Hiding behind codes and standards

[kurnal]

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..

[CivvyFSO]

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.

[CivvyFSO]

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.

[wee brian]

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.

[tmprojects]

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?

[kurnal]

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.

[tmprojects]

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.

[tmprojects]

Sorry to be a crashing bore. But back to the original Question.

Ruby. what happened with the school?