FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Technical Advice => Topic started by: mariner on October 18, 2010, 08:50:32 AM
-
We have an access route approved by building control and fire brigade, as per ADB of 3.75mt width for access to our public sites. Designers want to build a 4mt lenght & 4mt height on the boundary of the access road and have undertaken a traffic flow analysis to prove fire tenders and special appliances can squeeze by as we have a small pinch point along the route where the appliance would naturally use the grass bank to avoid however now facing a solid foundation. Any ideas to help as even though they have proved they can get by as a operational firefighter for 25yrs I think it could become a problem.
-
Hello Mariner
I don't think I fully understand what you are saying. Is the width or access distance being reduced? I think you are saying that a pinch point is being reduced.
Obviously, 3.1 metres is the requirement for a pinch point from ADB but this can be varied by agreement with the local FRS. Some FRS require dimensions larger than ADB.
If the FRS have approved the scheme, where is the concern coming from?
Regards
Jim
-
Jim
The pinch point is just along the exit of the access road, naturally the drivers would cut over the grass to avoid the obstruction but this option has been removed. The FRS are going to be consultated on Thursday however a Traffic flow analysis has been carried out may have to accept it!!
-
Oh Ok, I think I understand what you mean now.
Well firstly, it could be argued that the original solution was not suitable anyway. Unless of course the grass has been engineered to take the weight of an appliance.
What is use of the premises the access is for?
I love these complex traffic analysis plans. ::) Ultimately, if the FRS cannot get an appliance there it will not make a hoot of difference.
Have the FRS actually taken an appliance there to try? A simple but usaually effective solution.
Jim
-
It sounds as though B5 of the Building Regs may not be satisfied. And if that's not satisfied then it shouldn't be built. It's no good "having to accept it" - either it complies with the functional requirement of B5 or it doesn't. If it doesn't then it may be an offence to build it. Unless, of course, as Jim says, it was already non-compliant and isn't being made any worse.
Stu
-
B5 has been taken into account and they are ultimately on the limit of the boundary, having been an operational firefighter for a very long time the natural reaction in driving a fire tender is to move the vehicle to an additional space if available to avoid the 'pinch point'. The designers have already commisioned a traffic flow analysis, and they have shown a pump and TL can get by. Have the brigade to visit later on in the week so will let you know there feelings
Thanks again for your help appreciate it
-
Whereabouts are you Mariner?
Im sure there would be a local enactment that would assist you with your argument.
-
public building central london
-
Presumably you are outside the scope of section 20?