FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: val on September 20, 2007, 11:38:28 PM
-
I am confused.
ADB in section 5.12 requires that in assembly, shop and commercial buildings, rooms designed for more than 60 should have no locks, other than panic devices, conforming to BS 1125 fitted to escape doors.
This flies in the face of, reluctantly accepted practise in every supermarket up and down the land which have, to some degree, magnetic locks fitted.
Did Anthony Burd really intend to ban these devices?
-
Is it not the case that Approved Documents are just one way of complying with Building Regs, so they cannot really "ban" anything.
-
Chris,
You are right of course but ADB is often thought of of as "just below legislation". It just seems to me that reality on the ground is so far removed from the suggestion in 5.12, I wonder why it was included.
There was no need to be so clear cut, even specifying purpose groups, if there was no expectation that anyone would take any notice.
I personnally don't like EDL's and feel they are always a, sometimes very small, additional risk. They really don't add much to security anyway. (Has anyone published any figures on how many thefts or assults have been prevented by these egress controls?).
No real problem with access controls as long as egress has copper bottom over-ride, e.g. push bar, etc.
Was anyone party to the thought process when ADB decided to include this approach?
-
why not use mag locks that comply with BS 1125. It aint hard.
-
Wee Brian,
??
Do you mean mag locks that deactivate on use of a push bar/pad? Doesn't this rather defeat the object, at least from the supermarkets point of view?
-
Anything else aint allowed - or shouldnt be.....
-
I agree Brian, I'm just trying to get the background, if there is any, as to why anthony Burd took such a strong line.
This approach doesn't tally with the guidance in the government guides for the Fire Safety Order in Appendix B3, which although it sets a number of caveats, does allow them, (or at least doesn't forbid them).
-
I personnally don't like EDL's and feel they are always a, sometimes very small, additional risk. They really don't add much to security anyway.
I think the large supermarket chains would disagree; some only put these locks in areas of high value stock, some on every door. I know of one chain that has a 3 second delay between operating the push bar and the door opening, it apparently gives security staff time to move towards the exit. Another chain requires the person to operate a green break glass after first lifting a flap that is alarmed; again the sounding of the alarm is enough to deter most thieves.
Where the supermarket is open 24hrs it is also common practice to close additional entrances and exits during the quiet periods. This is fine providing emergency exits are available nearby, and for those FSO who carry out Building Regulation Consultations know about this practice.
I would recommend to any FSO that they spend a morning with one of the major retailers risk officers to get an insight into how these premises actually work.
Also, for anybody who has flown to the USA signs on emergency exits in the airports say "On activation of the fire alarm there will be a 30 second delay before the door opens" how many of us would accept that?
-
Didn't manchester nick somebody for this?
I cant immagine the average store detective would be able to do much in 3 secs!
-
I've been to plenty (well known) supermakets that have a policy of delayed opening of fire exits. The push bar looks normal but actually has a delay.
-
Brian,
Manchester defended an appeal against an enforcement notice and won which amounts to much the same thing.
Other posters are right...edl's are everywhere, with or without time delays. I still do not accept that losing a trolley full of cat food makes much dent in the supermarkets profit margin. Most of them have much more problem with their staff. All high value, small items, (and in my areas, big items) are empty boxes or the like.
I was just curious, not about the relative merits of the devices but the unambiguous nature of the entry in ADB. If BRAC really does want BCO's and FRA's to stand up, why didn't they make more of a fuss. Was it really just a case of 'we'll put it in ADB but we know they'll all be fitted anyway'?
-
I still do not accept that losing a trolley full of cat food makes much dent in the supermarkets profit margin.
A trolly full of sirlion steaks, DVDs and single malt scotch can be worth a good few grand. If you can get a few grand per trolly, you'll do it a few times a day. While a Wait***** in Egham might not get this happening much, the A*** in Brixton will.
It is a serious problem for them.
-
Are not staff trained to assist in evacuation? Are not the doors signed to the effect that there is a delay? Do we not allopw covers on BGCP's to discourage false alarms and delay the sounding of the alarm? Do we not allow Time delay on fire alarm systems?
Try it, train it, supervise it manage it. If it works then it may be okay. There is a dleay getting to my final exit everywhere unless I am standing beside it.
-
Chris,
.........
I personnally don't like EDL's and feel they are always a, sometimes very small, additional risk. They really don't add much to security anyway. (Has anyone published any figures on how many thefts or assults have been prevented by these egress controls?).
No real problem with access controls as long as egress has copper bottom over-ride, e.g. push bar, etc. ........
I was recently speaking to the caretaker of a local authority community centre who had added 'mag-locks', releasing on fire alarm only, to fire exit doors because they were being used by thieves to make a quick escape from the building, instead of using the guarded front entrance. Evidently, soon after, a thief was caught in the act of stealing a laptop PC and took off at great speed in the direction of the nearest fire exit and jumped up to kick open the panic push bar. The caretaker said it was the greatest joy of his life to see the thief bounce back and land on the floor in a heap at the caretaker's feet because the maglocks had held the doors closed!
