Awning

[lyledunn]

Awnings seem to becoming increasingly popular in and around licensed premises. They let people enjoy a pint in the open air and I suppose for those that need nicotine injections they offer a place to sup and smoke Just like the old days. These awnings started life as small affairs but now seem to be increasing in size. I am involved in a project where the awning extends over a beer garden and is 400m2. Perhaps canopy is a better word because it is not attached to the adjoining pub building. Under the canopy there will be wooden bar huts, rustic and rough-sawn timber furniture. Gas heating keeps the winter chill out. Perhaps around 500 people could use the space. The sides of the canopy, which is some type of fire resistant plastic material, drop down only as far as to allow people to walk through. Some 5m beyond the canopy there is a perimeter wall enclosing the whole affair.
Likely the structure would not be regarded as a building by BC but what is it and what concerns would you have with such a structure?

[Fishy]

If in England or Wales, there is guidance on marquees & tents in the RRO guides on places of assembly (small, medium or large, depending upon occupancy - 500 would be 'large').

[lyledunn]

That's the point Fishy, is it a tent or a marquee? With no sides I wonder how it might be treated?

[Mike Buckley]

I thought the main issue was whether it was a temporary or a permanent structure. If it is up for more than about 28 days it would be counted as permanent and therefore a building.

[wee brian]

You first need to establish if its a building and then whether its permanent or not.

The Definition is a tad loose. roughly translated it includes buildings, but not things that aren't buildings.

So, in practice you just weigh it up and decide. The Duck test can help.

From what you've described, I'd call it a building but its the BCO who will decide (or the court if it gets all fiesty)

[wee brian]

And as Mike says, its 28 days for the temporary question

[lyledunn]

Forgive my ignorance wee Brian, the Duck test?

[Mike Buckley]

Try

http://www.aber.ac.uk/en/media/departmental/healthsafetyenvironment/mutamarq.pdf

bear in mind this is for temporary structres only.

[Mike Buckley]

Lyle, if I have it right the Duck Test: if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and goes quack; it probably is a duck!

[lyledunn]

First class Mike, very useful document.
Re the duck test, you can tell I am Irish!
By the way, I note in the document that they refer to class c buildings. I thought that was all old hat now? I still have my yellow guide which I thought was a well-explained, easy to understand document. Every thing seems so god damn complicated nowadays!

[Dinnertime Dave]

BR isn't just about fire. In 5 years time and it is covered in a foot of snow or it is blowing an 80mph gale and it collapses, have you done everything you could have done.

I dealt with a structure that held 600 about 10 years. fortunately when it collapsed it was empty. This was after the owners when through BR after my objections to various licences.

[lyledunn]

You are right Dave, snow weight, wind and possible collapse are serious issues quite apart from the focus on fire. I look after the entertainment licence for the premises so I sit in on most site meetings. These matters have been discussed along with noise, disabled access, ramps, disabled access etc etc. Meeting BC approval does not necessarily mean that the conditions of an entertainment licence could be met. That is my job! To that extent one could argue that I am on the design team. I would not want to be remembered for being involved in the design or approval of any structure that failed, whether through fire or collapse!
As a fire safety issue alone, would you attempt to raise concerns about snow weight and wind?