FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Bill G on October 15, 2007, 03:31:16 PM
-
Who does the calculation and does it go on the premises licence - the FA or the RP ?
-
The RP
The premises licence can limit the occupancy but not in relation to fire safety.
-
The answer to the question must be the Licensing Authority, it maybe the Fire Service
-
In the past licensing could do calculations and impose all sorts of various requirements ( a common one in one LA's area was to insist on weekly logged EL tests as oppose to the traditional monthly) My understanding was that now it has nothing to do with licensing where purely related to fire safety as the current licensing laws restrict requirements to 'compliance with the RRO' which means it's up to the RP.
The Fire Service would only get involved after an incident, complaint or as part of a risk based inspection programme.
Of course capacity calculations can be relevant to general safety as well as fire situations so there may be a way there for LAs to place restrictions after doing calculations.
-
If it's a term of the licence it's the licensing authority.
-
The principle behind the FSO in this area is :- if the matter can be dealt with under the FSO then no condition can be attached to a license. This is the case with the Licensing Act, Care standards, ofsted and mostly the Housing Act. (There is scope for confusion I admit).
In the case of numbers for an 'alcohol' license, the RP should calculate the safe occupancy, (which may vary depending on staffing, nmber of exits available, number of floors in use, etc. The Licensing Authority has no powers to set ANY conditions, (apart from a few transitional/grandfather rights). All they can do is accept what the RP/applicant offers them unless one of the 'safety bodies' such as HSE, police or FA, request a condition be attached to a license. The FA do not do this very often because they can control all fire safety matters through the FSO.
This only works, of course, if the FA has the inspectors to check up on the licensed premises or the LA inspectors pass complaints back to them.
Wee B is right.
-
Who does the calculation and does it go on the premises licence - the FA or the RP ?
The RP does the calculation through the FRA and no it doesn’t go on the licence.
Most licensing applications from licensing solicitors have the minimum possible within the licensing objectives. When I asked why they don’t put more information in I was told that it may end up as a condition of the licence.
Subsequently if they wished to change anything they would have to vary the licence which would cost money.
Val, I agree that the principle behind the FSO in this area is: - if the matter can be dealt with under the FSO then no condition can be attached to a licence. But licensing committees are becoming under increasing pressure to impose conditions, mainly from the police who then in turn try to use the fire service to enforce.
At a recent licensing hearing I was requested to read out my notification of deficiencies to the hearing who then refused the licence because of it. I thought I was dealing with it under my own legislation.
-
Are we saying that a licensing authority may not include conditions as to occupancy when for reasons other than fire safety?!
-
No mate
The licensing authority can make whatever conditions it sees fit (within reason). except in relation to fire safety.
-
Just as I understood, Wee B. I was concerned that this might have been an interpretation from some of the earlier responses.
On the wider issue, there does seem to be a potential problem here with RPs getting it wrong and FRAs not being involved in calculations or attending prior to the incident - but that's the RRO for you I suppose.
-
Not really - Licensed prems are high on the list for auditing so its gonna get checked at some stage. Existing prems already know what their limits are and new ones will do the sums for building regs.
-
Many thanks for the comments so far - Ken Taylor comment is preciously the one that is now causing us a problem - From a day to day enforcement of licensed premises we have worked in partnership with the Police and Environmental Health and they have tipped us off to problems etc. They it would appear now have no quantification of an occupancy figure to rely upon when they inspect. It is not on the licence and they have resorted to a rule of thumb approach. We have had cases where they have determined the occupancy on the number of stewards i.e. 75 people per steward -if you have 4 doormen then you can have 300 people on the premises – even if the public safety occupancy is, say 150 . Can we rely on the RP to calculate the occupancy (would they know how to !).It does appear we are slowly going down a slippery slop where overcrowding and the problem associated could come back to haunt us in future.
-
The EHO needs to get his act together. They have been hiding behind FPOs for too long.
-
Unfortunately, while people are getting their act together (or posibly not) the lives of occupants may be at risk from the consequences of overcrowding - and not just in terms of fire safety.
What is the situation now with regard to occasional licensable events, Temporary Events Notices, etc in this respect?
-
All the same - the law is simple now. The job is just as hard mind you.
-
Yes, but are they being inspected/audited by the FRS? Some will be in premises not previously licensed so the RP will not be aware of a FRS imposed occupancy level. Presumaby EHOs aren't quoting such levels - so it's down to the RP again in relation to levels for fire safety, public order, adequate room for whatever's taking place, sufficient air-change, etc. Just doesn't give me a lot of confidence when there's no early professional direction.
-
Ken,
The fire service isn't even informed about temporary event notices. I acknowledge your concerns but it really is an inevitable step along the road of self compliance. The RP REALLY is now responsible for the risk and although occupancy figures can be a bit tricky they must, one way or another, calculate how many people it is safe to have in their premises.
