FireNet Community
FIRE SAFETY => Fire Risk Assessments => Topic started by: SeaBass on February 01, 2011, 09:26:23 PM
-
To follow up on the points raised in the Penhallow risk assessor thread re the quoting of code requirements as opposed to the skills of risk assessing.
I have recently come across two instances were codes have been quoted without consideration of the effects.
The first was a fire risk assessment for a brand new school in which the assessor stated that smoke seals needed to be fitted to all of the doors that opened on to escape routes. I asked him why he had stated this. To which he responded, because BB 100 states that they should be fitted. I asked him what the risk was. To which he answered, without them, the escape routes could become untenable before the occupants have had a chance to escape. Not an unreasonable assessment you might think, until you realise that the school has been provided with an L3 AFD alarm system with visual warning devices and a life safety sprinkler system. I accept that the situation is not code compliant, but does it constitute a significant risk and would you cut up brand new perfectly sound fire doors to fit them?
A few days later I encountered the juxtaposition to the above situation when I reviewed the plans for an infant’s school and noticed that the design did not include exits from the class rooms direct to outside. The fire engineer concerned justified this arrangement by saying that the travel distance within the class rooms was well within code requirements, and that once the occupants of the classrooms were in the access corridor, escape was possible in two directions.
I pointed out that most access corridors in junior and infant schools are used as break out areas, libraries, display areas and cloak rooms etc. and that the resulting fuel load, coupled with the very young ages of the children, constituted a significant risk, hence the requirement in BB 100 for an exit inside the class room direct to outside. He kindly pointed out that BB100 did not preclude fire engineered solutions that required additional fire safety management by the occupants (although I’m still at a loss as to what his `Fire Engineered Solution’ actually was) and that the corridor should not therefore be used for anything other than access and egress. When I explained that this was neither practical or feasible, he decided that if it wasn’t a corridor, then it was an access room, and therefore the provision of AFD addressed the issue. Outstanding.
-
Whilst an alternative is the best option, I am happy with the provision of smoke detection in the corridor to overcome the fire loading. I might question the approach in an inner city high school or in a new build. If you don`t use this approach you would make most schools bankrupt overnight.
-
DTD - I thought this is refering to a new build? And he is proposing SD as justification to treat the 'protected corridor' as an Access room to justify the fireloading! Although i do take your point about imposing unnecessary standards on existing buildings
Ruby - Are the travel distances still ok considering they have been extended by the creation of the 'access room'? And could i ask why has there not been alternative MofE provided from the class rooms?
Although the F Eng is correct in saying that BB100 does not preclude Fire Engineered solutions. he still has to demonstrate he has acheived the Functional Requirements. This type of proposal is run-of-the-mill in other types of buildings, and i am never too concerned about them. But a School!!! Really!!! That makes me twitchy to say the least.
How many classrooms is the new 'access room' serving? 6? 8? Is it possible you could have 200-300 children relying on that access room as their single direction MofE. Would anyone really be happy to rely on SD as a compensatory feature?
we all know the possiblities of arson in schools. What if a child sets light to a lovely big corrugated cardboard display in the corridor/access room? From the point of detection by the SD, do you think you could get up to 300 kids through the corridor/access room in an orderly fashion, without some kind of panic or resistance from the children (who can see the fire is in the corridor you're wanting them to walk into)? Basically the answer is no. They're not adults (and we all know how irrational they can behave in a fire), it doesn't matter how well you drill them, the minute you say 'were now going to go this way' and they see your leading them into the room of the fire or smoke many will freeze, run or hide.
Bearing in mind this school is at the planning stage, would anyone really be ok with single direction into a protected corridor that provides 2 directions, that is the only route out for up to 300 children, being treated as an Access Room (to justify the likelyhood of excessive fire loading in the corridor) because it has SD? thus extending the single direction until you leave the access room/corridor.
