the client & that if a client gets the kickback from BCO they'll just find an AI to give it the OK.
Sadly designers & AI's are letting buildings through with little thought as to the ongoing ownership & fire safety management which in a short time will render their engineering solutions & shortcuts ineffective
-
What we need is for a Fire Authority to take enforcement action on a new building. Clients may think twice about taking short cuts.
-
I have a lot of faith in many approved inspectors, but by the same token have heard an approved inspector being told by a developer that if he did not approve something he would not get the next contract.
I have come across this 'conflict of interest' quite a lot with Approved Inspectors and their larger (bullying) clients.
I can now often recognise when a previously reasonable AI submits plans, which are frankly naive with virtually no chance of success. For instance: my most recent contact with an AI involved a 38m single direction TD within a basement which came up to the rear of a retail outlet, and then had another 20/25m+ (through the shop) to the final exit (L3 AFD and no engineered solution offered).
My usual procedure is that I telephone them to confirm their proposals. They give me a load of corporate nonsense/spin pathetically trying to justify their plans/strategy, before finally admitting that they were prefer that we - the enforcing authorities- would reject the proposals rather than them as it would be 'commercially preferable' to them.
Whilst I sympathise with their commercial pressure and acknowledge that we do not work with those same difficulties, I do get rather fed up with these cases using/wasting my time, whilst the AI earns plenty of cash for doing virtually nothing.
-
Have I read this right? Buildings of 14 floors and higher with a single staircase? In mixed use?
What happened to the 11m rule for single staircase under building regs approved document B / BS5588?
Yes you did hear it right.
Look at the security arrangements that the different occupancies will want?
The offices at the top have a coded lock to get out of the staircase into the corridor. So to set up on the floor below, then go up the staircase, the firefighters need the access codes. Which they didn't have until my visit. Without the visit fighting a fire on the top floor would have had severe difficulties. They would have come out of the ff lift and had to kick a door off its hinges to get at the riser, which was unserviced, then up the staircase to be greeted by another locked door. With it's direction of opening it would be extremely hard to kick/break open.
It would seem that the AI needed some extra knowledge of the use of a firefighting stair, and the occupiers needed to know that they should not alter the ff corridor, and the managing agent should have been aware of the need to service the riser.
Is it AI's loosening standards to be more competitive, i.e. "I will give the client what they want"? And why as a fire authority can we not simply say "no, 2 staircases please!"
-
I am involved in the design of a mixed use building (offices and retail) where the client wants a single staircase. It is 8 floors above ground. Initially I dissuaded the client from using a single staircase. I spoke to the AI involved and he said that he agreed with me. This was some weeks ago. I have come under intense pressure from the client to consider an engineered approach so I have proposed a life safety sprinkler system, L1 detection and one or two other features. Today I met with the AI to discuss my thoughts and was aghast when he said he would accept without sprinkelrs! I suspect the client has been on to him. It concerns me greatly that some AI's are performing more of a consultancy role.
-
It's basic market forces if you do not get what you want you will take your business elsewhere, ask the big developers ! In my opinion no organisation in any field of approval or enforcement for health and safety issues should have a profit incentive in any form !
-
Who in their right mind is going to put their name to a fire risk assessment of these buildings?
When doing a risk assessment in an old converted building I often relate the tale of the visitor to Dublin who asked a passer by for directions to Kilcarney and was told- "well If I was you I wouldn't start out from here". But there can be no excuse for this in a new build.
The Approved Inspector system will get a bad name and it will result in their own demise as action is taken to take control back into government control. And if the fire authorities do not recognise their role in policing building design and provide sufficient qualified staff and resources then I predict they will ultimately be taken out of the equation too.
-
And if the fire authorities do not recognise their role in policing building design and provide sufficient qualified staff and resources then I predict they will ultimately be taken out of the equation too.
