FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: jasper on March 05, 2008, 01:18:37 PM
-
Hi all, a friend of mine has just purchased a lease on a local pub, the pub holds around 100 occupants and he is in the process of moving in upstairs with his wife, I know that the risk of ignition has reduced now that the smoking ban is in force but does he still need automatic detection? secondly who would be responsible if so? (him or the brewery) as he has just forked out a lot of money for the lease
-
I will be very interested to see the varied views regarding this subject. As a fire authority inspecting officer who has had numerous dealings with a number of different brewery's on this subject these are my thoughts
AFD in the pub area that is down to a fire risk assessment
Is the sleeping accomodation above a private single dwelling if so the fire legislation doesn't apply
Breweries have all sorts of lease agreements which are very complicated to decide who is the responsible person
and I suppose case law will eventually decide.
Majority of the old type pubs the means of escape from the upper floors is through the pub so even though the rooms above may be a single private dwelling I would want detection in the pub, if it can be enforceable thats another question.
Do the Brewery have a moral duty to ensure hat the means of escape is reasonable before they lease the building out... I think so.
Every brewery firm so far we have challenged have done the work requested with little or no fuss but they dont like it. These are my personal views and I would like to see what the experts say. Sorry I have not got all the answers for you.
-
Steve has summarised the issue perfectly - it depends on the terms of the lease and the contractural relationship with the brewery.
The odds are that your pal is "the employer" for the bar staff. In which case he is responsible for their safety. However if he hasnt got control of the premises (IE the lease wont allow him to make alterations) then it all gets a bit complicated. The law requires that the various parties co-operate and all of them could be prosecuted for failing to do so.
Who actually pays for the work is a contractural thing between your pal and the brewery. His solicitor should have explained this to him when he took the lease. (its on a bit of paper somewhere probably).
-
the upstairs used to be used for b&B purposes but now it will be a single family dwelling, the escape route is indeed through the pub downstairs (hence my concern)
-
There are a number of threads already discussing the Relevant Person concept, and any fire starting in the pub can affect the people sleeping above (the Responsible Person is also a Relevant Person) therefore i would expect to find either suitable means of detecting and warning of a fire and a suitably protected means of escape, or good (1hr) fire separation and a separate means of access/egress.
If the accommodation is accessed via the pub, typically the back of the bar, the risk to those above increases dramatically, and there may be a case for prohibiting one or other of the uses (commercial or sleeping), but again we come back to the terms of lease.
One method i use is to find out what happens to the takings. If they go into your pal's bank account and he then pays the brewery, then he may not be an employee, and therefore the upstairs is a domestic premises. If, on the other hand, the money goes into the brewery bank account, and he then draws a wage, he is an employee, and if required to sleep on the premises as part of the lease, then i would consider the RRO to apply upstairs as well.
-
A lot of people seem to be using this term 'single private dwelling' it has absolutely no relevance here.
If the living accommodation is domestic premises which in my opinion it is the order does not apply regardless of whether or not it privately owned or used as a domestic premises for an employee.
Look at the definition of domestic premises it is quite clear, if it is used as a dwelling and no-one shares it, it is domestic and the order does not apply.
Because it is domestic, no requirements can be made within the private area, but the persons in there are relevant persons so the risk assessment of the pub must take them into account.
The only premises that cannot be served with a prohibition notice are premises consisting of or comprised in a house that is occupied as a single private dwelling...that is the only...I repeat ONLY!!!!! time that the term single private dwelling has any relevance. i.e. you cannot prohibit the use of a house used as a single private dwelling.
But the flat, hmo, privately owned private accomodation in any building other than a house...can be prohibited or restricted.
Whether or not detection is required depends on the outcome of the risk assessment. Is there adequate separation between the pub and the domestic premises, does the means of escape from the domestic premises pass through the pub?
-
PhilB you keep repeating yourself on this forum, much to my amusement, and some take no notice. I agree totally with your comments. Through the fire risk assessment you have to take cognisance of relevant people and in this case those in the domestic premises are indeed relevant. What the Rp needs to do about them is dependent on the outcomes of the FRA and whether the RP wants to take note of them or live with the risk that the hazrads may cause. Whatever, it is the RP responsibilty as the Onus in Article 34 is on that defined company, individual etc.
-
PhilB you keep repeating yourself on this forum, much to my amusement, and some take no notice. I agree totally with your comments. Through the fire risk assessment you have to take cognisance of relevant people and in this case those in the domestic premises are indeed relevant. What the Rp needs to do about them is dependent on the outcomes of the FRA and whether the RP wants to take note of them or live with the risk that the hazrads may cause. Whatever, it is the RP responsibilty as the Onus in Article 34 is on that defined company, individual etc.
Thanks Jokar, I think repeating yourself is part of the ageing process...also I often find myself climbing the stairs and then forgetting what I went up for....happy days!
