FSO Definition of 'A Place of Safety'

[messy]

Article 14 (2) of the FSO states  "Emergency routes must lead as directly as possible to a place of safety"

A place of safety is defined as ".... in relation to a premises means a safe area beyond the premises".

I am sure most would see this as being able evacuate fully without requiring Brigade intervention - such as on the pavement outside etc.

But looking at the wording, if strictly adhered to, could it mean evacuating to an enclosed yard remote from the original building, or perhaps on the roof of a neighbouring property a 'safe' distance away (say several properties away)?

I am not advocating this approach, but as far as I can see, the definition doesn't actually make this scenerio impossible, especially for difficult premises such as landlocked buildings

I suppose it's one of those cases where the courts will decide unless I am missing something obvious here

[zimmy]

The RP decides a place of safety. The FA audit and either agree or disagree. Following a fire if everyone is ok, it was safe, if not, it wasn't.

worst case would be where the FA have agreed and it proved not to be safe....that could get embarrassing!

[Chunty]

I am in the middle of the FSC's fire safety foundation modules, a complete change of direction for me having been intervention only for many years. One of the first lessons was the distinction between a place of 'ultimate' safety and one of 'comparative' safety.

Ultimate being the ability to move away from the building, therefore this does not include a locked compound or yard. Comparative being a fire protected area such as an FP stairway in a high rise.

Now this is still all new to me so I'm by no means an expert but the above makes sense so far.

[johno67]

If the responsible person could show that the relative place of safety had adequate fire seperation from where the fire was expected to start and spread, would that not be reasonable?

Is it not accepted in places like sheltered housing (60 minutes) and multi-storey blocks of flats.

Is it reasonable to assume the fire service may in fact never attend, rescue people or extinguish the fire?

[kurnal]

If the responsible person could show that the relative place of safety had adequate fire seperation from where the fire was expected to start and spread, would that not be reasonable?

Is it not accepted in places like sheltered housing (60 minutes) and multi-storey blocks of flats.

Is it reasonable to assume the fire service may in fact never attend, rescue people or extinguish the fire?

Absolutely. And another important factor is the level of risk that Society will tolerate. Taking this to extremes - think of a 747 mid atlantic - 350 people locked inside sitting in between two  large tanks of flammable liquid.