What comes first?

[jokar]

Having read numbers of posts of this site, I have come to the conclusion that this question needs an answer or at least a debate.  It is a Christmas Conundrum for us to discuss with a valid point.

When we look at buildings or premises whether new or existing is it;

the evacuation strategy that comes first,
the detection and warning that comes second,
the fire safety measures third,
the management bits fourth, and then the FRA last? or

is it some other way round.

The debate about high rise buildings is obviously the catalyst for this along with the care home bits but it does and will apply to all premises types.

I look forward to the debate.

[slubberdegullion]

Depends....

Stu

[slubberdegullion]

Just to elaborate on my last response a little....

5588 pt 12 categorises a building's management level according to certain criteria.  What it is trying to do is assess how reliable a complex management strategy and evacuation procedures may be.  

If a complex fire strategy can be relied upon then the building may be designed around this and management comes to the fore (e.g. shopping mall).

If no reliance can be placed on a fire strategy then active systems may come to the fore but (due to maintenance requirements) it is more likely that passive measures will be the most imoportant features of the building (e.g. village hall).

Stu

[Davo]

Jokar
You have set me thinking here......
I try and make sure the standard of the premises are up to the level of risk and tailor the rest to fit this and what I find.
Ie with detection you might have a stay in place evac system, without it the fire may be too advanced before it is noticed to risk this.
Management I agree has to come last as the human element is something that cannot be controlled

[jokar]

Stu,

I like the all shades of grey fire safety answer you gave first.

[CivvyFSO]

For existing buildings the FRA should possibly be the first step.

[kurnal]

The question is different whether you are designing a building from scratch, adapting an existing building or auditing fire safety standards for an existing use of an existing building.

It all starts with the building as existing or proposed and then goes on to consider this in the context of how it is to be used.

1- What it is or is to be used for
2- What its built of
3- Where it is situated- eg part of a building with multiple uses
4- How big it is and how the accommodation is arranged
5- Any compartmentation issues
6- Sprinklered or not and to what standard and why
7- Existng or proposed Means of escape
8- Existing or proposed Means for securing Means of escape
9- Access and facilities for firefighting

10- Fire Risk Assessment- will then re-examine and review existing or proposed arrangements for,
 
a- Detection and alarm
b- Evacuation strategy
c-Management systems and evacuation plan
d- firefighting equipment
e-signs and notices
f-Training
g-Supervision
h-Exercises

[jokar]

Surely though we cannot build anything and then the strategy develop.  Defend in place in high rise buildings is the evacuation strategy, the detection and warning system is already agreed, Pt 6 and then the building is built around it with all the passive bits that are required.  The obvious missing bit is the detail to be given to the occupants and any training.

As regards Civvy FSO comment regarding the FRA, that cannot detail the evacuation strategy, it can analyse it and suggests outcomes on a risk based premise but many fall down as there is no thought behind why.

[Ken Taylor]

For me (as generally representing the client in existing, alterations and new-build) it's probably:

Existing and planned fire risk;
Existing and planned FS measures;
Existing and planned detection and warning;
Existing and planned evacuation strategy;
Existing and planned management strategy;
FRA; then:
Are the above adequate and can they be improved?

Obviusly all such aspects need to be considered and, in practice, things tend to overlap - but you do need to appreciate the actual risks in order to have a complete view on a risk assessment.

[kurnal]

I would point out that the whole approach to fire safety is a an ongoing cycle including all the elements we have discussed and it doesnt really matter where you get on so long as you complete the cycle.

This is really where POCMAR comes into it - from the management of H&S regulations - and latterly as interpreted within the RRO - the duty to monitor and review.

[slubberdegullion]

Overall, I agree with kurnal.  Fire safety is an holistic thing.  There isn't necessarily an order to the components, they all have to be in place for the building to be considered safe.

Look at each part as a section of an arch.  Depending upon the circumstances any aspect of fire safety might be the key-stone, but if any part is missing the whole lot falls down.

Stu