FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: nearlythere on May 17, 2010, 02:29:43 PM
-
This from a forum member who can't get reconnect to the red site.
"In a shared business occupancy building the two occupying businesses
require assistance from each other with respect to a way leave agreement so
that they can use their upper floors for reasons of acceptable travel
distance. In such a mutually desirable agreement and where the building is
owned by a single property company does the way leave agreement need to be
legally drawn up; i.e. by a solicitor, or can a few suitable words be put
together whereupon each party signs up to it. Does anyone have an example?"
-
Clearly both occupiers have a duty to co-operate and co-ordinate with one another under Article 22 of the Fire Safety Order (presuming you chum is talking about premises in England& Wales).
IMO however that in itself may not be enough to ensure that access between both occupiers is always going to sufficient and appropriate.
The reason is this: If one occupier changes their mind at some point in the future and doesnt want the other occupier accessing their parts of the building then in theory all they need to do is inform the affected occupier "Sorry you cant use this route any longer as its no longer practicable due to x, y and z . Ive informed you, its now your problem" and that may be sufficient to demonstrate compliance under Article 22.
Remember that Article 22 doesn't say each party must conceed to each others requests, it is purely designed to make the two parties talk to one another, so that each know the level of risk imposed by one another's actions and where reasonably practicable adjustments can be made they are done so to accomodate one another.
It isn't a case of "Occupier A" saying "I need a fire exit which goes through your part of the premises therefore you must provide me with one" because the actions of providing that may not be practicable for Occupier B.
So as a result I would strongly recommend that a formal wayleave agreement is drawn up between both parties regardless of the duties imposed under the RRO. That would give both occupiers greater control and say over any shared access and the Wayleave can specifiy penalties if one of the occupiers forfeits the agreement.
-
Thanks MR.
The poster understands the need for an agreement between both parties. The point was whether it should be a proper legal agreement involving solicitors?
I would suggest that this should be the case but the main issue is who can draw up a "Way Leave"? Is it something only a legal eagle can do?
-
Would need to be done by solicitors NT old chap.
-
I agree, get the legal eagles involved. The problem is not only if one of the occupiers changes their mind but also if one of the occupiers departs and another occupier takes their place.
-
Don't forget that "way-leave" agreements are seriously frowned upon in the fire safety world. Routes through neighbouring premises are fraught with problems - unfamiliar routes, routes secured shut, inadequate lighting, inadequate signage, obstructed routes, routes never walked during training sessions.
If at all possible it would be advantageous to try to establish safe routes that do not rely upon the neighbours, extended travel distances or not. Frankly, the extended travel distances are likely to be more acceptable than the routes through the neighbour's premises.
I do understand, though, that sometimes there is no alternative to the way-leave agreement. The best way to secure their availability to each tenant is to have the agreement included in the terms of the tenancy, the lease. By this means it is also possible to include terms that will secure the availability of the route at all material times. A solicitor may be able to draw it up but is unlikely to understand the terms that should be included in order to ensure that the route can always be safely used - I would suggest that a competent fire risk assessor can offer the best advice as to what precautionary terms should be included.
Even with the way-leave agreement in place the route is no good if staff are not periodically familiarised with the route. It is the place of the FRA to check that the correct training takes place.
Stu
-
Since when have wayleave agreements been frowned upon. News to me.
-
Indeed - you'd have to prohibit a large chunk of London and parts of central Manchester, Birmingham & Liverpool if you didn't have inter-building escape.
The problem with way leaves is they are an administrative nightmare, both trying to track them down, to establish them if not in place and maintain their tenability on both sides (especially final exit in single stairs out of hours of the building being exited into), but they are a necessary evil as the types of buildings they are present in are exactly the type where retro fitting alternative solutions is either cost prohibitive or more often simply impossible.
-
Finally I am back on line having tried every single conitation of every single password I ever had - perserverance won in the end.
Nearlythere - thank you for posting this string for me.
In reply to Clevelandfire 3 my experience with the FRS is that they don't particularly like such arrangements for the reasons AnthonyB states; and if an alternative can be considered then in all probability they will push to have that alternative implemented in preference; however, as stated a way leave is often the only remaining solution available.
