Different Occupancies

[SidM]

Having carried out an audit on a nursey with 40 children (0-8 years of age), I discovered that on the other side of a set of doors there is another nursery run by a different organisation.  Separation between the two is achievable only at the risk of making both occupiers bankrupt.  The premises in question is small and open plan.  Is linked detenction required and if so, part 6 or part 1?

[kurnal]

More information would be needed in order to give you an answer Sid.

Building size, height, means of escape, details of separation between users- not just between the nurseries. A fire risk assessment is needed. The fire risk assessment will determine the measures needed, affordability cannot be allowed to be the main consideration.

[nearlythere]

Is there a sleeping risk regardless of the duration?

[CivvyFSO]

I agree with Kurnal. They need to get a proper risk assessment done and act accordingly. And don't forget, this is not just good advice, it is a requirement. The fact that there is this problem shows that they either have no risk assessment, and possibly lots of other legislative failings too, or have a risk assessment that is neither suitable nor sufficient.

They are taking money from people under the guise of looking after the children. If seperation is deemed necessary but they can't afford it, then they can't really afford to do what they are accepting money to do.

[Izan FSO]

Having carried out an audit on a nursey with 40 children (0-8 years of age), I discovered that on the other side of a set of doors there is another nursery run by a different organisation.  Separation between the two is achievable only at the risk of making both occupiers bankrupt.  The premises in question is small and open plan.  Is linked detenction required and if so, part 6 or part 1?

Who owns the building that they are in? the people who run the nurseries may not be the responsible person and it may be up to the owner of the building to provide GFP to safeguard the occupants. that way the cost of any works should not affect the nurseries.

Article 3 (b) (ii) RR(FS)O

[CivvyFSO]

So how does 3(a) not apply then?

I would say the workplace in this case is under the employers control and as such they would be the RP. It is nursery A that is creating a risk to Nursery B and vice versa. Remove the nurseries and you remove the risk, so why should the owner of the building pay for anything?

[Izan FSO]

So how does 3(a) not apply then?

I would say the workplace in this case is under the employers control and as such they would be the RP. It is nursery A that is creating a risk to Nursery B and vice versa. Remove the nurseries and you remove the risk, so why should the owner of the building pay for anything?

There is not a lot of information about the way the premises is owned / managed but if the nursries are employers then yes they are RPs.....however to what extent is that workplace uner their control? my local village hall has a nursery in residence most days and people work there but the actual building is not in their control therefore the village hall committee have the control of the premises but not the undertaking of the nursery......so 3(b)(ii) applies in this case