I have a feeling some of you may think i am coming across a bit dramatic. Good, I hope i am!!! This, i believe, is a perfect example of when a chip at standards here, and a chip there, and for good measure throw in some poorly judged reliance on management systems, becomes a precurser to a small incident quickly developing into front page news.
I'm going to stick my neck out on this one and say 'never in a million years would i accept this senario' if you can't provide alternative escape from the class rooms then the corridor MUST be protected. I would even go so far as to say that they should consider in their design, and thus restrict, the potential for the corridor to lend its self to secondary use. i.e no unnecessarily wide corridors, alcoves or recesses. The latter, i accept, wouldn't be enforceable. but would be a point i would raise as part of the B regs and FS procedural guidance.
-
Therein lies a bit of a problem when a new build, which presumably has been built in accordance with B Regs and signed off by Building Control, has been assessed as needing additional works. It's not that this is a change of use, where additional measures can be justified, but was designed, built and occupied as a school. If everyone was doing their jobs properly the FRA should only be to identify and record the measures already provided and carry out an assessment of the management of the fire safety.
If the Assessor has identified problems then the building must not have been built to B Regs.
If it was built to B Regs then the Assessor needs to review his competency level.
How many different hymn sheets are out there?
-
This, i believe, is a perfect example of when a chip at standards here, and a chip there, and for good measure throw in some poorly judged reliance on management systems, becomes a precurser to a small incident quickly developing into front page news
Agreed TM..
Stand your ground Ruby! >:( Children (and others) need to be protected from the short sighted short term sycophantic cash savers and incompetent risk assessors.
-
Nearlythere
When you say 'built to Building Regs' from my long experience this almost never happens :o
davo
and not just fire safety :-X
-
Nearlythere
When you say 'built to Building Regs' from my long experience this almost never happens :o
davo
and not just fire safety :-X
I agree but if it was issued with a completion certificate then it safisfied the enforcement authority, whether it complied with B Regs or not. If that was only a few months or years ago or within the period of current guidance then there is a huge problem with the system.
If an assessment flags up a problem then someone or some body has failed somewhere.
-
nearlythere
I can't argue with the logic, it's just not my experience ;D
davo
-
Nearlythere
When you say 'built to Building Regs' from my long experience this almost never happens :o
davo
and not just fire safety :-X
I agree but if it was issued with a completion certificate then it safisfied the enforcement authority, whether it complied with B Regs or not. If that was only a few months or years ago or within the period of current guidance then there is a huge problem with the system.
If an assessment flags up a problem then someone or some body has failed somewhere.
The problem usually stems from the lack of following the Building Regs and Fire Safety procedural Guidance. All agencies are guilty of this. Fire Authorities Just say 'Do a FRA' as do Approved Inspectors. But no one seems to look at a consultation from any other angle than the code or standard being applied.
I have on many occassion. writen to say that all though the consultation complies. once occupied it won't. so i recommend you deal with the matter now. usually i get a response saying thanks for your comments but we're not going to do that. cos we don't have to. But don't tell their client.
or they put in some stupid managerial control measure which just won't work. I had one Fire Engineer try and convince me it was ok to use the FF lift as a goods lift because 'It would only be used occasionally for Light stationary'!!! really? why do you need a blo*dy lift then?
-
yeah thats fair comment tm projects. but to be fair often during consultation the fire service will make comments on a building application and send it back to building control or approved inspector who then simply ignores or disagrees with the comments of the fire service. this puts the fire service in an unwinnable situation cos they may not agree with the new build and must threaten to close it as soon as it opens. if they did allow it to trade and something happened they would be the first or atleast the second to be criticised in the media and the families of people who got hurt or killed for allowing an unsafe building. this is why the statutory bar was lifted from the fire precautions act. its a last resort to prevent silly buildings from being passed. i accept this doesnt help the responsible person though but fire authorities should be bypassing rogue building control or approved inspectors and writing directly to RPS telling them of any potential problems. I know lots of fire services that do this if not to cover themselves but inform the rp.
-
this is why the statutory bar was lifted from the fire precautions act. its a last resort to prevent silly buildings from being passed.