I believe the following should be considered when drafting such an agreement - do you agree or have I ommissions or otherwise in my list:
Each party must
• Keep their respective escape route(s) accessible and unobstructed at all times. This may require locks and other security devices to be revised;
• Adequately provide fire fighting equipment as necessary throughout the route(s) in accordance with BS5306-8;
• Adequately provide conventional and emergency lighting throughout the route(s). The provision of emergency lighting is to be in accordance with BS5266-1;
• Suitably display emergency route signage throughout its length in accordance with ‘The Health and Safety (Safety Signs and Signals) Regulations 1996’;
• Allow predetermined requests by either party for access for the purpose of staff training and auditing;
• Both parties to have predetermined check lists that ensure the above requirements are suitably inspected, maintained and serviced as necessary;
• Penalties for non-adherence.
-
Yes HT thats about got it in one. Security is usually the biggest problem especially where one of the parties operates during different hours to the other. However many of these wayleave arrangements can actually betreated as seperate compartments for evacuation- having passed through the pass door people are in a place of relative safety so there is much less urgency to escape to the street. However if there are security locks to overcome and a burglar alarm wailing then persons may be unable to make their presence known - even to the extent of calling the fire brigade. So mutual sharing of burglar alarm details would help with communications.
Also many of these pass doors are flimsy - doors between buildings should be at least to a one hour standard.
-
In reply to Clevelandfire 3 my experience with the FRS is that they don't particularly like such arrangements for the reasons AnthonyB states; and if an alternative can be considered then in all probability they will push to have that alternative implemented in preference; however, as stated a way leave is often the only remaining solution available.
Spot on Hi Tower, frowned upon is not the same as banned Clevey!!
-
Never said it was the same. Still dont see where you get fire brigades frowning upon wayleaves.
-
Also many of these pass doors are flimsy - doors between buildings should be at least to a one hour standard.
Kurnal - If compartmentation of the rest of the building is less than 1 hour then why do I need a 1 hour fire door between the buildings. Surely 30 minutes would be ok? I know separation between different users should be 1 hour but sticking in a door to that standard without upgrading everything else seems pointless? Am I missing something?
-
No you are right- But if it is not a compartment wall - and it damn well should be else we will have a repeat of 1666- then you cannot stop counting the travel distance once you have passed into the neighbouring building and must ensure that the means of escape allows easy and unrestricted egress to a place of ultimate safety- ie the street. This can create issues with security because generally insurers would like doors deadlocked when the premises are not in use.
-
Never said it was the same. Still dont see where you get fire brigades frowning upon wayleaves.
Clevelandfire3,
1) Have you not been listening to what others have said? and
2) In your experience, are they welcomed?
Either you like them or you don't like them.
Most people don't like them. That's why ADB has specifically recommended against them for many years.
As others have demonstrated above, there can be conditions under which they are acceptable for existing buildings but they seldom offer a robust solution for the long term.
Stu
-
The legal term used in 'a reciprocal agreement'.
Which means in legal terms;
Obligations assumed and imposed by two parties as mutual and conditional upon the other party assuming same obligations.
This should be in place where 2 parties or buildings share a common fire escape route.
Working in the City of London, there are loads of buildings due to alterations over the years have shared common escape routes with neighbouring properties. Apart from the legal aspect, normally you will have combined fire drills in place where staff from both buildings use the fire escape to ensure they are familiar with the alternative route. Also exchanging FRA's is common practice, normally from the managing agents for the Landlord concerned. This ensures the escape route is identified in both reports and any issues actioned.
To be honest if the above is in place, I have never experienced IO's having any issues with this arrangement. Fairly straight forward if you ask me.
-
I don't think we're taking about 'common fire escape routes,' Hammer. I think we're talking about escape routes passing through the neighbour's premises; through their offices, their retail areas or stores, down their stairs, out their final exits.
Stu
-
Spot on Stu, lots of shop owners get very twitchy about next doors staff trooping through there stock room escpecially if there not even there at the time& its naive to believe otherwise. Yes these premises exist & yes we have to try to work with them. Doesnt make it right though.