-
Well guys I am glad to see that we agree that who ever lives upstairs are relevent persons and that thier safety must be taken into account and with the smoking ban I would always go for automatic detection involving smoke detectors to at least give early warning and a chance to get moving.
About 7/8 years ago when a FSO we did a risk assessment of all of the premises we had files on based on local knowledge and the contents of the file and guess what came very close to highest risk group "Pub" because many have no afd, e/l and most escape routes were through the bars with no alternate routes. Just to back things up we had 3 serious fires in pubs in less than a year, but people dont take any notice as many are still the same.
Worked recently at two pubs, one had been served with a prohibition notce for amongst other things lack of AFD and fire seperation between the bars on ground and 1st floors and the managers living accomodation on 2nd floor. watch for the prosecution on this one. The other being a pub in a small market town where the stairs to two family flats (owner & Mother in Law) on 1st & 2nd floors was open into the bar, good job there was an alternate route but had no hesitation as a result of the risk assessment in recommending AFD
-
Regardless of what the law says, regardless of RP, Nominated Persons etc etc etc Early Detection makes sense, the more comprehensive, robust and effective system possible. Why because the Risk Data tells us this type of business is prone to FIRE. We have had smoking material discarded by staff after hours? We have had arson attack by angry clients, we have had spontaneous ignition in dry cleaned table linen, we have had numerous electrical fires plus countless chimney and kitchen fires. Pubs have high risk status, sleeping plus Alcohol a deadly combination.
-
A lot of people seem to be using this term 'single private dwelling' it has absolutely no relevance here.
Phil these are absolutely vital definitions and thanks for keeping us on the right track.
By the way I quite like your anorak - its very similar to one of mine ....
....but I often make the mistake of calling mine a kagoule :)
-
About 7/8 years ago when a FSO we did a risk assessment of all of the premises we had files on based on local knowledge and the contents of the file and guess what came very close to highest risk group "Pub" because many have no afd, e/l and most escape routes were through the bars with no alternate routes. Just to back things up we had 3 serious fires in pubs in less than a year, but people dont take any notice as many are still the same.
We did a similar exercise, and it was determined that the property type with the highest liklihood of fire was a licensed premises, and even though the smoking ban will have reduced the risk of ignition a bit, it was found that faults in fridges and having open fires that weren't swept properly were as much of a risk.
-
The Colonel, again I am interested in how a FRS can issue a Prohibition Notice on a premises for FA systems, that is very little to do with means of escape. Enforcement I can understand.
-
The Colonel, again I am interested in how a FRS can issue a Prohibition Notice on a premises for FA systems, that is very little to do with means of escape. Enforcement I can understand.
If the lack of adequate fire warning means that the risk in case of fire is so serious a prohibition notice could be served...why do you think that would be a problem?
-
Joker. The prohibition notice was issued for the following reasons
Lack of staff training
inadequate systems to control occupancy levels
Fire risk assessment not suitable and sufficent
Fire alarm panel in fault
Emergency lighting not working effectivly
Inadequate structural fire ptrotection to second floor sleeping accomodation
Fire exit on 2nd floor not openable without key
AFD not adequte to protect those sleeping on premises
Lack of manual call points on alarm
Exit routes blocked by rubbish.
Quite a good place really, notice has now been lifted but still work in progress. Yes not just alarm but other things as well
In the past I have had problems with lack of alarms or sound levels when in the service and recieved full backing from senior officers when it came down to prohibiting or restricting use of premises.
Just done a risk assessment on a premise with resturant and kitchen on ground floor and B&B on 1st,2nd and 3rd floor and was amazed to find good standard of afd exept for ground floor where there was none. The owners were surpised, just goes to show what they knew, but were even more surprised that I should strongly recommened no sleeping upstairs until the afd was sorted on ground and cellar. They had an enginneer visit that day to get things going.
-
Just done a risk assessment on a premise.
I think you'll find it was a premises Colonel not a premise.....I really must get out more!
-
Just done a risk assessment on a premise.
I think you'll find it was a premises Colonel not a premise.....I really must get out more!
Does that mean that Premises is or are?
Bit of a loose end today I am.
-
on the premise that it is premises are would be nice
-
Phill, dont go out yet, wait till sunday when the wind and rain will give your anorak a good test. Have fun
-
I think you wil find that a prohibition notice can only be served for the escape parts, without quoting in full Article 31. Those other bits perhaps need doing but should not be part of a prohibition notice. The rest may need doing but is just enforcement stuff.
-
I think you wil find that a prohibition notice can only be served for the escape parts, without quoting in full Article 31. Those other bits perhaps need doing but should not be part of a prohibition notice. The rest may need doing but is just enforcement stuff.
Ok anorak on...I'll quote the article for you...
31. —(1) If the enforcing authority is of the opinion that use of premises involves or will involve a risk to relevant persons so serious that use of the premises ought to be prohibited or restricted, the authority may serve on the responsible person or any other person mentioned in article 5(3) a notice (in this Order referred to as "a prohibition notice").