The "Statutory Bar" was purely in respect of fire certification under the Fire Precautions Act. It never applied in respect of the Workplace Fire Regulations and the whole of the The Fire Precautions Act was in any case repealed by the Fire Safety Order 2005.
It was one of the last bastions of prescriptive enforcement and the old enforcement regime in which the Fire Authority were seen as nasty people making poor owners and occupiers of buildings spend money on fire precautions that they did not want to spend.
Once the legislation was changed to make the Responsible Person entirely responsible and accountable for their own management of fire safety the statutory bar became irrelevant and unnecessary.
In my opinion the Building Regulations procedural guidance, and the powers under the Fire Safety Order give the Fire and Rescue Service two bites of the cherry and every possible tool that they can possibly need to carry out their enforcement role.
I agree there is sometimes a problem with Building Inspectors passing work that others think is patently unsatisfactory but provided the fire and rescue services do their job on consultation and audit they cannot be criticised and if the Responsible Person then has an issue with the "rogue building control" thats a matter for them and the civil courts. Cant see why the Fire and Rescue Service needs to get steamed up about it.
-
It was one of the last bastions of prescriptive enforcement and the old enforcement regime in which the Fire Authority were seen as nasty people making poor owners and occupiers of buildings spend money on fire precautions that they did not want to spend.
That would be as opposed to the new role then, where they are seen as nasty people who believe that a single obstructed fire extinguisher is an offence, so forlornly hoping to make them pay fines that they did want to pay, or making them put fire alarm systems in tower blocks making them pay for something that is stupid and making old wrinklies hobbly down 14 floors to stand in the cold every time there is a false alarm. The more things move forward, the less they change.
-
its a last resort to prevent silly buildings from being passed. i accept this doesnt help the responsible person though but fire authorities should be bypassing rogue building control or approved inspectors and writing directly to RPS telling them of any potential problems. I know lots of fire services that do this if not to cover themselves but inform the rp.
"I agree but if it was issued with a completion certificate then it safisfied the enforcement authority, whether it complied with B Regs or not. If that was only a few months or years ago or within the period of current guidance then there is a huge problem with the system." Davo
Clevelandfire - I'd agree with what you are saying - in my opinion and I know it's the view my employer, it's both unprofessional and irresponsible to not make the client aware of all of the comments from the Fire Service and we forward your response as a matter of course; even when I might not agree with all of the FA's comments.
If you have concerns, for AI's contact the Construction Industry Council - our industry regulators and the people who issue their licence or speak to the Building Control Alliance who represent both LABC & AI's.
I'd also remind the BCO that they are (usually) a member of a professional instituion; MBEng, MRICS or MCIOB and they might take a dim view of their nefarious practices.
Ultimately the market will eradciate this practice because I'm sure clients who are bitten by the Fire Authority after recently receiving a Building Regs Final Certificate won't use that Building Control Body again!
-
The following comments are based upon my personal experiences.
All I can see here is a gaping hole created to varying degrees by all parties.
1. The Architect whose plans have been drawn and submitted to meet the functional requirements of the B Regs.
2. The Building Control who issue a Completion Certificate based upon an audit with the assumption that the building has been constructed in accordance with the plans submitted.
3. The occupier who believes that all is well when he/she receives the Completion Certificate and decides to carry out the fire risk assessment themselves or employ the services of an individual/company who fail to provide the necessaryadvice.
4. The LA Fire Inspector who arrives at the premises forarmed with the understanding that 1,2 and 3 above have
been satisfied. It is at this point that I get concerned as it is only the Fire Inspector who can retrieve the situation. The audit MUST identify what others have missed.
Why am I not confident?
-
Because it doesn't work and things slip through the net - came across a high rise office building with a finished floor height of 27m, that had been fully renovated and two floors added in recent years, none of the three stairs were lobbied at any level, no firefighting lift and dubious 'firefighting shaft'. No compensatory measures/engineered solutions.