To be fair Kurnal, it is not the FRS role to check the work of the Building Control Body, but thankfully they usually do. But I do agree that a lot of FRS seem to be cutting both IOs and training.
I have to agree with Val that what is needed is Chief Officers with the desire and willingness to challenge these muppets in Court.
There is no statutory bar now, if FRS disagree with AI they should tell them so and point out that they may serve an notice under the Fire Safety Order requiring alterations.
-
Would be a nice kick in the teeth for some AI who has lowered standards just to get the work, if we turn up after the fact and enforce the provision of another staircase/sprinklers etc?
-
Great! a turf war between Building Control and the FRS with a RP in the middle trying to keep the business running. The only winners will be the lawyers (again!).
-
Yes but somebody has to do it or the whole system will fall apart.
If a client is dum enough to get Building Regs approval through the back door then he deserves all the grief he gets.
Now would be a good time to stick the boot in.
-
I am pleased to see this subject getting aired in this public domain, it is a problem we all know exists, but you try to get an organisation like CFOA, RICS, RIBA or any other associated body to openly question the ethics of the present system, and they will hide behind their politically correct wall and not rock any boats as they too know which side their bread is buttered.
-
It gets a mention in the SAIC report that was commisioned by DCLG to look at the Future of Building Control
-
Why thank you Phil, and I'm sorry for some of the things I've said in the past.
Believe me, there are FSO's working on their CFO's to bring one of these daft 'solutions' to Court.
-
Thanks for that Wee Brian.
at least it's mentioned in the SAIC report ( I've not seen it before) , but there appears to be a lot of 'political management speak' that doesn't provide a way to stop, the profit incentive culture.
As for vals point the CFO's are in CFOA ( see my previous post) .
-
And if the fire authorities do not recognise their role in policing building design and provide sufficient qualified staff and resources then I predict they will ultimately be taken out of the equation too.
To be fair Kurnal, it is not the FRS role to check the work of the Building Control Body, but thankfully they usually do. But I do agree that a lot of FRS seem to be cutting both IOs and training.
I have to agree with Val that what is needed is Chief Officers with the desire and willingness to challenge these muppets in Court.
There is no statutory bar now, if FRS disagree with AI they should tell them so and point out that they may serve an notice under the Fire Safety Order requiring alterations.
All well and good, but the brigade I was in was very much of the opinion that checking for compliance was the BCO's job not that of the fire safety dept, and the response was to point this out along with mentioning that the Fire safety Order exists. BR jobs were to take no more than 45 minutes on average. If the plans aren't checked as thoroughly, then how will they know which premises may have issues under the FSO?
-
A number of Brigades have the same system in that as quite rightly stated the Functional requirenment of the Building Regs is the remit of the BCO or AI and consultation is just that, it has no standing in law. FSO's undertake consulatation through the FSO but comment through the FRS ACT in accordance with the procedural Manual.
-
I am employed as an AI (Please don't throw anything at me!!) and have to say the situations you are discussing concern me as much as you. Obviously without knowing the specific project details it would be difficult to provide a definitive opinion, but the situation Civvy describes on a single stair does make me extremely nervous. When considering situations like these which are a "new approach" we implement policies and discuss these technical issues in a team scenario (and believe me some of these discussions get quite intense!!) and I have to say it does work well, because we all have different opinions and backgrounds, and it all contributes to forming balanced and well informed decisions, financial implications do not come into it (and I can state that 100% positively).
I have to admit there is no way I would sell my integrity (because that's not in my nature as a person as much as an AI), and I assume a vast majority of AI's are the same (but I suppose you guys get to experience the whole range of AI's), but it will not take long before we all get tarred with the same brush.
I think a careful balance is required, we should not stifle innovation, but it should be based on proven principles especially when you consider that we are discussing fire safety. It is difficult to consider all angles, when looking at an alternative solution, but this is the one area where you need to spend that extra time considering the consequences. This is an area where I always welcomed the Fire Officer's comments, because it was an additional pair of eyes looking from a different perspective that may highlight operational issues not considered elsewhere, and this is why I always value the input at fire consultation stage.
