FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: boroboy on April 01, 2009, 06:27:57 PM
-
I am currently dealing with a premises which is a Grade II listed small public house (ground floor only). The plan is to turn it into a wine bar/restaurant. It has 2 exits both within 45 degrees, travel distance is 14 m max. One exit is a small inward opening door and the other although almost 1.5m wide has access very, very close to it via a narrow opening close to the door. The floor areas will permit 150+ persons. The only risk is a kitchen which is at the back of the premises remote from the exits. It has an L2 AFD. The licensing authorities have restricted it to 60 persons max. I have been asked to find a solution to increase the numbers. The fire authorities has suggested that they are not likley to permit much of an increase. I've considered all the usual solutions, suppression in the kitchen, increased FR, better management. I've looked at 9999 and even that really doesn't suggest any possible solution. Any one got any better ideas? I could be struggling with this. I dont really sees sprinklers as an option not least of which is the cost.
-
One exit is a small inward opening door and the other although almost 1.5m wide has access very, very close to it via a narrow opening close to the door.
Hi Boroboy
Clarify the above quote please?
You say that the LA have restricted the numbers to 60. They are presumably using a CoP or guidance for this. Do you know what guidance?
Your travel distance of 14M would suggest a direct distance of around 9M-10M. What occupancy factor do you base 150 + persons on?
-
Have alook at BS 5588 part 11 and the small premises guidance. I am sure it states that you can have 100 persons in a ground floor space. It is repeated in the 2007 version of ADB but it is more easily read in the BS. Be quick though the 5588 series goes on 6 April.
-
Cant quite picture the layout boroboy. If you would like to email a scribbled sketch I will be happy to take a look.
-
The licensing authority cannot put an occupancy on the building apart from very special circumstances regarding public safety, it is a matter for the fire risk assessment.
The 60 is standard for anywhere with a single exit.
The chances are that you are going to need 2 x 1050mm exits, reasonably separated & both outward opening, to satisfy the Fire Authority.
Jokar, 5588 part 11 restricts the occupancy to 30. And as I am sure you are aware it has been replaced by BS9999 officially now.
From BS5588 part 11:
c) The planned seated accommodation or the assessed standing accommodation (see Table 2) for small
premises comprising a bar or restaurant should not exceed 30 persons per storey.
-
The licensing authority cannot put an occupancy on the building apart from very special circumstances regarding public safety, it is a matter for the fire risk assessment.
The 60 is standard for anywhere with a single exit.
The chances are that you are going to need 2 x 1050mm exits, reasonably separated & both outward opening, to satisfy the Fire Authority.
Jokar, 5588 part 11 restricts the occupancy to 30. And as I am sure you are aware it has been replaced by BS9999 officially now.
From BS5588 part 11:
c) The planned seated accommodation or the assessed standing accommodation (see Table 2) for small
premises comprising a bar or restaurant should not exceed 30 persons per storey.
Civvy if we are going to code hug and quote sections of guides should we not quote the full paragraph?
"c) The planned seated accommodation or the assessed standing accommodation (see Table 2) for small
premises comprising a bar or restaurant should not exceed 30 persons per storey. This figure may be
increased to 100 persons for the ground storey if that storey has an independent final exit."
Part 11 allowed the number to be increased to 100 for the gound storey in bars and restaurants and the same paragraph is now in ADB 3.33 Note 2.
I do agree that it is not for the licensing authority to set numbers but It worries me when you say that we must meet prescriptive standards to satisfy the fire authority.
If the risk assessment can justify and increase beyond a guide then surely that increase is acceptable. Should other factors such as fire load, ceiling height etc. etc. not also be taken into account?
-
Apologies for that, kinda found the part I was looking for then simply stopped reading. :-[
All those other factors should be taken into account, and like I said (in agreement with your comments really) the occupancy is a matter for the risk assessment. But the chances are that the Fire Authority involved will be looking at the somewhere around the 60 persons mentioned in the CLG guidance or ADB. In hindsight, now I have been corrected, it will clearly be worth mentioning the small premises guidance in any further discussions with them.
-
I disagree Civvy
60 people is the max allowable on an inward opening door. If it opens outwards you look at the available exit width.
Anyway did I read you correctly is there a pinch point before you reach that 1500mmm door ????
A 1500 mm door will give you a capacity of approx 300 persons. Also look at floor space ( you wouldnt expect 300 in the restaurant of that size) which has been worked out at 150 people.
The partons are well within permissiable single direction of escape, the floor space and exits widths will take the required capacity, an L2 alarm.