-
When discussing additional devices, especially delaying devices, on doors with push bars it is important to realise why a push bar is fitted in the first place - it is a panic device, it's use resulting from countless deaths in years gone by not from the fire at all but due to crush injuries & asphyxia during evacuation.
Anything altering the function of the doors defeats the anti panic effect and increases the risk of injury or death and where the fire alarm system is vital in maintaining the panic function of the door by releasing, say, a mag-lock, it should be carefully maintained and managed - also what happens if there is a fault in the system or just part? Very few places seem to test the function of mag-lock relays, overrides, etc and only time will tell as to whether we are fussing about nothing or there is a genuine risk.
This isn't a new problem, except in days gone by it wasn't maglocks added but Redlam & Ashworth bolts (break tube release) added to panic exits with a perceived security issue.
-
How many deaths have there been through the failure of mag-locks to release on a fire alarm condition as opposed to where fire doors had been deadlocked or padlocked?
-
not many/any yet - lets wait for somebody to die and worry about it then.
-
Not many/any yet may have to be an acceptable figure in the circumstances, Wee Brian. If we applied your logic to everything I assume we should also ban everything that results in loss of human life and not use the benefit against loss calculation that we presently have to apply to many things; transport, sport, entertainment, wars etc. etc.
Our only other option in respect of these maglock style devices would seem be to let the tresspassers, thieves and peeping-toms free access everywhere, no matter the material cost (and also possible human cost) to society.
If we can't come up with a better solution then surely maglocks and 'not many/any yet ' losses is better than deadlocks and padlocks and lots of losses.
-
No mat youve got it wrong there.
We definately know that locked fire exits kill people. Thats why we dont lock them.
Maglocks are just a more complicated way of doing the same thing.
There are plenty of ways of preventing this sort of behaviour without locking people in. The design of the store can put staff areas (tills etc) adjacent to the exits. We can fit alarms and CCTV to discourage/record badness.
-
We do lock fire exits, we just make them easy to open.
To be fair, and speaking as someone who works with supermarkets, the criminal element don't care if they set off an alarm, or if they are on CCTV.
-
Point taken, but you know what I mean.
If the baddies dont care then they will just go out the front door anyway.
I just can't find a good reason to justify delaying an exit door from opening in a building that's open to the public.
-
In the places where this is a problem there will be visible security on the front doors, it is the 10 or so side and rear fire exits that will be used for the theft.
I think you will find that most large supermarkets in below average areas will have a similar strategy.
-
Wiz,
Our only other option in respect of these maglock style devices would seem be to let the tresspassers, thieves and peeping-toms free access everywhere, no matter the material cost (and also possible human cost) to society.
First and third are kept out with push bar type devices. Mag locks are not need to keep people out!
Chris,
My local supermarket is that desparate to increase their bottom line profits that they nearly always remove the security person and rope off, one of only two main entry/exit doors. This leaves an unholy crush around the single'patrolled' entry/exit door. Often it can take a full minute to actually get out of the door even wheneverybody's being polite.
Of course there are other fire exits, which means that we cannot take enforcement action, but we all know which doors people use in a panic. Their desparation to meet profit targets sometimes leaves me breathless.
I also have a problem with the concept of 'there are lots of bad people about so lets potentially increase the danger for the law abiding majority.' Seems the way with everything these days...if we have a problem, lets reduce the rights of the majority.
I still return to my original question...why put it in ADB and then ignore it?
-
To those who feel that it is possible to stop 'wrongdoers' from using fire exits, when they shouldn't, by some sort of design layout of the premises, should realise that this is probably only partly possible at the building construction design stage, and, even then, there are always constraints that will cause 'weak points' in the design. Also, sometimes a building is eventually used for a purpose other than it was originally designed for and even though the fire exits are in the right places for escape, they are not for secuity purposes. If it was possible to easily 'design out' all the potential security risks in every building, in every case, then surely it would be done. No-one wants to spend the extra money on fitting mag-locks etc., if a similar or better solution was available.
To those who feel that the 'wrongdoers' be given free access/exit on the basis that there is a risk (and it seems that no-one has yet been able to prove the level and liklihood of this risk for an evaluation of whether it is worth taking) of people becoming trapped in a fire due to a failure of the system, I would guess that they have never run a business. Believe it or not, people generally only run businesses to make money! It is how they earn their wages to pay their bills, and feed their families, and also pay their taxes to pay the wages of all those people who are government money funded. Profit is not a four letter word - it pays everyone's wages. Yours and mine. Directly or indirectly.
