Way Leave

[hammer1]

The legal term used in 'a reciprocal agreement'.
Which means in legal terms;

Obligations assumed and imposed by two parties as mutual and conditional upon the other party assuming same obligations.

This should be in place where 2 parties or buildings share a common fire escape route.

Working in the City of London, there are loads of buildings due to alterations over the years have shared common escape routes with neighbouring properties. Apart from the legal aspect, normally you will have combined fire drills in place where staff from both buildings use the fire escape to ensure they are familiar with the alternative route. Also exchanging FRA's is common practice, normally from the managing agents for the Landlord concerned. This ensures the escape route is identified in both reports and any issues actioned.

To be honest if the above is in place, I have never experienced IO's having any issues with this arrangement. Fairly straight forward if you ask me.

[Phoenix]

I don't think we're taking about 'common fire escape routes,' Hammer.  I think we're talking about escape routes passing through the neighbour's premises; through their offices, their retail areas or stores, down their stairs, out their final exits.

Stu

[Steven N]

Spot on Stu, lots of shop owners get very twitchy about next doors staff trooping through there stock room escpecially if there not even there at the time& its naive to believe otherwise. Yes these premises exist & yes we have to try to work with them. Doesnt make it right though.

[hammer1]

I don't think we're taking about 'common fire escape routes,' Hammer.  I think we're talking about escape routes passing through the neighbour's premises; through their offices, their retail areas or stores, down their stairs, out their final exits.

Stu

That is also what I mean as well, I have a couple of buildings which one building has to go through another office and down their main principle stairs. Same principles apply and there should be some legal agreement in place, if the building concerned refused neighbours access then this would bring some issues. Agreed it is not ideal and needs a bit of co-operation and co-ordination, but I find that this can only be the solution to ensure alternative means of escape due to a buildings structure constraints

[Midland Retty]

There are trappings with Wayleave agreements, but you can encounter similar trappings if you pursue agreement via Article 22 of the RR(FS)O

Some of the "benfits" (if that is the right word) of wayleave agreements are as follows.

Firstly with wayleave agreements if one party does drop out of the agreement or breaches the term of the agreement, there will normally be some form of penalty, sometimes this might be a financial penalty, but not least the threat of some form of legal action. Thus there is a greater "incentive" for each party to play ball with one another.

Secondly don't forget if you go down the Article 22 route and a problem arises, you can't bring in the fire authority to mediate, because a fire authority can not enforce the requirement for one occupier to allow access to another occupier.

So I too thinks a bit of an urban myth that Fire Authorities don't like wayleave agreements, if written properly I think they are an excellent tool and whilst other alternatives should be investigated a Wayleave isn't necessarily a last ditch solution, far from it.

What I think we would all agree on is that they need to be drawn up properly, lawfully and them monitored effectively.    

[Tom Sutton]

So I too thinks a bit of an urban myth that Fire Authorities don't like wayleave agreements, if written properly I think they are an excellent tool and whilst other alternatives should be investigated a Wayleave isn't necessarily a last ditch solution, far from it.

MR I must disagree with you, in my brigade area "OSRA means of escape certificates" were issued by the BC , with little consideration, usually no legal agreements they accepted bypass doors into a joining buildings.  When these certs were changed to FPA certs by the fire service it caused problems after problems (locked doors, blocked doors people not aware of the purpose) consequently it became a big no no and you only ever considered them as a last resort. There are on many occasions when you can find alternative solutions if you look closely enough.

I do agree if you require them, then ensure you have a waterlight legal agreement in place controlling all parties.

[Midland Retty]

To be fair Tom the problems which came about from BC issuing OSRA certs are a seperate issue. You are talking about situations where a Wayleave wasn't in place, but should have been. Some of the blame can be levelled at BC and when it all switched to Certs under the FPA it subsequently caused Brigades, and to be fair punters alike, a bit of a headache

The wayleaves I am talking about are the type that each occupiers arrange themselves, and the terms are formalised by a solicitor and drawn up properly.

Clearly occupiers can and do change and wayleaves can thus become void, often the remaining occupier can forget to renew void wayleave with their new neighbours. Sometimes one occupier will obstruct pass doors to adjoing premises. But the same could be said for any agreements made under Art 22 as well.

So its like I said before, to me any trapping with Wayleaves can apply just as much to any arrangements made under Article 22, the wayleaves if drawn up properly however can impose penalties which in my experience make both occupiers take sufficient interest in keeping things hunky dorey.

I already said that alternatives should be sought, but then again we are in the days of risk assessment, if the premises are well managed and the wayleave agreement works, what is the problem?
 