So why on earth has the restaurant been limited to 60 persons?. (unless there is a pinch point which reduces the available width of escape before you hit the final exit door)
-
I disagree Civvy
60 people is the max allowable on an inward opening door. If it opens outwards you look at the available exit width.
Anyway did I read you correctly is there a pinch point before you reach that 1500mmm door ????
A 1500 mm door will give you a capacity of approx 300 persons. Also look at floor space ( you wouldnt expect 300 in the restaurant of that size) which has been worked out at 150 people.
The partons are well within permissiable single direction of escape, the floor space and exits widths will take the required capacity, an L2 alarm.
So why on earth has the restaurant been limited to 60 persons?. (unless there is a pinch point which reduces the available width of escape before you hit the final exit door)
I think you are going to get told off MR for using "allowable" when using a guide of recommendations, you old code hugger you.
As a matter of interest let me ask you this? If there were two inward opening escape doors of 800mm at either end of a room and each door was within 18M travel distaqnce from any point, would you consider 120 persons an acceptable occupancy figure?
-
PhilB,
Thanks, you saved me writing more.
-
I disagree Civvy
60 people is the max allowable on an inward opening door. If it opens outwards you look at the available exit width.
I disagree with you for once Mr Retty.
ADB also disagrees, check para 3.5 and also table 3
CLG guidance also disagrees, check page 60 of small & medium places of assembly guide.
BS9999 disagrees, see table 11
-
As a matter of interest let me ask you this? If there were two inward opening escape doors of 800mm at either end of a room and each door was within 18M travel distaqnce from any point, would you consider 120 persons an acceptable occupancy figure?
Would you NT? I would not. You are suggesting you have the equivalent of two rooms each with a single inward opening exit each with a limit of 60 persons BUT in a fire situation a fire in a single room would not create a threat to more than 60 persons simultaneously. In your example 120 persons would be affected.
On the other hand I did once justify a limit of 200 persons in a public room with a single exit of 1200mm outward opening doors. Special circumstances, ground floor, and the doors were so positioned that there was no concievable event, inside or outside the building that could pose a threat to its availability. Thats why I was interested in seeing a sketch of the layout.
-
As a matter of interest let me ask you this? If there were two inward opening escape doors of 800mm at either end of a room and each door was within 18M travel distaqnce from any point, would you consider 120 persons an acceptable occupancy figure?
Would you NT? I would not. You are suggesting you have the equivalent of two rooms each with a single inward opening exit each with a limit of 60 persons BUT in a fire situation a fire in a single room would not create a threat to more than 60 persons simultaneously. In your example 120 persons would be affected.
On the other hand I did once justify a limit of 200 persons in a public room with a single exit of 1200mm outward opening doors. Special circumstances, ground floor, and the doors were so positioned that there was no concievable event, inside or outside the building that could pose a threat to its availability. Thats why I was interested in seeing a sketch of the layout.
But in a single room situation with 60 persons we are tolerating the level of risk and that the 60 can evacuate quickly through the single exit. If 60 persons used one of the exits and 60 persons used the other, which we are assuming would happen anyway, where is the issue?
If confronted with this suggestion by a client what would be your reason for not accepting it?
-
But in a single room situation with 60 persons we are tolerating the level of risk and that the 60 can evacuate quickly through the single exit. If 60 persons used one of the exits and 60 persons used the other, which we are assuming would happen anyway, where is the issue?
If confronted with this suggestion by a client what would be your reason for not accepting it?
[/quote]
Cuz if 1 exit is restricted by fire you only have the 1 - which could be the inward opening 1 - which then you get limited to 60 pers max...
As K says hard to scope without seeing it, but seems so small that not much could be done to improve, may be 1 new larger exit to replace others (size & UoEW to reflect floor area/numbers of pers), central, easy unrestricted access/egress then could allow max numbers...
-
But in a single room situation with 60 persons we are tolerating the level of risk and that the 60 can evacuate quickly through the single exit. If 60 persons used one of the exits and 60 persons used the other, which we are assuming would happen anyway, where is the issue?
If confronted with this suggestion by a client what would be your reason for not accepting it?
Cuz if 1 exit is restricted by fire you only have the 1 - which could be the inward opening 1 - which then you get limited to 60 pers max...
As K says hard to scope without seeing it, but seems so small that not much could be done to improve, may be 1 new larger exit to replace others (size & UoEW to reflect floor area/numbers of pers), central, easy unrestricted access/egress then could allow max numbers...
