FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: wee brian on March 10, 2016, 02:01:35 PM
-
AD B is currently in 2 volumes, V1 - Houses. V2 - Everything else.
Any thoughts on the pros and cons of having houses and flats in V1 and everything else in V2?
-
Can't see it as a problem either way whether it's in the 2 volumes or alternatively put all into 1.
-
I assume it is somnething to do with the difference between dwellings and other buildings, however there is also quite a bit in Vol 2 on flats.
It is also to some extent related to the Britsih Standards where BS 9999 and 9991 do a similar thing.
-
To me it would be most sensible to have residential in one volume & non-resi in the other (a bit like BS 9991 & BS 9999).
-
In my view ADB is the best most comprehensive and concise guidance on fire safety that could be achieved. It is a brilliant concept and whilst some of the general provisions are a bit random its down to familiarity, the more you use it the easier it becomes. I find the 2 volume approach useful in so far as I rarely had cause to use vol 1 as a fire consultant so it led to less pages to turn. I guess the fact that an old dinosaur thinks it good is a kiss of death though!
-
Volume 1 covers premises not subject to the RR(FS)O Volume 2 covers premises subject to the RR(FS)O could that be a reason?
-
The main reason for the current split is that it made life easier for housebuilders. At the time DCLG looked at putting all the guidance for dwellings in one doc but it came out pretty large as there was a lot of common ground between flats and non domestic buildings.
However, there's a school of thought that all of the ADs should split between dwellings and non dwellings so ADB could be re-jigged. just wondered what people thought.
-
In Scotland (you have probably heard the country, Brian- you pass watford gap and keep going), they have flats and houses in their domestic handbook. It seems to work ok. It does mean you dont need to read lots of stuff about flats before finding out what you need in your hotel. Equally, I dont think it is a big deal either way-there are pros and cons.
-
Yes Colin but in England (you may have heard of the place it's the big bit of the U.K. Where the important parts of the government reside) the legislation treats communal area of residential buildings differently which would complicate matters.
-
OK, I get the vibe that people aren't all that bothered.
Thanks guys.
-
It was done for the users eg architects / plan drawers / builders. It would be a bad move to complicate vol 1 by putting flats in there.
-
Why are you asking?
-
Wee B has a very major involvement with its production Colin.
-
The Docs are accessed on line now, you don't have to buy hard copies, so it is better to have different volumes to try and make it simpler for most users. I would use 3 volumes, houses, flats, the rest, or maybe more.
The majority of projects that go through BC are to single occupancy dwelling houses.
-
I agree with you Colin to the extent that the old BS5588 series broken down into occupancies as you describe was far far easier to navigate than the bulky BS9999 that replaced most parts.
On the other hand consider that the slim and concise volume of the ADB part 2 had effectively the same content as BS5588 most parts combined and you start to see just how cleverly ADB has been written.
As a dinosaur I much prefer to have a printed copy in my hands, not least for the diligent checking of cross references which I can mark with post it notes and be sure to fully follow up all such references. BS9999 is a nightmare to read online as it is so unwieldy to follow up the thousands of cross references that seem to occur in never ending chains. I feel sure this leads to loads of errors and omissions in persons failing to diligently follow these through.
And ADB has always been available for free download and printing and regularly updated free of charge.
All the outdated views of an old dinosaur out to grass of course.
-
Kurnal I agree about the difficulty of navigating the standards; I have an online copy of 9999 where I can insert comments and this makes it much easier to put in my own bookmarks and notes on the PDF comments tab that makes it easily navigable but few standards are like this and some don't even have the quick links from the contents pages such as in ADB V2 (which doesn't permit user notes) where the searchable contents are available in the PDF. This type of facility may be something that Wee B could request when the PDF's are published?
From my own perspective I'm used to V1/V2 now and wouldn't like to change too much and blocks of flats are very different animals to dwelling houses.
-
There's is a conflict between simplicity and flexibility. At the level of the AD the emphasis needs to be on simplicity, and at the level of the BS the emphasis needs to be on flexibility which inevitably means a less simple document. Mostly the end users for the AD just want it simple.
Project based ADs, which give guidance on all of the requirements of the regs have been consistently asked for over the years, eg an AD for loft conversions which includes the guidance for fire safety, stairway safety, thermal insulation, electrical safety etc.
-
To be perfectly honest why bother any more - many AIs will sign off whatever the developer wants and most projects I get these days are all signed off before I get asked to write a fire strategy!!
-
James Wharton MP is the Minister for Building Regulations and if the system is not working you should tell him.
-
This is the personal jaded opinion of a dinosaur who has recently retired after spending 42 years in the industry as a fire officer, fire safety manager and 11 years as a consultant.
I am certain the system is totally broken and am sure between us (those who care about standards) we could come up with hundreds of case studies to prove it. First problem though is client confidentiality - as a consultant I see plenty of breaches of the Regs, all reported but rarely actioned but I have no right to disclose details of work I have carried out (and been ignored) or work I have refused to carry out that has still gone ahead despite being so off the wall as to be dangerous.
So who should complain to Mr Wharton? The client is unlikely to complain as this will only bring hassle on himself, the developer will not complain as they simply bully the fire engineer and AI into accepting whatever they want on threats of losing future work.
Many new buildings are a shambles whether you look at alarms, compartmentation, fire stopping, fire door standards, cavities and voids. The plans are not scrutinised by the enforcement authorities as they used to be to pre-empt problems, strategies are accepted on the nod without often a glimmer of scrutiny or common sense ( basic questions like will it work?), projects are broken down between a myriad of subcontractors and there is rarely the equivalent of a clerk of works to keep everyone in line, monitor standards and ensure one contractor does not undo the previous work of another - particularly a problem with fire stopping. So often signed off before The IT guys go in there. And many sites never actually visited by the AI.
The fire service view taking into account budget cuts and re-organisation appears to be one of wait and see - rather than scrutinising building proposals as we used to with the BCO they are now working on a reactive basis and considering prosecution after a fire. My fear is that we will see many more fires in the future especially affecting residential buildings.
In my view the system is too far broken for any individual voice to be heard - it would need a co-ordinated approach from the fire protection industry bodies- but their only solution is likely to be Third Party Certification or BIM (not that that will make any difference) The weakness of this is it does not fix the co-ordination issues and damage by contractors undoing others work. But first the problems need to be recognised and all we have at present is a few old dinosaurs banging their rusty old drums.
Fact is its an attitude problem throughout the whole of the commercial sector in which profits are put before anything else in this world and nobody cares about standards anymore. It's all make make make.
End of rant for now- sorry for being so boring and predictable.
-
The only glimmer of hope is that there are a number of instances where the occupiers of these new buildings are discovering the faults and are attempting to recover the costs from the builders etc. It is a long shot but hopefully may bear fruit before a coroner passes comment.
If you think you can see the light at the end of the tunnel, do not get concerned, it is probably only the headlight of an oncoming train!
-
Every time I see light at the end of the tunnel, Buckers, its some said with a torch bringing me more work.