After several years with a 'tame' FRA carried out now have to let the current management team know the premises fails to meet Technical Standards or the standard guides and that with the current standard of installation all the FD30S doorsets added after refurb need remedial work such that the original rebated doors to the unrefurbed escape stairs offer better protection!
Someone has passed this in the past though, meaning I look the bad guy, but I have to tell it how it is.
-
I agree there is sometimes a problem with Building Inspectors passing work that others think is patently unsatisfactory but provided the fire and rescue services do their job on consultation and audit they cannot be criticised and if the Responsible Person then has an issue with the "rogue building control" thats a matter for them and the civil courts. Cant see why the Fire and Rescue Service needs to get steamed up about it.
Kurnal Im slightly angry and amazed you made that statement considering you were middle management in the fire service. May I say you seem slightly out of touch in this regard. The fire service has the right to cover its backside with titanium 12 inches thick if it needs to and if you dont understand why you really dont understand fire safet enforcement and the legal process.
-
Cleveland I only said they dont need to get steamed up about it. If you and I have a stand off and you are armed with a spud gun and I have a Tazer then I dont need to get angry with you to beat you hands down. Thats what I am saying.
The fire and rescue service hold all the cards in these cases. Yes if the Building Inspector passes something he shouldn't -for whatever reason- the fire and rescue service have all the tools to enforce its correction and the developer can sue the inspector and the architect to recover their losses.
I am dealing with one shocking and extreme case myself at the moment so I know these things happen. But in my case everybody let the owner of the building down. Nobody noticed that the design did not conform to any recognised standards or that compartment walls and fire stopping clearly shown on the "as Built " plans had never been installed in a building completed five years ago. And I was not the first fire risk assessor to look at it. This was a local authority building control not an approved inspector.
-
The fire and rescue service hold all the cards in these cases. Yes if the Building Inspector passes something he shouldn't -for whatever reason- the fire and rescue service have all the tools to enforce its correction and the developer can sue the inspector and the architect to recover their losses.
Unfortunately not when it comes to access and facilities for fire fighters, B5. Under the RR(FS)O the FRS can only enforce the maintenance of what is already provided. If the building control body has accepted poor provisions for safeguarding firefighters then there is little that can be done under the RR(FS)O. I come across many buildings where I believe this to be the case, often large sheds or buildings with atria where lip service is given to the provision of smoke control but where the effectiveness of the smoke control is far from proven, quite the opposite in fact.
Stu
-
I dont necessarily agree with you in respect of B5 Phoenix.
Local enactments yes I am with you all the way but access and facilities for firefighters as defined in B5 I believe are principally for the protection of relevant persons
That the standards of construction and layout set out in Approved Document B are based on fire service intervention and this requires access and water supplies.
For instance - the design of flats with a stay put policy- the design relies on the attendance of the fire service. In order to attend and put the fire out and review fire spread and the need for any further evacuation such that relevant persons are not put at risk.
-
I am dealing with one shocking and extreme case myself at the moment so I know these things happen. But in my case everybody let the owner of the building down. Nobody noticed that the design did not conform to any recognised standards or that compartment walls and fire stopping clearly shown on the "as Built " plans had never been installed in a building completed five years ago. And I was not the first fire risk assessor to look at it. This was a local authority building control not an approved inspector.
I'm glad it's not just me that ends up with cases of massive holes in the net!
-
Unfortunately not when it comes to access and facilities for fire fighters, B5. Under the RR(FS)O the FRS can only enforce the maintenance of what is already provided. If the building control body has accepted poor provisions for safeguarding firefighters then there is little that can be done under the RR(FS)O. I come across many buildings where I believe this to be the case, often large sheds or buildings with atria where lip service is given to the provision of smoke control but where the effectiveness of the smoke control is far from proven, quite the opposite in fact.
I would agree with you Stuart.
A big problem at the moment we are coming across is the lack of protection to mezzanine floors for example.