[/quote]
But Mr P, we, or they, are allowing 60 persons to be served by one exit only and as such are making the assumption that that only exit will not be affected by a fire.
-
Precisely NT. And if the chip frying range was adjacent to that only door we may feel uneasy about 6 persons never mind 60 being in there.
-
Nearlythere, yes of course, but one exit, inwardly opening limits to 60 (or even 30) anywhich way by our good reference books. But if there is a level of AFD, the room is small enough to be easily managed, as K said, early exit would be possible. Most [lot's] accomodations [offices, flats et al] have only one exit from them, at least initially, so there is ALWAYS a Chance that someone could get trapped, but that's the whole perculation of RA for you (us I mean, not U personally NT).
-
Precisely NT. And if the chip frying range was adjacent to that only door we may feel uneasy about 6 persons never mind 60 being in there.
So if the 1/2hrfr enclosed kitchen was at the opposite end from the inward opening 800mm exit door and there were no significent fire hazards in the public area then maybe 100 persons using a 800mm inward opening door could be assessed as an acceptable means of escape.
From the point of view of a risk assessment what could go wrong?
-
In a premises as small as described there probably will be very little benefit in AFD. Having the only real risk enclosed in FR with a HD in place would be a clear benefit though.
Regarding the placement of the risk relative to the door in question, the fire doesn't have to be by the exit to cause a problem. The station nightclub fire is an example of what can happen when too many people want to use the same exit, (granted, there were other big issues with the place regarding using pyrotechnics inside, surface coverings etc) and it could easily have been of such a layout regarding fire loading etc that there was no chance of losing the main door whatsoever. The main entrance/exit wasn't taken out by fire, it was taken out by the number of people trying to use it and the urgency that will have been evident.
It is an extreme example I know, but it shows why there needs to be a good thought process behind any decisions that are made. You need to be able to qualify that people will remain calm, and won't be threatened by fire at all. The reason for the door widths and the theoretical 2.5 minutes is not just related to the time it takes the national anthem, it is to keep a reasonable flow rate through the door that people are happy to move at without feeling like they are being put at risk. (i.e. If you are trying to escape, and you join a queue that doesn't seem to be moving, that is when the pushing and shoving starts)
Forgive me for giving an extreme example. I am not saying that we should stick rigidly to the 60, but things are sometimes not quite as simple as they seem, but a good risk assessor could account for these details, as seems to be happening here.
-
Good points Civvy but as you acknowledge to compare a small restaurant with the Station Fire would be extreme for many reasons some you have pointed out.
If there were two exits in this small restaurant and one was not available for some reason you would still have 100 persons queuing up to use the other to get out in 2.5 minutes. Would it take that long to evacuate such a small room?Would 3 or 4 minutes be enough time?
Again what would go wrong in this small restaurant with the kitchen enclosed to 1/2hr and no significent fire risks in public area.
Is this not what Risk Assessing is about?
-
It is indeed.
I think 4 minutes will seem like a long time to anybody stood waiting in a queue to leave a building with a fire in it, which is where we come to the flow rate through the exit, and the psychological effect that waiting in that queue will have on people. If you can ensure that they are not threatened by fire, even psychologically, then you have a good case,
-
Civvy to firstly answer your response.
Page 60 of the CLG guide is referring to the fact that a room without its own means of escape directly to fresh air which is expected to hold 60 people should have two doors leading from it onto an escape route.
NT to answer your question you cant have a restaurant with two inward opening doors holding 120 people because you can't expect 60 folks to use one door and the other 60 to use the other. What if a fire takes out one exit? you'd be left with just one inward opening door.
Back to the scenario given by the original poster... we have one outward opening 1500mm final exit door directly from the public (licensed) area. I still can not see why, when the kitchen is remote from the means of escape, the licensing authority have limited it to 60 people. Would need to see a plan, but based on the info given Im confuddled !
-
Page 60 of the CLG guide is referring to the fact that a room without its own means of escape directly to fresh air which is expected to hold 60 people should have two doors leading from it onto an escape route.
It says "At least two exits should be provided if a room/area is to be occupied by more than 60
persons. This number of 60 can be varied in proportion to the risk" which I think is quite clear in it's meaning. We are talking about a room/area that is wanted to be occupied by more than 60 persons.
What if a fire takes out one exit? you'd be left with just one inward opening door.......
......we have one outward opening 1500mm final exit door directly from the public (licensed) area. I still can not see why, when the kitchen is remote from the means of escape, the licensing authority have limited it to 60 people.
