Accommodation Above a Public House

[leejr71]

Can I ask

If accommodation is provided above a Public House and the MOE is via the Licensed Premises does the accommodation fall within the FSO and are there any exemptions to this.

Thanks in advance

[Jim Scott]

It depends upon who occupies the premises and how it is occupied.

[kurnal]

In respect of the accommodation itself, Jim is correct but irrespective of this the means of escape is via the pub. The pubs FRA must set out risk control measures to ensure that persons in the accommodation would not be put at risk in the event of a fire in the pub.

[JT]

If a landlord or staff member lived there as their main point of residence then generally the FSO stops at their front door. The Housing Act 2004 is the primary piece of legislation for this area enforced by the local council.
This doesn't mean that no fire safety provisions are required and you could still prohibit the sleeping accommodation by virtue of article 31(10).

[Jim Scott]

That's these tricky pubs you see.

They can be challenging little beasts.  Particularly when the opinions of the enforcing authority, change county to county.

Don't worry, primary authority will sort it all. 

[JT]

PAS would be great if everyone played by the rules!

[Jim Scott]

PAS would be great if everyone played by the rules!

Of course, being my mindful the of the original thread, please expand.....

[leejr71]

Thanks Everyone

The Landlady lives in the flat which would appear as a condition of the tenancy. The MOE is shared at the point of final exit but does not drop directly into the bar area

[kurnal]

It seems to me from the information given that the domestic accommodation in itself may fall outside the scope of the RR(FS) Order but is an integral part of the pub and as such is unlikely to be sufficiently separated from it to be treated in its own right. If a fire in the pub could put the occupant of the domestic accommodation at risk (the benchmark being one hour fire separation throughout) then half hour protection to the escape route and automatic detection in the common escape route and pub with sounders  in the flat would be the appropriate standard. The category of system would depend on the layout and construction of the building.

[JT]

Don't forget the smoke and carbon monoxide regulations. I always say detector/sounder in the domestic linked to the main system. You're covered for all then.

[Jim Scott]

Of course you may have to go near the 'dreaded' window escape!

Its all down to the basis of reasonably practicable, which is often overlooked by enforcing authorities. Therefore, is it both reasonable (cost dependant) and practical to provide either an internal or external protected route?

Sometimes its a case of just reinstating a few doors, or using a little common sense to create a practical solution.  However, fire safety wasn't really on the list of priorities in the 17th, and 18th centuries.  So sometimes, we may have to look at the possibility of utilising first floor window escape, because its the only practical option.

The degree of variation of opinion across the country is amazing.  Particularly with the enforcing authorities. I do like the phrase, "our policy states we don't accept window escape".  Well if that's the case, the enforcing authority is not providing an opinion based on risk; and will be sailing a dodgy ship if challenged.  Of course there are other appropriate mitigation measures available, accepting that window escape is not always appropriate.

Equally, there are just some cases where the accommodation is just not suitable for sleeping.  However,  these are very few and far between.

I agree with Kurnal.  It sounds like the domestic areas within the example you provide are unlikely to fall under the normal remit of the fire safety order.  However, sometimes I feel the whole building has to be treated with 'common sense', regardless of what side of the fence the 'right thing' falls.