-
Prof
Whilst accepting B5 can be stretched in the direction that you cite, not sure the FRS would want to put that into the arena ::)
davo
(unless someone knows different, then do tell....)
-
Im absolutely sure that in Functional Requirement B5 goes far beyond providing for convenient and safe facilities for the benefit of firefiighters. See Building regulation B5(1). "The building shall be designed and constructed so as to provide reasonable facilities to assist firefighters in the protection of life".
PAS79 recommends that a fire risk assessment should consider the entire package of fire safety measures including provision of access and facilities for fire fighters and specifically to determine their contribution to the safety of occupants in case of fire. (14.2).
ADB guidance explains that these access arrangements and facilities are only required in the interests of the health and safety of people in and around the building. The extent to which they are required will depend on the use and size of the building in so far as it affects the health and safety of these people.
I therefore contend that most requirements imposed under B5 are for the benefit of relevant persons and can therefore be enforced by the fire and rescue service under the Fire Safety order.
-
You give a good argument, kurnal, but for me Davo sums up very succinctly some of the existing practicalities.
I used the word safeguard earlier when it should have been assist. I must have been reading Article 38.
Of course all of B5 is for the safety of people 'in and around the building,' that's what it's all about. But boundaries and aims become blurred. And maybe Article 38 doesn't help. It refers to facilities for use by the fire service but also refers to facilities installed to 'protect' and 'safeguard' fire fighters. Under what legislation might facilities have been installed to 'protect' fire fighters? You may argue that unless you protect the fire fighters then how can you protect the people in the building who require fire service assistance (rescue). But it makes no reference to this, it just says, "in order to safeguard the safety of fire-fighters in the event of a fire..."
I'm not an expert on all the various local acts but secion 20 doesn't appear to give the safeguarding of fire fighters as one of its aims. I suppose that the functional requirement B5(1), when it mentions the 'protection of life,' means the lives of the relevant persons and the lives of the fire fighters as well. Why doesn't it say that under 'Performance'? And under that heading, who are 'people in and around the building' anyway? Are fire fighters included? If so, why doesn't it say so?
Some recent examples I've come across where B5 has been poorly thought through at the design and construction phase:
Building of just over 18m in height to top storey - fire fighting shafts provided but no lifts - no justification other than that the height is 'only just' over the limit - should I, under the FRA (RR(FS)O), recommend that fire fighting lifts are installed?
Large single storey storage building where the smoke control provisions (with the stated aim of providing safe and useful access to the interior of the buiding for fire fighters) clearly won't work and the building will obviously smoke log in the event of a significant fire, the size of the building has the consequence that fire fighters have no chance of conducting successful operations of any sort (searching for people or the fire - let alone firefighting) within the smoke logged building - should I recommend the installation of new smoke control facilities (ones that will actually assist fire fighter access)?
New building with extended narrow access roadway (about 25m) and no facilities to turn a fire appliance around - no justification again - should my FRA recommend that a turning circle or hammer head is installed in place of their decorative fountain?
Why should I have to look for justification retrospectively? It's not always easy. If I don't...
Under what Articles would these be issues be dealt with, 8 or 9? Can you foresee a fire service taking enforcement action in all cases like this. They do in some extreme cases, I know, but where are they meant to draw a line? If we follow your argument then surely we can only draw a line to separate code compliance with non code compliance. I can't see that happening.
I'm not having go; far from it, like I said before, your argument is good and, in theory, I support it. But these are real issues that are difficult to address in a fire risk assessment when they have recently been accepted by the building control body. I know you have the same problems, you've spoken of them on various occasions. The examples I gave are just ones of the top of my head - I, and I'm sure many others, have many more examples where the fire risk assessor or enforcing officer is put in an awkward situation because of the standards that have been accepted during the design and build stages of the buidling. There's Midland Fire's mezzanines.
And it's not just B5 where this problem resides. So we're back full circle. Where does the horizon lie?
Stu
-
The tragedy at Atherstone illustrates the point very clearly.