(2) The matters relevant to the assessment by the enforcing authority, for the purposes of paragraph (1), of the risk to relevant persons include anything affecting their escape from the premises in the event of fire.
If relevant persons are not given sufficient early warning this may affect their ability to escpape..so a prohibition notice could be served, unlikely that lack of AFD would be that serious but if it was it's definately ok to prohibit or restrict if necessary.
Quite correct that you would remedy the failures with an enforcement notice but you could also prohibit or restrict the use if the risk was so serious.
-
The FA did subsequently issue what they called a schedule of works covering the above items an example of of one item is;
The structural fire protection, inluding doors, to escape routes from sleeping accomodation on both upper floors may not provide sufficent protection to the escape routes to allow people to escape safeley in the event of fire.
Action required. The protection of internal and external escape routes should be assessed for adequacy as part of the review of your fire risk assessment and relevant parts of the structure must be upgraded where necessary.
The FA end the schedule with this sentance,
An alternative approach to remedying the above deficiencies, which complies with the requirements of the order, will be acceptable to the fire authority.
-
going back to this old topic, my friend is about to be inspected by the fire service in Thursday this week and has done nothing (not even taken up the offer of a free fra)
-
perhaps the Colonel meant he was on a promise.............
personally I would settle for readdies but I haven't seen the owner
davo
-
A building design of a three storey town house already at foundation stage, has a single staircase that dischages into a lounge at first floor level, and into a kitchen/dining room at ground floor, short run of stairs leads to main entrance door. Three plots of the same design, the architects cannot [or will not] change their design, and and the local BCO will not accept the design B1 means of escape, unless the stairs provide a protected route, or the installation of a domestic sprinkler system as a compensatory feature along with a fire risk assessment
detailing how they are proposing to compensate for the open plan arrangement. My question has anyone completed a successful fire strategy risk assessment in similar circumstances to a BCO, if so any chance of a copy, I have seen many reports regarding Requirement BI Determination of BR 200 in similar circumstances that have unfortunately failed. Any comments would be appreciated.
-
No - but I would observe that whereas many designs of this type may be approved - with sprinklers or with fire separation at first floor level and a choice of alternative window exits- often they are rejected and reading through the determinations it appears that success or failure depends more on the attitude of the individual Building Inspector rather than the quality of any fire strategy.
If it gets to determination then its 100-1 that it will fail.
-
Kurnal
thanks for your comments, yes, my thoughts as well, my initial advice was to provide a protected route.
-
A building design of a three storey town house already at foundation stage, has a single staircase that dischages into a lounge at first floor level, and into a kitchen/dining room at ground floor, short run of stairs leads to main entrance door. Three plots of the same design, the architects cannot [or will not] change their design, and and the local BCO will not accept the design B1 means of escape, unless the stairs provide a protected route, or the installation of a domestic sprinkler system as a compensatory feature along with a fire risk assessment
detailing how they are proposing to compensate for the open plan arrangement. My question has anyone completed a successful fire strategy risk assessment in similar circumstances to a BCO, if so any chance of a copy, I have seen many reports regarding Requirement BI Determination of BR 200 in similar circumstances that have unfortunately failed. Any comments would be appreciated.
Tried to search out a very recent post on a determination in respect of an inner bedroom (I think) which went in favour of BC (if I remember rightly). Somebody will be able to pinpoint it.
-
There are many determinations more specific to the case in question. Generally people wanting to convert attic space to bedrooms in back to backs where the stair discharges into the living room. SoS invariably backs the BC body.
The one you refer to is possibly the one where the apartment/flat was also sprinklered, with a fire engineer arguing the case.
-
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/doc/451233.doc
There you are. (The inner-room bedrooms determination.)
-
Thanks nearlythere, I don't want to waste the architects time, It may be cheaper to provide a protected route, however they don't want to change their plans, as been already said it's down to the BCO at the end of the day, I could recommend a full domestic sprinkler system to BS 9251 and a BS 5839-6-2004 fire alarm system with additional coverage for the staircase, but I still believe it may not satisfy the BCO, although the never know until you try. If it goes to a Determination I believe it will fail, I have contacted a firm that installs domestic sprinklers to price the job.
-
a single staircase that dischages into a lounge at first floor level, and into a kitchen/dining room at ground floor, short run of stairs leads to main entrance door.
To be honest, it sounds to me like a particularly bad design with no thought of fire safety being imparted into it. (Followed by "what can we do to get around this pesky regulation rubbish") Following the logic of the Secretary of States determination re: Inner room bedrooms, i.e. You should not have to pass a fire, sprinkler controlled or not, then I can imagine what the answer would be to this if it went to determination with or without sprinklers. Owing to this I would suggest that if the BC body will accept it with sprinklers you/they should take them up on it before they see that determination and change their mind completely.