FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: lyledunn on January 12, 2018, 08:29:19 AM
-
If a restaurant depends on its kitchen, is the kitchen other than ancillary? The reason I ask is that we have been served with a BC rejection notice for plans that show the removal of existing fire doors to a kitchen to create an opening to facilitate traffic from kitchen to restaurant. The layout would be like an upmarket MacDonalds but with less of a view in to the kitchen. BC refer to the requirement for ancillary accomodation to be separated with 30min construction.
-
If a restaurant depends on its kitchen, is the kitchen other than ancillary? The reason I ask is that we have been served with a BC rejection notice for plans that show the removal of existing fire doors to a kitchen to create an opening to facilitate traffic from kitchen to restaurant. The layout would be like an upmarket MacDonalds but with less of a view in to the kitchen. BC refer to the requirement for ancillary accomodation to be separated with 30min construction.
I would have thought that a kitchen in a restaurant is part and parcel of the business and not ancillary accommodation. I can see maybe why they have concerns with removing a fire door to it as it is considered an area of high fire risk but surely not because it is ancillary.
-
Our BC application uses 9999 as always. Officer looking at application has used the term "ancillary". Reference to 31.4.7 in 9999 indicates the requirement for fire resistant enclosure for "ancillary" accomodation in accordance with Table 29, ie 30min.
The next line of 31.4.7 refers to high risk areas and requires them to be enclosed but only where they might prejudice the MOE.
So if the kitchen is in fact deemed ancillary, it needs to be enclosed. No arguement. If it is not deemed ancillary and is an area of high risk which doesn't prejudice the MOE (which is the case with us) then my reading is that it doesn't need to be enclosed.
-
Does this 'restaurant' occupy the entire premises (e.g. high-street restaurant) or is it part of a larger premises (e.g. restaurant in a department store; works canteen)? Hard to see how it would be 'ancillary' in the former; hard to see that it wouldn't in the latter!
-
Fishy, your example is vey clear and no arguement. This set-up is a bar/ restaurant with a carry out service at the front door. Customers can also sit in and consume their food and have a pint. To be honest, I cannot get my head around this ancillary business. Why is there a sudden increase in risk such that 30min separation is required if something is ancillary?
By the way, I often have tea in a department store that has a completely open sided restaurant facility perched next to ladies fashion. No idea what attracts me there!
-
Fishy, your example is vey clear and no arguement. This set-up is a bar/ restaurant with a carry out service at the front door. Customers can also sit in and consume their food and have a pint. To be honest, I cannot get my head around this ancillary business. Why is there a sudden increase in risk such that 30min separation is required if something is ancillary?
By the way, I often have tea in a department store that has a completely open sided restaurant facility perched next to ladies fashion. No idea what attracts me there!
Would it be the cream buns Lyle?
-
Well, removal of the door could be unsafe if it introduced the possibility that hot smoke could spread out of the kitchen and into the public eating area before an evacuation is complete. We don't want people panicking and pushing at the back of the pack.
An argument to justify the removal of the door would demonstrate that: 1) the maximum number of occupants will always be sufficently low to allow all to escape rapidly without people being significantly delayed by a pack of people at the door, 2) there is sufficient ceiling height in the kitchen and consequent smoke reservoir to delay the spread of smoke through the doorway for a period long enough to allow all occupants to escape prior to the spread of smoke into the restaurant area.
Many open kitchens have foam spray suppression systems fitted over the main cooking ranges - all the ones I deal with have.
-
Well, removal of the door could be unsafe if it introduced the possibility that hot smoke could spread out of the kitchen and into the public eating area before an evacuation is complete. We don't want people panicking and pushing at the back of the pack.
An argument to justify the removal of the door would demonstrate that: 1) the maximum number of occupants will always be sufficently low to allow all to escape rapidly without people being significantly delayed by a pack of people at the door, 2) there is sufficient ceiling height in the kitchen and consequent smoke reservoir to delay the spread of smoke through the doorway for a period long enough to allow all occupants to escape prior to the spread of smoke into the restaurant area.
Many open kitchens have foam spray suppression systems fitted over the main cooking ranges - all the ones I deal with have.
And early or immediate detection could be a benefit also.