I think we have become too polarised in our views since the RRO excluded firefighters from the definition of "Relevant persons". This was done for a reason- I suggest because the RP cannot be held accountable for the safety of firefighters in a building on fire (section 44-46 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act - re powers of entry and obstruction.)
But when a fire occurs we cannot assume all relevant persons will always be able to walk out of the building by their own efforts unaided. They may be injured or trapped by the initial fire or as the fire develops. Thats where the fire and rescue services, and the provisions of B5 come to the fore. Thats why Fire and Rescue Services should enforce them, and in my view are empowered to do so using the Fore Safety Order.
Back to Atherstone. How many times do I hear Fire Officers say "we will pass those plans on the basis that we will only operate in defensive mode and will not enter - we will spray water in from outside".
Poppycock. If there are persons reported you guys will be in there like a shot to try and help them. So use the powers you have and enforce the provisions in the Building Regulations designed to provide a miminum standard of safety for your operations. It only needs a test case or two, whether its Midland's mezzanines or Phoenix's lift.
Personally theres little I can do as a consultant in these cases. I have refused two jobs this year where the AI was pushing - on behalf of his client!!!!- to water down provisions of firefighting shafts and mezzanine protection. But there are many companies prepared to rubber stamp these proposals and produce a fire strategy purporting to justify them. I always wonder if they truly understand the liability and the consequences of what they are taking on.
Back to Phoenix's examples. There are always borderline cases and just as I dont get worried over a 22m dead end travel distance in an office but my posterior starts twitching somewhere near the 30m mark, I record the variation in my risk assessment but take a judgement was to whether its a trivial, tolerable or a more serious risk, I treat provisions under B5 in the same way. Obviously it is not practicable to install F/F shafts where none have been provided so in those cases alternative recommendations have to be made, which may be as weak as contact the local fire service so they may make their appropriate operational plans.
I do have one RA job in a large storage building where we are currently pushing for the installation of dry risers retrospectively where these were "overlooked" at the construction stage by both AI and fire service. (storage building floor height 10m 4000sqm) The F/F shafts are not so easy but we are making some improvements there too.
-
Poppycock. If there are persons reported you guys will be in there like a shot to try and help them. So use the powers you have and enforce the provisions in the Building Regulations designed to provide a miminum standard of safety for your operations.
Agreed! Here here......
-
Its gone very quiet round here.
I hope I have not stifled discussion by my forthright postings. This is an important area - the crux of many problems in the industry at the moment so please ladies and gentlemen please do not hold back - your views and opinions are valued.
-
Prof
What you say is correct, however I think the FRS are frustrated because they expect the RP to bottle it due to costs, effort involved etc.
Not sure also about the RP not being responsible for the safety of firefighters (sorry the names are still missing when posting).
As RP I have a duty to inform the FRS of any nasty surprises, surely ???
My competent RA will give me advice on this ;D
davo
-
Not sure also about the RP not being responsible for the safety of firefighters (sorry the names are still missing when posting).
As RP I have a duty to inform the FRS of any nasty surprises, surely ???
davo
Thanks Davo.
Yes the Fire Safety Order in intended to protect "relevant persons" and the definition of relevant persons excludes firefighters engaged in firefighting. However other articles and duties still apply, eg article 20- duty to provide information to other employers.
-
A bit late in the day but - Requiremnt B3 covers fire fighter safety. In some ways it's more explicit than B5.
-
Thanks Wee Brian.
Are you able to comment on my view that access and facilities for firefighters provided in accordance with B5 are for the safety of all building occupiers?
To me there appears to be some confusion within the industry as a result of the RR(FSO) definition of relevant persons- i.e. it excludes fire fighers engaged on fire fighting duties.
Some of us appear to be of the view that if in a new building and despite the consultation procedures under the Building Legislation, if appropriate provisions are not made in accordance with ADB5 then these cannot be required retrospectively post completion under the Fire Safety Order.
