Access for fire appliances

[CivvyFSO]

Damn.

Sounds to me like some BCO hasn't been doing his/her job properly. Have the local FRS been involved at all to gauge their opinion on it? If the BCO has c*cked up I would have thought he/she would have been onto them by now though.

[Tom Sutton]

Kurnal it appears the only criteria you do not meet is the 20m reversing one and based on Jokars submission and if I was the BCO I do not think I would be asking for a determination from the Secretary of State.

[xan]

Although it does not 'comply',at this stage there is little that can be done,apart from learning the lessons of proper consultation.Having to reverse the extra 20m is not ideal,but in practice often happens anyway,with parked cars cluttering up turning points.Fire Appliances should be marshalled while reversing to avoid accidents-but can we say the same about Bin lorries?The risk is probably higher for them,seeings they may well be visiting weekly.

[Dinnertime Dave]

The 20 metres is a bit of a misnoma.  It is only ther because a horse would not go backwards more then the imperial measurment equivalent of 20 metres.  If a fire appliance driver can not reverse more than 20 metres we have a problem.

Totally agree joker, this has been left in B5 since Adam was a lad - well at least as long as the fire service used to turn out with horses.

We are normally consulted with by NHBC. I for one aren’t that pedantic on this issue as long as the distance is reasonable. I do have to say though when I have raised it as an issue it has always been acted on, not many people know its origins.

I do have bigger issues on gated communities restricting access for appliances; I never accept keys, swipe cards or remote controls only codes that can be relayed to appliances.

Surprisingly all developer seem to think that a key on the nearest stations appliance will do the trick.

[Deadendburied]

I have a different view on the role of the Fire Authority in terms of consultation on Firefighting vehicle access for domestic property.

In very general terms, the purpose of the consultation process is:
1. To advise the BCO / AI on the Fire Authority's opinion on compliance with the functional requirements of the Building Regulations, using the quoted document as a benchmark
2. Considering variations from that benchmark standard, taking into account compensatory features etc.
3. Advising on any additional means that they consider necessary to comply with the FSO.

Clearly there is no legislation that the Fire Authority enforces on occupation that is applicable for vehicular access to domestic premises, so item 3 above can be dismissed.
Consultation is only likely when the BCO / AI has already established that the benchmark standard cannot be achieved so point 1 can dismissed.
Compensatory measures for variation from a benchmark standard, may be argued is some cases.  However, any such feature, cannot be enforced or be required to be maintained once a completion certificate is issued, so in my view this is a flawed solution.

My view is that approving authorities often feel under pressure to approve a scheme which does not satisfy the Building Regulations, when using ADB Part B5 as a benchmark, and seek Fire Authority support for that approval, to make them feel more comfortable with their decission.