-
I don't think we're taking about 'common fire escape routes,' Hammer. I think we're talking about escape routes passing through the neighbour's premises; through their offices, their retail areas or stores, down their stairs, out their final exits.
Stu
That is also what I mean as well, I have a couple of buildings which one building has to go through another office and down their main principle stairs. Same principles apply and there should be some legal agreement in place, if the building concerned refused neighbours access then this would bring some issues. Agreed it is not ideal and needs a bit of co-operation and co-ordination, but I find that this can only be the solution to ensure alternative means of escape due to a buildings structure constraints
-
There are trappings with Wayleave agreements, but you can encounter similar trappings if you pursue agreement via Article 22 of the RR(FS)O
Some of the "benfits" (if that is the right word) of wayleave agreements are as follows.
Firstly with wayleave agreements if one party does drop out of the agreement or breaches the term of the agreement, there will normally be some form of penalty, sometimes this might be a financial penalty, but not least the threat of some form of legal action. Thus there is a greater "incentive" for each party to play ball with one another.
Secondly don't forget if you go down the Article 22 route and a problem arises, you can't bring in the fire authority to mediate, because a fire authority can not enforce the requirement for one occupier to allow access to another occupier.
So I too thinks a bit of an urban myth that Fire Authorities don't like wayleave agreements, if written properly I think they are an excellent tool and whilst other alternatives should be investigated a Wayleave isn't necessarily a last ditch solution, far from it.
What I think we would all agree on is that they need to be drawn up properly, lawfully and them monitored effectively.
-
So I too thinks a bit of an urban myth that Fire Authorities don't like wayleave agreements, if written properly I think they are an excellent tool and whilst other alternatives should be investigated a Wayleave isn't necessarily a last ditch solution, far from it.
MR I must disagree with you, in my brigade area "OSRA means of escape certificates" were issued by the BC , with little consideration, usually no legal agreements they accepted bypass doors into a joining buildings. When these certs were changed to FPA certs by the fire service it caused problems after problems (locked doors, blocked doors people not aware of the purpose) consequently it became a big no no and you only ever considered them as a last resort. There are on many occasions when you can find alternative solutions if you look closely enough.
I do agree if you require them, then ensure you have a waterlight legal agreement in place controlling all parties.
-
To be fair Tom the problems which came about from BC issuing OSRA certs are a seperate issue. You are talking about situations where a Wayleave wasn't in place, but should have been. Some of the blame can be levelled at BC and when it all switched to Certs under the FPA it subsequently caused Brigades, and to be fair punters alike, a bit of a headache
The wayleaves I am talking about are the type that each occupiers arrange themselves, and the terms are formalised by a solicitor and drawn up properly.
Clearly occupiers can and do change and wayleaves can thus become void, often the remaining occupier can forget to renew void wayleave with their new neighbours. Sometimes one occupier will obstruct pass doors to adjoing premises. But the same could be said for any agreements made under Art 22 as well.
So its like I said before, to me any trapping with Wayleaves can apply just as much to any arrangements made under Article 22, the wayleaves if drawn up properly however can impose penalties which in my experience make both occupiers take sufficient interest in keeping things hunky dorey.
I already said that alternatives should be sought, but then again we are in the days of risk assessment, if the premises are well managed and the wayleave agreement works, what is the problem?
-
MR I do not disagree with most of what you say and I misunderstood your statement " So I too thinks a bit of an urban myth that Fire Authorities don't like way-leave agreements, if written properly." I read it incorrectly and though you were referring to Bye-pass doors in to other premises or buildings not the way-leave agreements. These are essential if you need to consider such a solution but the concept of bye-pass doors into other occupancies or buildings, in my opinion is still a last resort solution.
-
"OSRA means of escape certificates" were issued by the BC , with little consideration, usually no legal agreements they accepted bypass doors into a joining buildings. When these certs were changed to FPA certs by the fire service it caused problems after problems (locked doors, blocked doors people not aware of the purpose) consequently it became a big no no and you only ever considered them as a last resort. There are on many occasions when you can find alternative solutions if you look closely enough.
The most unrealistic 'way leave' I have come across was in a block of flats where the alternative escape route required persons to access the next door neighbours flat and trepse through it. It must of been accepted at the time of build - not sure where 'reasonable and practicable' came into the thinking though. Would this housing arrangement of come under the 'OSRA' or something else housing specific?