Can you see the contradiction here? In NT's theoretical example in the same building you discounted an exit due to fire, yet with the single exit you don't. If you are going to say that a fire is capable of taking out one exit, then the very same premises with only one exit to start with is not very safe at all.
-
Hi Civvy
Whoops! I didn't read Nearlythere scenario properly. He only mentions one door rather than two. But even still regardless of it's width it is inward opening so automatically limits the occupancy to 60 persons anyway (crush factors).
It is totally different to the original poster's scenario where there is a 1500mm outward opening door leading directly to fresh air from the licensed area. All punters can hit that exit within single direction travel distance. Why would we require two exits? And unless there is a pinch point somewhere before you hit that final exit door then I'm not sure why the licensing authorities have limited it to 60.
The paragraph given on page 60 of the CLG guide is carried over (if memory serves me right) from the FPA / Workplace regs whereby you could have a large function room off a corridor say which holds 60 or more people. Generally most doors will open inward into the room (otherwise you would clout someone in the corridor with the door if it opened outwards). Therefore you have two doors accessing the room.
-
FPA you say?... From the blue guide... :)
More than one exit will be required in the following situations:-
(a) if a room is to be occupied by more than 60 persons
-
Yes indeed Civvy ;)
Talk about a dog with a bone ;D
Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree on this one chummy! :P
-
:-X
-
:'(
-
It is totally different to the original poster's scenario where there is a 1500mm outward opening door leading directly to fresh air from the licensed area.
MR. Can't see where the original poster said that the 1500 door was outward opening. Anyway, the issue I was trying to get draw debate on was in relation to 60+ persons and a single exit, even inward opening.
Would the panel agree that in this situation the occupancy could be increased to 100 based on a FRA rather than generic guidance? Obviously the EA has found it difficult to tear itself away from the "no more than 60 in a single exit situation, regardless of anything approach".
-
As i said above based on no other information being available if we have a 1.5 metre outward opening door then I would not be concerned. I do not, on a risk assessment basis, see the need to provide two exits.
If the door is inward opening then it should be limited to 60 IMHO
-
I think that if you can show that you can empty the premises just as quick, and with the same level of risk to occupants as you could with 60 through one door, while avoiding the risk of more than 60 persons going towards an inward opening door then you would have a good case.
-
If the door opened outwards not a problem!
-
Bear in mind also that persons in a restaurant are in a much different situation to those in a concert. In the event of an evacuation the former, due to the layout of seats and tables, would not make their way to an exit en mass like a standing concert situation where you would expect the simultaneous movement of a large body.
An outward opening door is necessary for the latter in that a door would be difficult to open inwards when there is a mass of people behind it.
Is an easily opened inward opening door not suitable for 60+ persons who are in a more collected state of mind than those attending a rock concert?
-
Absolutely right NT.
The guidance on inward opening doors and the sixty limit is a good baseline indicator of what may be safe and appropriate in most circumstances. I am not aware of any empirical data that justifies why it sould be 60 rather than say 47- indeed if we look to the European directives, these state that if a door may be used by more than 50 persons it must open in the direction of escape.
If we have a single exit comprising a pair of 1500mm wide inward opening doors are we still suggesting that the limit of 60 should be applied?
If the risk of panic is unlikely to occur because of the character of the building users or the way they are controlled, if we could show that the fire growth would be slow and would be likely to be detected at an early stage and procedures are such that an early evacuation would be initiated, if you can show that persons will not all arrive at the door at the same time, then with such justifications it is safe to vary from the guidance.
-
So, assuming the 1500mm opening as a double leaf, each side opening inwards, as it's one exit, we don't discount it (as you would discount largest of multi exits), the premises have afd, if the floor area would allow 120 pers and they would could all reasonably safely get out before being overcome by effects of fire,...?
-
Never say never. But I had a little more in mind than your premises have AFD and people can get out before they will be overcome.
It needs an analysis of risk and management - like consideration of the use of the room, the location of the exit with regard to internal and external risks, the level of management and supervision, the justification for the choice of alarm system, and the time to detection, time to respond, management response to alarm and detailed analysis of the movement of people with consideration of their likely behaviour.
-
Prof
I hear what you are saying.
However, I have my worries. :-\
Some of those criteria are fixed ie AFD, some variables can be supported by past research, but what about those other variables eg level of management and supervision?
Suppose new owners take over? Suppose tables get moved and partly block the exit route?