[Tom Sutton]

MR I do not disagree with most of what you say and I misunderstood your statement " So I too thinks a bit of an urban myth that Fire Authorities don't like way-leave agreements, if written properly." I read it incorrectly and though you were referring to Bye-pass doors in to other premises or buildings not the way-leave agreements. These are essential if you need to consider such a solution but the concept of bye-pass doors into other occupancies or buildings, in my opinion is still a last resort solution. 

[Hi Tower]

"OSRA means of escape certificates" were issued by the BC , with little consideration, usually no legal agreements they accepted bypass doors into a joining buildings.  When these certs were changed to FPA certs by the fire service it caused problems after problems (locked doors, blocked doors people not aware of the purpose) consequently it became a big no no and you only ever considered them as a last resort. There are on many occasions when you can find alternative solutions if you look closely enough.

The most unrealistic 'way leave' I have come across was in a block of flats where the alternative escape route required persons to access the next door neighbours flat and trepse through it.  It must of been accepted at the time of build - not sure where 'reasonable and practicable' came into the thinking though.  Would this housing arrangement of come under the 'OSRA' or something else housing specific?

[nearlythere]

"OSRA means of escape certificates" were issued by the BC , with little consideration, usually no legal agreements they accepted bypass doors into a joining buildings.  When these certs were changed to FPA certs by the fire service it caused problems after problems (locked doors, blocked doors people not aware of the purpose) consequently it became a big no no and you only ever considered them as a last resort. There are on many occasions when you can find alternative solutions if you look closely enough.

The most unrealistic 'way leave' I have come across was in a block of flats where the alternative escape route required persons to access the next door neighbours flat and trepse through it.  It must of been accepted at the time of build - not sure where 'reasonable and practicable' came into the thinking though.  Would this housing arrangement of come under the 'OSRA' or something else housing specific?

If memory serves me correctly I think that's a throw back to the old CP3.

[Tom Sutton]

Would this housing arrangement of come under the 'OSRA' or something else housing specific?

No, only Offices,Shops and Railway premises the local authority enforced the OSRA and in Liverpool the council (corporation) considered the BC was the best department to deal with the act. The guidance for flats was CP3 chapter 4 check out http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Gm9hAu1j6MgJ:www3.hants.gov.uk/getdecisiondocumentfile%3Fitem_doc_ID%3D3041%26file%3DItem%25207%2520-%2520Appendix%2520B%2520-%2520High%2520Rise%2520Fire%2520Safety%2520v1.pdf%26type%3Dpdf+CP3+chapter+4+flats&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgMa5nk6akZlnzYzv5skemu25tFVmDPBXvIybAweNtsz2YC2V_w4yleNIWiBUKNUBP2FKydlgEi0m-Q6oG_Z5FzFB5EkuPhspOWwageEoWu1NBQQQxGP4L5eaePeCtkJE8vNKgI&sig=AHIEtbRd7D7pUqj95Hakjy0iwFnDKtIizA

Sorry about the size of the URL

[Fishy]

As someone involved in the design & management of both new and existing buildings in central London:

• They are sometimes the only practicable means of offering acceptable fire safety in existing buildings;
   
• They are, generally speaking, a complete nightmare to manage and maintain, because you have only very limited management control over a key safety component of your building!

[Tall Paul]

Tom,

Thanks for reference to the URL.  It came as quite a surprise when I opened it.  This was a guidance note that I had put together before retirement to help inspecting officers understand that the various codes of practice relating to blocks of flats had all come from the same foundation.  I found that some were becoming tied up over which standard to apply, and wanted to open them up to show that each were attempting to meet a similar benchmark standard albeit in a slightly different way - and to demonstrate that the differences were not so great.

As you know, CP3 was one of a series of codes of practice covering different buildings uses.  They were the 'approved documents' of their day coming out of Post War Building Studies.

Sorry - this post has nothing to do with Way Leave - I was just taken by surprise as I followed the URL

[kurnal]

Congratualtions on the document Paul I must admit to have copied and pasted from it a couple of times already, the tables are an absolutely brilliant comparison.

Must disagree with one point in the text summary though- there were a number of pretty significant differences in terms of ventilation of common areas between the ADB 2002 and 2007 versions.

[Tall Paul]

Sorry Kurnal,

As I said, I put it together to provide practical guidance rather than trying to provide a definitive history.  I did pass it to some past colleagues to proof read and find errors - having become a bit snowblind to all of the requirements by the end of it - but none could help...  So there will no doubt be other mistakes too.