FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: boroboy on April 30, 2008, 09:52:59 AM
-
Anyone out there got any ideas how to solve an access problem? I have a client with a narrow piece of land and a proposed development which has an access road of approx 35m in length. Part B requires a turning circle so that fire appliances do not have to reverse more than 20m. It does not seem possible to put in a turning circle. The client does not own the land on one side and the other side is the proposed development. Any ideas out there?
-
Depends whats being built.
A turning circle becomes important when there are lots of appliances (assuming the FRS hasnt sold them all)
If its just a house then it really doesnt matter, if it's a factory then it will.
If an FRS driver can't reverse a vehicle 35m then he shouldn't be driving.
-
The 20 metre distance came from the fact that a horse would not back up more than that distance so it is a quite arbitary figure. You should be able to risk assess that away.
-
Go and have a word with the local Fire And Rescue Service, see what they think after all they are the ones who have to use it.
-
If it can't be resolved, you may want to consider sprinklers as compensation (the appliance doesn't have to get/out as far or as quick)
-
Its a block of home/work units. I agree about the driving more than 20m, however Part B says different. I'm making an appointment to see the local F&RS. By the way as a former appliance driver myself, I could'nt agree more!
-
PS. Yes I had considered sprinklers as well.
-
Sledgehammer and nut. AD B is just guidance.
-
Rather than a complete turning circle, is it possible to provide a short arm off the road before the dead end that an appliance could go past, reverse into and drive forward and out - ie give it room to do a three-point turn?
-
Or maybe a passing space. so the ambulance can get in/out?
-
If it can't be resolved, you may want to consider sprinklers as compensation (the appliance doesn't have to get/out as far or as quick)
I'm very sorry but I just cannot believe that some people are asking for a sprinkler system to be considered as an alternative because a driver cannot reverse an appliance an additional 15M. The main purpose of a Fire Appliance is to get to the scene as quickly as possible and deal with an incident. When the emergency is over they will have plenty of time to reverse the appliance back onto the main road.
Sometimes I wonder what is on some people's Xmas pressy wish list.
-
The 20 metre distance came from the fact that a horse would not back up more than that distance so it is a quite arbitary figure. You should be able to risk assess that away.
Many people, probably much more qualified to make these decisions than you or I, contributed to the 2006 ADB. Why did they choose to keep the turning circle in if it is not actually required or helpful and it can be just simply be 'risk assessed away'?
I dislike the idea of simply risk assessing something away. If the process of risk assessment proves that something is not required then that is fair enough. But to intend to get rid of something that would generally be required just by being a bit of a smart arse with a few excuses and a bit of 'management' on paper, (That is not directed at anyone in particular, just a generalisation) is not a good solution in my eyes.
Wee Brians and John Webbs suggestions seem much more in keeping with meeting the functional requirements.
-
Many people, probably much more qualified to make these decisions than you or I, contributed to the 2006 ADB. Why did they choose to keep the turning circle in if it is not actually required or helpful and it can be just simply be 'risk assessed away'?
Civvy do you think its required, Jokar is most probably right, it would not surprise me.
-
Thanks for all your comments guys. I was aware of the reason 20m was the figure and it is obviously a little ridiculous in this day and age. I had also thought of the options mentioned thank you. It is not possible to put in any sort of additional slip/road/way as the site is VERY narrow. I might have to persuade the Architect to lose a few parking spaces.
-
I feel that the guidance suggests 20m, the distance here is 75% over that, the removal of it should be subject to more justification than simply "risk assess it away".
http://www.e-lindsey.gov.uk/environment/planning/building-control/building-control-guides/upload/037%20Fire%20Appliance%20Access.pdf
-
Thanks for all your comments guys. I was aware of the reason 20m was the figure and it is obviously a little ridiculous in this day and age. I had also thought of the options mentioned thank you. It is not possible to put in any sort of additional slip/road/way as the site is VERY narrow. I might have to persuade the Architect to lose a few parking spaces.
As I suspected: There possibly is space there to acheive it, it is just that the space would be more profitable to be used as parking. Don't get me wrong, the financial aspect is a strong one, but it is a far cry from something being impossible.
It is an easy one to get excited about, especially when it is taken in context with "reversing a horse". But it really all boils down to where you set your limits. 20m is quite specific in the document, and as I said before, it is a recent document. Is 35m ok? That is almost twice the suggested distance.... Is 50m ok? Is 100m ok?
Would the appliance be reversing out onto a busy main road? If not then my personal limit may be extended slightly. Then again, you make a hammerhead near houses and it will probably get used as parking anyway. Each problem should be looked at on it's own merits.
-
What is the point of having a guidance book if we're just going to chuck it away? Adherance to the standard generally means that all aspects of the building are as reasonably safe as can be expected. Dropping below the standard means that the level of safety drops unless there is some other compensating feature.
Who knows where the 20m (60 feet) rule for reversing came from, maybe it was to do with horses, maybe not. What is certain is that there are many numbers in ADB that appear to have arbitrary origins but that have persisted into todays publication because they have stood the test of time.
Consider the following:
I have known one fire-fighter in my FRS who was killed whilst watching a fire appliance reversing.
I have heard of a similar incident in another FRS. I guess there are others I haven't heard of.
Appliances rarely attend even house fires on their own so there are likely to be multiple appliances in attendance. The problem of reversing long distances compounds with each additional vehicle attending.
There is not an endless supply of fire appliances in any given area. Appliances need to make themselves available as soon as possible after an incident. With a multiple attendance and restricted access we could have all the appliances on site trapped by the last vehicle to arrive.
This problem has raised its head many times before and there are answers that satisfy all parties. Consider things like:
A turning area some way along the route.
Utilising to the maximum the allowable 45m to all parts of the building when assessing where the appliances have to get to.
Talk nicely to the FRS and see if they'll bring an appliance to the site to assess access.
Residential/domestic sprinklers.
Please don't just throw away the standards we have, remember we're talking about people's safety.
Stu