What about an automatic shutter for the kitchen hatch?
davo
-
Hi everyone and thanks for all the views, its appreciated. I didn't measure to the nearest inch but the premises will hold 150-170 using .5 floor space factor and .3 for a small area around the bar area. The current landlord tells me that in the past he has had this number of persons in. The kitchen is as far away as you can get from the exits and to put a 1 hr door on emd/double swing is not a problem. The problem still remains that the 2 exit doors are within 45 degrees of each other. It may be possible to get the inward opening one reversed, but as I said this is a listed building in a small market town so I dont know whether we can get the authorities ok for that? The ceiling whilst not particularly low is a normal height and you cannot reasonably include that in a compenstory feature argument. I have asked for a meeting with the SFPO or whatever they are called these days. It will be a restaurant type wine bar premises and my guess it will become quite popular and trendy due to the young lady who is running it, she seems very switched on to these things. Although the various guides say 60 persons for a room with one (because of the 45 degree rule), i do feel that this is onerous and in my previous life would have been ameaniable to increasing the numbers above 60 with a reasonable argument, which is what I am attempting to do.
It has been briefly considered about getting another door in one part of the premises away from the existing doors, but that would exit into a corridor that leads/exits from the flats above. This would though impact on the business plan as it would take out table spaces.
Cheers everyone and anymore views welcome
-
Hi everyone and thanks for all the views, its appreciated. I didn't measure to the nearest inch but the premises will hold 150-170 using .5 floor space factor and .3 for a small area around the bar area. The current landlord tells me that in the past he has had this number of persons in. The kitchen is as far away as you can get from the exits and to put a 1 hr door on emd/double swing is not a problem. The problem still remains that the 2 exit doors are within 45 degrees of each other. It may be possible to get the inward opening one reversed, but as I said this is a listed building in a small market town so I dont know whether we can get the authorities ok for that? The ceiling whilst not particularly low is a normal height and you cannot reasonably include that in a compenstory feature argument. I have asked for a meeting with the SFPO or whatever they are called these days. It will be a restaurant type wine bar premises and my guess it will become quite popular and trendy due to the young lady who is running it, she seems very switched on to these things. Although the various guides say 60 persons for a room with one (because of the 45 degree rule), i do feel that this is onerous and in my previous life would have been ameaniable to increasing the numbers above 60 with a reasonable argument, which is what I am attempting to do.
It has been briefly considered about getting another door in one part of the premises away from the existing doors, but that would exit into a corridor that leads/exits from the flats above. This would though impact on the business plan as it would take out table spaces.
Cheers everyone and anymore views welcome
If you cannot open the door out then, if you have room, you could provided a lobby with outward an opening door. The outer door would be locked in the open position during material times. This is a normal situation as a the main entrance door from a street cannot open out across the pavement for obvious reasons.
-
Whilst everyone is talking about the actual door and that the kitchen is far away, what is the nature of the floor, wall and ceiling coverings/linings and furnishings?
Having just finished reading the (very very long) Stardust enquiry the British Library sent me, it struck me that it's all very well saying you will not normally get a mass exodus situation in a restaurant, but if if there are problems with rate of fire spread due to the state of linings etc. (which can get changed over time) you could have a nasty situation for which a single inwards opening doorway could be problematic (like it was at Stardust exit 2).
There are so many factors to consider if you are going to truly risk assess a deviation from benchmark standards.
-
Whilst everyone is talking about the actual door and that the kitchen is far away, what is the nature of the floor, wall and ceiling coverings/linings and furnishings?
Having just finished reading the (very very long) Stardust enquiry the British Library sent me, it struck me that it's all very well saying you will not normally get a mass exodus situation in a restaurant, but if if there are problems with rate of fire spread due to the state of linings etc. (which can get changed over time) you could have a nasty situation for which a single inwards opening doorway could be problematic (like it was at Stardust exit 2).
There are so many factors to consider if you are going to truly risk assess a deviation from benchmark standards.
I think the point of the discussion was doors and direction of swing under the circumstances. The original poster did state that "The only risk is a kitchen which is at the back of the premises remote from the exits." Naturely consideration would be given to surface finishes and other relevant issues whether the doors opened in or out.
Did the Stardust not have a number of locked final exits?
-
Only two at the most remote location from the fire. others had chains draped over, but unlocked.
A key problem was that the spread of flame cut down time to escape and the large number of people using the nearest exit (the main entrance) which opened inwards couldn't get out - it was not crushing that killed, but a delayed escape time coupled with rapid fire and smoke spread.
-
Certainly the replication of the Stardust fire utilising the same types of surface linings clearly demonstated the speed of development of the fire. We only usually hear about those fatally injured in such tragedies. There must be many many more who are maimed for life both physically and mentally.