ALTERATIONS NOTICE - Article 29 - RRO

[Dragonmaster]

Does anyone disagree, or otherwise interpret, the following:

An alterations notice can (only) be issued by an FRA where they consider that the premises does constitute a serious risk - i.e. although the premises may present a risk, it cannot be reduced by implementing any other control measures e.g. dynamite factory.

or

may constitue a risk if changes to layout/construction/use were made e.g. from a waking risk (no AFD/poor compartmentation etc etc) to a sleeping risk.

The point I'm seeking clarification on is does an FRA have to believe that changes are likely, for example from a complaint or enquiry, or is it beholding upon them to issue an alterations notice on every dodgy building they visit?

I know guidance is needed from CLG, but in the absence of this, we still have to paddle about in the muddy waters for a while.

[black arts]

Paddling in muddy waters is the concept of RRO

Alterations notice the purpose is two fold
1. "Highlighting potential high life risk premises where risk levels may change and affect the outcomes of FRA"
2. "It notifies RP that the enforcer considers the premises to be of high or potentially high risk".

But people use /or abuse this article for whatever means they want.

[johno67]

The following links will take you to documents that give some further guidance on the intention behind Alterations Notices. It seems fairly clear that they are designed to be applied to only the highest or potentially highest risk premises. The first is 'The Select Committee on Regulatory Reform Ninth Report', and the second is 'The RR(FS)O Statement by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister'. I hope this helps.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmdereg/495/495.pdf  (Look at sections 45 to 53)

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/fire/pdf/130442  (Look at section 345)

[PhilB]

The point I'm seeking clarification on is does an FRA have to believe that changes are likely, for example from a complaint or enquiry, or is it beholding upon them to issue an alterations notice on every dodgy building they visit?

No, not in my opinion. The FRA can issue the notice if they  believe a serious risk may result if an alteration is made. They do not have to suspect that such an alteration is likely or imminent.

It's section 8 powers without placing that burden on every Tom, Dick and Mrs Prendergast.

[terry martin]

My understanding is that we only apply this article to premises that, if any change was to take place, could significantly affect the fire safety arrangement and therefore pose a greater risk to relevant persons.

i.e.

Fireworks factories

Storage of dangerous substances

Buildings that rely heavily on engineered solutions

Underground train networks

Premises to which significant numbers of the public have access to.

We would not issue an alterations notice from a complaint, this we term as an alleged fire risk. We would attend the premises within 3 hours of the complaint. And address the immediate issue. If we had concerns from this we would need to carry out a proper Audit first.

Generally, an alterations notice would be served if, after an audit, it was considered that a particular change (the alterations notice would specify this) would have a serious impact on the safety of relevant persons.

Alterations notice are not served regularly, within my authority they have to be authorised by the AC.

[johno67]

Further to the above, I found this draft guidance covering Alterations Notices whilst nosing around on the CFOA site. It seems to give a lot more information than I have seen before.

Happy reading: http://www.cfoa.org.uk/docimages/3228.doc