I think that they could be required and enforced by the fire and rescue service under the FSO quite apart from any actions under Building Legislation..
-
I do have one RA job in a large storage building where we are currently pushing for the installation of dry risers retrospectively where these were "overlooked" at the construction stage by both AI and fire service. (storage building floor height 10m 4000sqm)
Storage Buildings do not need shafts under ADB 2006. Good on ya' for pushing for it though. :)
-
All of Part B is regarding the safety of people in and around the building, therefore B5 requirements are there because we need to provide facilities to assist firefighters to protect people in and around the building.
The only article that could potentially be used to require similar measures to be taken would be article 13, measures to be taken regarding firefighting. There is nothing in there to specifically rule out classing a riser or even a shaft as 'fire fighting equipment', and if you can say it is necessary due to the dimensions of the premises, then it even seems to fit quite well.
It would be a brave FRS which tried to do that though, as the general interpretation (and I would suggest, the intended one) would be for article 13 to relate to portable FFE, and more general equipment for use by employees.
-
B5 is clearly there for the protection of building occupants (plus some stuff for firefighters) If we were only interested in firefighter safety then we would tell them not to go in the building.
I was never convinced we needed a seperate provision to deal with firefighting measures but I think people felt that there might be a loophole.
-
Blimey!! go away for a few days and look what happens.
Clevelandfire. I do! if i think the AI is not being reasonable. i tell the RP of my view of potential retrospective enforcement. I have even had a few AI's threaten me with court action.
Kurnal - I don't get steamed up because of my position as the FRA. I do it because i get annoyed for the RP's. And the position they are in because of the 'experts' they are paying.
Building Inspector. BCO's are not the focus of my comments, they are mostly independent. nearly every critisism i have is relating to experiences with Approved Inspectors.
Phoenix. Article 38 may specify maintenance of measures to protect ff's. but it doesn't preclude the requirement for further measures under other articles in the order.
Kurnal Its gone very quiet round here.
I hope I have not stifled discussion by my forthright postings. This is an important area - the crux of many problems in the industry at the moment so please ladies and gentlemen please do not hold back - your views and opinions are valued.
the RP cannot be held accountable for the safety of firefighters in a building on fire (section 44-46 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act - re powers of entry and obstruction.)
Sorry Kurnal i think your looking at this from the wrong angle. Ok so the RP can't be held responsible for FF's in a fire, but they do have a responsibility to provide adequate arrangements for the Fire service, Dont they?
-
Exactly TMP thats exactly what I am saying too. I think Fire Services are saying there is a problem with AIs and new builds as they are not getting the facilities and access that they need. I am saying the Fire Services already have all the tools they need to deal with this. They are hesitent to use them probably because of the confusion caused by the "relevant Persons" red herring.
-
Kurnal, i agee totally, the 'relevant person' concept has become a bit of a red herring. and more importantly, i think it has clouded the Fire Authorities view of what they can/should be doing.
I also agree that they are in a stronger position than they think they are, or maybe choose to be (I think that may have something to do with the near obsession some FRA's have about not being perceived to be prescriptive).
But remember, the fire authority are only consulted. our opinions can be disregarded by the BCO or AI. so the FRAs course of action from this point is to either take the view of 'well we told you our position, if you choose to ignore us then you have taken ownership of the risk'. which is a bit of a cop out if you ask me. or, Invoke the BRegs and FS procedural Guidance and make it clear to the client that they will enforce retrospectively. this should be done used much more than it is, and is what i think you mean by 'they have the tools'. Unfortunately for what ever reason its not.
to be a little controversial. some FRA's tell their Inspectors to just comment and send it back without any follow up, whilst enforcing the philosophy that 'because we are only consulted we have no powers so the process is merely lip service. But don't worry we'll get them under the RRO'. Some IO's i've met have never even heard of the BRegs and FS procedural Guidance.
Come to think of it i've met a number of AI's that haven't as well.
-
Sorry to be a crashing bore. But back to the original Question.
Ruby. what happened with the school?