-
"OSRA means of escape certificates" were issued by the BC , with little consideration, usually no legal agreements they accepted bypass doors into a joining buildings. When these certs were changed to FPA certs by the fire service it caused problems after problems (locked doors, blocked doors people not aware of the purpose) consequently it became a big no no and you only ever considered them as a last resort. There are on many occasions when you can find alternative solutions if you look closely enough.
The most unrealistic 'way leave' I have come across was in a block of flats where the alternative escape route required persons to access the next door neighbours flat and trepse through it. It must of been accepted at the time of build - not sure where 'reasonable and practicable' came into the thinking though. Would this housing arrangement of come under the 'OSRA' or something else housing specific?
If memory serves me correctly I think that's a throw back to the old CP3.
-
Would this housing arrangement of come under the 'OSRA' or something else housing specific?
No, only Offices,Shops and Railway premises the local authority enforced the OSRA and in Liverpool the council (corporation) considered the BC was the best department to deal with the act. The guidance for flats was CP3 chapter 4 check out http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Gm9hAu1j6MgJ:www3.hants.gov.uk/getdecisiondocumentfile%3Fitem_doc_ID%3D3041%26file%3DItem%25207%2520-%2520Appendix%2520B%2520-%2520High%2520Rise%2520Fire%2520Safety%2520v1.pdf%26type%3Dpdf+CP3+chapter+4+flats&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgMa5nk6akZlnzYzv5skemu25tFVmDPBXvIybAweNtsz2YC2V_w4yleNIWiBUKNUBP2FKydlgEi0m-Q6oG_Z5FzFB5EkuPhspOWwageEoWu1NBQQQxGP4L5eaePeCtkJE8vNKgI&sig=AHIEtbRd7D7pUqj95Hakjy0iwFnDKtIizA (http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Gm9hAu1j6MgJ:www3.hants.gov.uk/getdecisiondocumentfile%3Fitem_doc_ID%3D3041%26file%3DItem%25207%2520-%2520Appendix%2520B%2520-%2520High%2520Rise%2520Fire%2520Safety%2520v1.pdf%26type%3Dpdf+CP3+chapter+4+flats&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgMa5nk6akZlnzYzv5skemu25tFVmDPBXvIybAweNtsz2YC2V_w4yleNIWiBUKNUBP2FKydlgEi0m-Q6oG_Z5FzFB5EkuPhspOWwageEoWu1NBQQQxGP4L5eaePeCtkJE8vNKgI&sig=AHIEtbRd7D7pUqj95Hakjy0iwFnDKtIizA)
Sorry about the size of the URL :)
-
As someone involved in the design & management of both new and existing buildings in central London:
- They are sometimes the only practicable means of offering acceptable fire safety in existing buildings;
- They are, generally speaking, a complete nightmare to manage and maintain, because you have only very limited management control over a key safety component of your building!
-
Tom,
Thanks for reference to the URL. It came as quite a surprise when I opened it. This was a guidance note that I had put together before retirement to help inspecting officers understand that the various codes of practice relating to blocks of flats had all come from the same foundation. I found that some were becoming tied up over which standard to apply, and wanted to open them up to show that each were attempting to meet a similar benchmark standard albeit in a slightly different way - and to demonstrate that the differences were not so great.
As you know, CP3 was one of a series of codes of practice covering different buildings uses. They were the 'approved documents' of their day coming out of Post War Building Studies.
Sorry - this post has nothing to do with Way Leave - I was just taken by surprise as I followed the URL
-
Congratualtions on the document Paul I must admit to have copied and pasted from it a couple of times already, the tables are an absolutely brilliant comparison.
Must disagree with one point in the text summary though- there were a number of pretty significant differences in terms of ventilation of common areas between the ADB 2002 and 2007 versions.
-
Sorry Kurnal,
As I said, I put it together to provide practical guidance rather than trying to provide a definitive history. I did pass it to some past colleagues to proof read and find errors - having become a bit snowblind to all of the requirements by the end of it - but none could help... So there will no doubt be other mistakes too.