WB
I understood that LA cannot set conditions themselves, only police those that are offered by the RP or demanded by one of the responsible bodies, eg. the police fire authority, HSE or an interested party. If these conditions are accepted by the licensee (RP) or imposed on the premises license by the Licensing Committee then they become mandatory.
-
As I suspected with regard to the temporary events, Val.
So you are saying that the Licensing Committee may only set licensing conditions with regard to occupancy if demanded by certain others and not as proposed by the EHO. Isn't part of the need for licensing to ensure that events are carried out and premises conducted in accordance with conditions considered by the licensor as being necessary? Others here seem to be of a slightly different opinion - so this seems to be another uncertain aspect of RRO that needs clarification.
-
Ken,
I think so. If the HSE want to set occupancy figures for, say overcrowding reasons then they can.
But for the Fire Service to demand a maximum occupancy on a license would be pointless because Articles 42 and 43 of the RRO would then make these conditions of a license unenforceable. So we would be imposing a condition on a license which is not enforceable by the Licensing Authority. I think this is effectively ultra vires.
One of the licensing conditions, indeed the only one that is of real concern to the Fire Service, is public safety and it is for the RP to demonstrate that they have achieved this. If they offer a maximum occupancy figure, and many will not, then that is how they can demonstrate compliance. If the Fire Service thinks it is wrong, (too high) they can take action under the RRO or exceptionally by asking for a review of the License.
Simple!!
-
- but what prevents the EHO or other relevant local authority officer from proposing an occupancy figure to the licensing committee and them accepting it?
-
The only normal reason for setting a maximum occupancy figure is for fire safety purposes, (except for the HSE approach above). Therefore, if say an EHO prescribed an occupancy figure, the license holder would be able to argue that this should be dealt with under the RRO and couldn't form part of the license conditions.
Catch 22.
Not saying I particularly like any of this...just my interpretation of the law
-
Toilet provision was always a consideration for PELs under the old regime and this was the remit of the EHO.
-
Toilets, crowd safety, ventilation, noise etc etc etc. There's a whole bunch of reasons why the Licensing Authority could impose a condition.
I expect it depends where you are as to the expertise of the Licensing Officers.
Fire safety isn't always the limiting factor.
-
WB, I'm not sure we're discusing the same point but guidance issued under Section 182 of the Licensing Act says;
WHERE NO REPRESENTATIONS
ARE MADE
9.2 A hearing is not required where an application
has been lawfully made and no responsible
authority or interested party has made a
representation. In these cases, the licensing
authority must grant the application in the
terms sought, subject only to conditions which
are consistent with the operating schedule
and relevant mandatory conditions in the Act.
IMPOSED CONDITIONS
10.11 The licensing authority may not impose any
conditions unless its discretion has been
engaged following receipt of relevant
representations and it has been satisfied at a
hearing of the necessity to impose conditions.
It may then only impose conditions that are
necessary to promote one or more of the four
licensing objectives.
10.12 It is perfectly possible that in certain cases,
because the test is one of necessity, where
there are other legislative provisions which are
relevant and must be observed by the
applicant, no additional conditions at all are
needed to promote the licensing objectives.
Therefore the LA itself acts more of a gatekeeper and imposes conditions on an operating schedule only on recieipt of representations from responsible authorities. (Some of these may, of course be in the next office, e.g. EHO's and noise)
-
That's how I understood it, Val and, having served (some years ago) in an EH Dept considered an EHO to be an official representative of a responsible authority who could make the necessary representations.
I must admit to having endeavoured to consider fire safety as well as other guidance relating to occupancy (including public order) and applied whichever were the more demanding standards . This approach was also taken for numerous events held in the local authority's premises whenever the activity was not licensable but required permission to take place. I wonder to what extent such events are being addressed in that way now - particularly if FRSs are not being informed or, perhaps, are not able to respond by taking the view that it's simply down to the RP and the local authority are taking a similar approach?
I recognise the RRO intention to establish a clear responsibility upon RPs but, when it comes to public events, in my experience, you are often dealing with well-meaning amateurs, political activists, local residents, evangelists, actors, youth leaders, etc, etc with little, if any, technical knowledge of fire and other aspects of health and safety and who are quite taken up with the content of the event rather than its potential consequences. I've spent many an 'opening night' arranging chairs and getting them tied together, sending people off to get fire extinguishers and telling them where to put them, getting electric and other cables re-routed, etc, etc. This may well 'go against the grain' of today's thinking but somehow the thought of what might happen otherwise was of greater concern. I know they ought to go and get guidance from competent persons but will they? and, if not, laying the blame at their door will do little for the injured or families of the dead.