When a business owner finds that tresspassers, thieves and peeping-toms are costing him money he looks at it as though this money is basically coming from his own pocket. He will obviously be concerned and will need to take steps to protect his livlihood. Or go bust. He won't be helped by anyone if he does go bust through no fault of his own. He also won't have the protection of being able to make a mistake and still get paid (and earn a pension fund) because he hasn't got any 'employment rights' nor does he work for an organisation that doesn't need to make a profit because it 'earns' it's income from taxes.
Surely we can all see that the problem of securing fire exits to avoid their misuse is a very real and big one. Everything we are all suggesting has been tried and found not to be acceptable to one or the other part of the community. Therefore we need to come up with a better solution than those that presently exist.
It would be great if people on this forum could use their combined knowledge, experience and innovative-thinking, to come up with a real solution to this problem together. Any offers?
For my own part, I feel the answer will still involve using the automatically releasing lock scenario, but incorporating enough fail-safes to keep the 'any risk is a too high a risk' advocates happy (even grudgingly! ?)
-
I still return to my original question...why put it in ADB and then ignore it?
Val, there are many parts of ADB that seem to be ignored, its knowing what can be ignored (I prefer the word 'relaxed') and what can’t. What must be complied with are the functional requirements, how that’s done can cause confusion and much debate on these pages and in my office.
Other paragraphs that are ignored (relaxed) include the provision of property sprinklers instead of life, the provision detection instead of protected corridors and the provision of turning facilities (Have you ever tried to walk horses backwards for more than 20 metres!)
-
As far as I am awared, the Functional Requirement of B1 is the responsibilty of Local Building Control Officers or an Approved Inspector when this is applied. The relaxation of this part of B1 is for those individuals to consider as part of the Approval Process. As for enforcers whilst there is no longer any Statutory Bar, the Government Procedural Guidance document makes it clear that they should agree the solutions so that further work will not be required once a building is occupied.
-
As for enforcers whilst there is no longer any Statutory Bar, the Government Procedural Guidance document makes it clear that they should agree the solutions so that further work will not be required once a building is occupied.
That’s the theory anyway, in the last month I’ve visited two premises after the occupiers applied for a licence under the Licensing Act 2003. I believed both premises had been completed as per the submitted plans under Building Regs. However, the licensing drawings showed significant differences in the layout. When I visited the building it was different again with inner inner rooms, no fire warning system plus more. Both have resulted in Enforcement Notices. On contacting the BCO his response was we’ve not carried out any inspections because the occupiers haven’t asked us to and it’s more than 12 months now we can’t do anything. We’re happy for you to sort it out.
I thought I’d agreed a solution and that they would enforce it - Presumably they cashed the cheque.
-
Nice work if you can get it!!!
-
Surely we can all see that the problem of securing fire exits to avoid their misuse is a very real and big one. Everything we are all suggesting has been tried and found not to be acceptable to one or the other part of the community. Therefore we need to come up with a better solution than those that presently exist.
It would be great if people on this forum could use their combined knowledge, experience and innovative-thinking, to come up with a real solution to this problem together. Any offers?
If it doesn't happen here it won't happen at all. I don't think there is a fire forum anywhere else on the web that has such regular submissions from all sides of the fire sector.
The dilemma of safety vs. security in residential care homes has been resolved through technical developments in door hardware - and I'm sure the same can be achieved for supermarkets - it's head down time.
.... but not for me - I'm retiring on Friday so good luck with it
-
Fred
Very best wishes on your retirement - keep in touch with the forum though.
And if you would like a chat about life on the other side of the fence would be happy to hear from you anytime.
-
Fred,
Best wishes on your retirement and for whatever new career you have in front of you, even if it is just with your feet up.
-
Surely we can all see that the problem of securing fire exits to avoid their misuse is a very real and big one. Everything we are all suggesting has been tried and found not to be acceptable to one or the other part of the community. Therefore we need to come up with a better solution than those that presently exist.
It would be great if people on this forum could use their combined knowledge, experience and innovative-thinking, to come up with a real solution to this problem together. Any offers?
If it doesn't happen here it won't happen at all. I don't think there is a fire forum anywhere else on the web that has such regular submissions from all sides of the fire sector.
The dilemma of safety vs. security in residential care homes has been resolved through technical developments in door hardware - and I'm sure the same can be achieved for supermarkets - it's head down time.
.... but not for me - I'm retiring on Friday so good luck with it
Yep. Best wishes and may you spend your retirement wisely.
-
In answer to Vals original query, I know we are all aware of the risk of panic in these places but if there havn't been any headline grabbing disasters in the last few years to focus our attention on this as a particular risk it will probably be down to it being a hobby horse of one member of the advisory committee.
I look at it in an opposite way- just because it is specifically mentioned doesnt necessarily mean it is so important as to be cast in stone- because conversely there is much that is not well covered in the ADB - but this does not mean it is unimportant.
In any case as soon as the building is occupied it is down to risk assessment and the alternative benchmark standard of the fire safety guides.