Dd 9999

[jokar]

The risk profiling isspecific to a building or building design.  If you change the use, say from an office to a shop, the risk profile changes and the factors that make up the profile are different.  Therefore, the travel distances, exit widths and type of alarm can change with a change of use.  This could end up with narrower exits for doors and stairs and longer travel than the risk profile would allow.  The only way to monitior this as it would not necessarily appear in an FRA is for the enforcer to issue an Alterations Notice to ensure that they are consulted with regard to what was agreed at design stage.  Afetr all, now it is an existing building it is the ebforcer role to enforce under the RR(FS)O.  Quite difficult to explain in words, you have to understand the tables, all 16 of them, and how they make up the risk profile.

[wee brian]

Why would you want to monitor this - it's no different from any other premises.

When the risk changes - revisit the FRA. If the Travels distances and door widths are inadequate then do something about it.

[nearlythere]

Why would you want to monitor this - it's no different from any other premises.

When the risk changes - revisit the FRA. If the Travels distances and door widths are inadequate then do something about it.

Thats what I would have thought. If the purpose use substantial changes then approach it as if it is its first FRA. A FRA is completed for the purpose use not what it may have the potential to be at a later date. If someone changes the purpose use then he has a duty to review the FRA just as he has a duty to complete one in the first place.

[CivvyFSO]

It is also classed as a guide for risk assessing existing buildings. I agree that risk assessors need to have a good knowledge of this, as do inspecting officers.

Why should we go to the extent of issuing alterations notices? Even if a risk profile changes, it is up to the RP to comply with the RRO regardless of what the building used to be used for.

[jokar]

So, FRS are not interested in the fact that a premises changes to allow the consumption of alcohol, licensed or not, and the travel distances, stair widths and door widths decreases by 25% as indicated in 9999 but no one does anything about it as in an FRA the premises are still an office but a significant finding is that the MD  can have a swift half in his office.  Seems a little strange to me.  But hey, all I was doing is highlighting something that is new and suggesting a solution.  Normally FRS are very prescriptive in their outlook but in this case they will not be proactive in their approach.

Never mind the advent of 9999 as a BS will be interesting.

[CivvyFSO]

I see where you are coming from, but FRS will not want to put alteration notices on all premises built to BS9999. I could see a law suit coming from BSI if we even suggested we might.

FWIW, some Fire Engineering companies have challenged FRS's trying to put alteration notices on extensively engineered buildings and have often won. (Well, won or FRS backed down) There is quite a bit of inconsistency with how FRS's deal with alterations notices nationally so I cannot speak on behalf of any particular FRS.

[Davo]

If you are out there Mr Todd sir, lets have your opinion on 9999

ta v much

davo

[Davo]

Ladies and Gents

Its out !

on ihs/tech indexes if you have access

davo