I know the present system will ultimately result in a process where someone is held accountable at all stages (not that will be much comfort for the people in a fire), but I have no doubts that this should improve fire safety, some people have to be made accountable before they start to take notice, unfortunately not all people have basic morals!!
Then I am afraid it is over to you as enforcers, we can only control the building during its construction stage. If a practical and realistic management solution is provided, we cannot foresee that at some point in time someone will occupy the building who is not going to manage that system properly. It would be impossible to create a system that cannot be affected by the irresponsible person.
-
I have been looking at an interesting document from the Department for Communities and Local Government called Building Regulations and Fire Safety Procedural Guidance. This lays out how the system should work. It also sets time scales for replying to requests for consultation. However in the light of this thread paragraph 2.17 is of interest.
"The fire safety enforcing authoritys' comments must clearly distinguish between matters: which may have to be complied with under the Fire Safety Order when the building is occupied. which may have to be complied with to meet other than fire safety legislation other then Building Regulations. which are only advisory and not enforceable under legislation."
The guidance starts with building control and the fire authority seeking to resolve the matter quickly and simply. However then goes on:
"Failing this then the fire safety enforcing authority should set down its concerns and recommendations in a formal written case, which may include details of any enforcement action it may take upon occupation of the building to building control who should retain a copy and ensure that a copy is provided to the applicant."
As a different spin on the debate, what would happen if the building in question goes through the consultation phase without a comment from the fire safety enforcing authority and the fire authority then tries to take enforcement action. Could the occupier argue that the authority has missed its chance or failed in its duty to properly examine the plans?
-
I would suggest not, as in our area the rider is put on that the applicant (R.P.) should carry out there own F.R.A. to comply with the F.S.O, as although usually compliance with the B.R. will mean compliance with the F.S.O., may not always be the case.The onus is on the R.P.
-
Saddlers,
Thank you for your post and I fully accept that some AI's do a fine job and would never dream of passing a fundementally defective building. No one believes you are all bad. I wonder if pressure from your side might have a good effect on BRAC, etc. I feel that we, (FRA's) are all treated like dinosaurs who want to return to presecriptive boxes with a staircase at each end.
Mike
Thanks for the quote...that is what I mean...put it in writing and insist that the AI/BCO informs the client. It doesn't hae to be chapter and verse...just an indication that this or that won't work on occupation.
If we miss something on consultation, it may be embarrassing but not fatal. Prior warning just removes the defence of 'ambush'
-
I agree with Kunal that the FRA will get taken out of the 'loop' that is the intention of government. My experience of Approved Inspectors ( experience, not a sweeping statement) is that the type of person that goes into that role either plays the odds and thinks what is the chance of a fatality coming back to bite me here ( as do the government and CFOA etc.) or couldn't care less, profit over integrity !
As for wee brians comment, I agree, but then political masters will win and pull back from actions under the RRO. In a previous life I challegend a AI, ( on a matter that my views still came to fruition ie on occupation did not work ) and the CFOA member apologised for my impertinence ) for questioning is integrity. I have yet to meet an AI who actually wants to oversee a building project that has a reasonable, achievable fire precautions package. If anybody answers this post and says they are that person , I can guarantee they will not be in post in 12 months, because that is not the remit of AI's they are there to earn a profit !
-
I dont think they should all be painted with the same brush AFD. One of my clients is an AI company and whilst they are quite happy and confident to push the boundaries to an extent- eg within the guidelines of DD9999- they will consult me for my opinion if they think a design may be a step too far.
Another AI company has a former well respected instructor from the fire service college on the board who heads a small department overseeing the fire safety aspects.
-
I think it is another case of how far these boundaries can be pushed sometimes. If the AI's who are pushing the boundaries further are the ones getting the work, then others will soon cotton on to what they need to do to get the work. I can imagine it is a very active and fickle marketplace.
The building in question was a safe building until occupied. 3 door protection to residential areas, dry riser, ventilation, ff shaft & lift etc, L2 alarm. It wasn't until it was occupied and the occupiers started interfering with it and neglecting the risers that it became an issue. But surely this human factor should be taken into account, hence the need for second staircases or sprinklers etc.
Does it comply with the RRO? Possibly, at the moment. It is nice that it has things in place to compensate, but all those things need to be working all the time for the whole strategy to work. A couple of wedged fire doors to the basement car park quickly turns it into a potential nightmare building. (Yes, the shaft goes all the way from car park basement to 12th floor.) The same can be said of any highly engineered shopping complexes, but the management in those tends to be excellent.
IMO, a couple of these buildings probably wouldn't be an issue, but if it becomes a regular occurrence these buildings going up, then each one increases the risk. If theres only a 1 in 1,000,000 daily chance of a fire somehow affecting the staircase, once 100 of these buildings are up it is down to a 1 in 10,000. Over the course of a year, 1 in 27. Keep them up 27 years... Good old statistics!
But if we allow one, then we have no real right to dismiss the next set of similar plans that are submitted.
I think all we can do is hope to catch these buildings before any decline in standards, and possibly take action against anyone who does anything that interferes with the whole strategy that is in place. Good cases for alterations notices?
-
Pip, yes I can see FAs using such a rider but I wonder if legally it is worth the paper it is written on. Can a FA discharge its duty by using a rider like this?
The other side of the issue is the document refers to the "fire safety enforcing authority" which opens the door to removing this aspect from the Fire Service in the same way that AIs can be used instead of BCOs.
-
Pip, yes I can see FAs using such a rider but I wonder if legally it is worth the paper it is written on. Can a FA discharge its duty by using a rider like this?
The other side of the issue is the document refers to the "fire safety enforcing authority" which opens the door to removing this aspect from the Fire Service in the same way that AIs can be used instead of BCOs.
Well,I was under the impression it was a duty to consult,not approve.Approval is the BCO/AI's job.It is the RP's duty to conform.Think about your car's M.O.T.-it has passed a test,but the certificate does not necerssarily meant it is safe/legal to drive!
-
This is where FA's have to carry out their duty, and for a building totally reliant on 'engineered solutions with a need for meticulous management' they should issue an 'alterations' notice under the RRfsO.
-
That is indeed going to be the case in these buildings.
-
But is this not a potential major failure of the Building Act and its enforcement? I see the need for the alterations notice in this case but this will only paper over the cracks. If such a recent building cannot be safely occupied without the need for a notice then in my opinion there should be an investigation into how the design came to be approved in the first place. Is there any mechanism for this to be done under the Building Act?
-
On a risk basis, I can see that if it was left as designed the risk would be reasonably low. We need to ensure it is left as designed. The 'alterations notice' should possibly be made part of the completion certificate. i.e The owners/occupiers should be made aware that they cannot mess about with the facilities from day 1 without any intervention needed from the Fire Authority. Could be made standard for any engineered approach deviating from guidance.
(FWIW, The door they installed also messed up the smoke ventiliation system. You ended up with an air inlet that could not move smoke anywhere as the door was installed between the inlet and the window vent.)
You never know, it might take a disaster and some good old reactive legislation to sort the issue out. (Or a disaster or close call followed by appropriate action against whoever is to blame.)
The new addition to ADB with regards the passing on of fire safety information would have avoided all this, so hopefully in the future this will not happen.
-
Also FWIW...
The building actually used to have 2 staircases, so they went to considerable trouble to get that extra little bit of floor space. But think about it, the staircase being removed could be the difference between creating a studio flat and creating a 2 bed apartment, cost difference... About 30k per flat... 9 floors x 30k... These people will pay alot of money to get staircases taken out if we are allowing it. All you need is a 'friendly' AI.